Laserfiche WebLink
<br />We have attempted to cover all the proponent's statements concerning <br /> <br />the question af quality. From the above quotatians it is apparent that Senil;tor <br /> <br />Dawney of California was the leader of the opposition to the treaty. He was <br /> <br />actually the one who. raised the quality questian. The oppasition actually <br /> <br />toak the fallawing interesting pasitians on the quality question, namely: <br /> <br />(al The propanents miscalculated the amount of return flaw <br />and actually there would nat be the amount claimed <br />available for use in W,exica. <br /> <br />(b) The return flaw which Mexico wauld have to. take under <br />the prapanents theary af the treaty is such as to be <br />unusable and thus we will be forced to furnish usable <br />water. The treaty will thus become an intolerable burden <br />an the basin and should be rejected. <br /> <br />In order to. give a complete picture of the opposition's arguments, <br /> <br />it will be necessary to quote i'urther from the Hearings. We shall nat repeat <br /> <br />any of the Dawney arguments which he made in conneclian with his cross- <br /> <br />examinatian af the praponent witnesses, but rather shall canfine the material <br /> <br />to. the testimany af the apposition witnesses. <br /> <br />1. Clay C. Elder was presented by Califarnia to. discuss the whale <br /> <br />prablem af return fla~. His majar thesis was that the Engineering witnesses <br /> <br />for the treaty had missed the boat on their calculatians of return flow. We <br /> <br />shall not deal with this part af his statement at this paint, but rather shall <br /> <br />be cancerned with his direct statement of quality. <br /> <br />At page 469 Mr. Elder was af the opinian that the treaty was vague <br /> <br />an the quality question and that the words "regardless af quality" should be <br /> <br />B 22 <br />