Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1,- <br /> <br />Use for irrigation in the upper stLtes, <br />"tJoW, :J. v:or,l Qbout th8 ~epublic of ],ie:ci.c 0, and I am thrcugh. <br />It is likely that as a reslllt of the control of the river 5nd its <br />de\.elopment for power, kiexico will be enabled to recla:;'rn an im- <br />portant amount of neVi 15nd and profitabll'T cultiv~te it for many <br />yearS' to c one, possibly forever. It Should be dlstinctlyund,n- <br />wtood that the usc of the water on these new lands will not con- <br />sti tute a permanent right of priori ty 3S agbinst any lands in the <br />United States." <br /> <br />(End of paper ^. <br />MR. HOOV.t:R: CI.'here ~-,.e on8 or two points that I think the <br />Commission \'oulll like to have a little more illumination on. I <br />gather you:;:, conclusion is that tIle major ernpl',asis Should be gi vsn <br />to ~ower rather then irrigation,. <br />MR. Mc;}Ri::GOR: That is m;v contention. I think that as long as <br />the land will not justify the cost thut power naturally should <br />have first consideration. <br />~. HOOV.ic:R: You would, therefore, give a priority to power <br />over irrigation in the use of the water? <br />N~. McGR~GOR: No, that is not what I tried to explain--my idea <br />is that the power-- it would be unfair for power to ever claim <br />a priority o\'er ])and in the upper states as long as there is watiH <br />or you might say mere dams available for construction in the can- <br />yon, that is, as long as more dams can be 'I,;uilt for power, why, <br />then, power should not seek to restrain any of the u;:rper states. <br />~'h&t would be my idea cf a just l,rcangement. <br /> <br />r. <br />