Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.1 the time come 8 thEe tit will be ec onomically feasible to de vel op <br />SOI/le of the lands in the u-,)')er states for which there would be ;- <br />abundant water flowing by, they m&y nossibly be restrained from <br />using it on account of the ~rior End more economic use in Arizona. <br />and C2lifornia below. <br /> <br />"~hey cannnot be b1~med for seeking now to gain a right to be <br />exercised 11'.ter for the use of tile water on lands not noVl :e-xer- <br /> <br />vi_eel l:>te~' feT tR€-H-ge--#-O!l lc.aelo Rot ROW economical of develop- <br />ment but which may be later. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"Ari~ona and California can not be blL.med for feeling cer- <br />t&in that the doctrine of preference to the prior and more econ- <br />omic use "111 ;)revail and for being "il1il1g to t<.ke chanceS on <br />the futti re upholding this apparently just doc trine. <br /> <br />"Hevada is not _much concerned about the priorities to be <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />gained by AL'izona Bnd California through the development of the <br />- - <br /> <br />Colorado Canyon ;,>ro,jsct, as her additional lEnd that can be re- <br />claimed by I'leters flowing into the Colorado River is small, only <br />a-uout 2.000 acreS according to .0ireotor Dal!iS. However, llevsda <br />i:€s another interest in the pro~?0sed Colorado project fror,: the c- <br />f~ct thbt 20 per cent of the ~ower to be ultimately developed in <br />tI,e oanyon is on the Arizona-Nevada boundary line. Nevada can <br />not be blsi1led for seeking in every possible 'lay to have the part <br />of the canyon in which she is interested develo~1ed first, even if <br />it is decidedly in the \Irong end of the canyon for a power d.evel- <br />Oi1illent, l!nd even if tbo foundation '-"ifficulties for a dam in- thiS <br />o-~Q of ",;he canyon are stupenctous and entirely wi tnout preceden t. <br /> <br />'Po <br /> <br />.., <br /> <br />\ <br />