My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03879
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03879
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:52:36 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:01:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
3/15/1922
Author
Colorado River Com.
Title
Proceedings of the Hearings on the Colorado River Development before the Colorado River Commission March 15, 16, 17, 1922 Phoenix
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
312
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />t1 <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />will be best safegu~rded Bnd expedited by tillowing these other <br />states an equal voice with theDselves? <br />"-"re not tte Reclamation :.lervice reconmenclations apt to be <br />frar.led fro!;! the st<'ndpoint of getting them passed oy tLe Senate, <br />rather than from the standpoint of the very best interests of <br />those ~1:1"~" ,';ho \;ill fino:lly :,)flY all the bills? <br />"On p,ccol'nt of tlle conflicting interests of t~e seven sta~es <br />of the be:,in, is tlierc much horye that .~rizona <;nd CEU:t'ornh can <br />e:nect i'TllcrtLil1t .2e,;8nl le{!islation entirely fEir to neir best <br />interests in r~e r.e::,l' f\Ot1.lre-? <br />"Is -~h~r8 m;~ch hc,le U:[- t tbe )e'_1.er~l Government can be in- <br />duced tG finance e ryro:ect thEt is so ~re~ol'1~ergntly a power pro- <br />ject and not a reclam8 tio;1 )ro,ject? <br />"Is it not time thEt_ Californi< snd Arizona were discussing <br />this mutual1:- vit"-l )i'oblem bet11een themselves'? Can not they by <br />coogeretioll devise a _IG.Y of carrying out the ~'roject more econo- <br />mically. more ex)eJitiousl;; ani: more to their mutual best i[jter- <br />e6ts than "uy de)en0.ing u)on the "\eclumatiol1 Service and the U. 3. <br />:-Jenate which, in ellS very nature of things, ~re c om:pelled to be <br />influenced "u~ ~olitic&l consideratiens? <br />"ille Colorado Rivel' :;lower :;lroject could be turned over to <br />a :>rivE'te co:c}orEtion to develol) and control. I contend thE.t <br />on acceunt of the very involved situation, the entire canyon <br />rlevelo"lnef1t is -)ro?e:cl~' a one owner pro,ject, in spite of the 'fact <br /> <br />P. <br /> <br />" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.