WSP04958 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 42 Colorado River Compact by the seven states and the United States."124 In saying this, Carpenter was indicating that he had begun to back away from his own six-state plan, applying his energies increasingly to defeat of the Swing-Johnson Bill. Testitying before the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, and speaking in behalf of the four upper basin states, Carpenter reiterated his insistence that the Upper Basin required ratification of the Colorado River Compact as a prerequisite to construction of works on any part of the river. Seven-state ratification, he now argued, would be preferible, because it would provide protection against a repetition of long years of unfortunate bureaucratic oppression and interstate strife, aggravated and encouraged by governmental agencies acting through individuals inspired by ambition to substitute federal control for state authority over a subject matter properly within the jurisdiction of the states, 125 Carpenter was perfectly willing to accept California's need for flood control and the building of a dam on the river so long as "adequate measures [were] taken to protect [Upper Basin] interests by ratification of the Colorado River Compact by the state of California and the United States prior to any overt act upon which adverse claims might later be predicated." The Upper Basin would assume this attitude, Carpenter concluded, from a humitarian standpoint, "not because we believe it to be the best course.',126 Phil Swing was disappointed in Carpenter whose statement and telegrams to the Committee, Swing wrote, "caused us worry and uneasiness. . . . You should not put any further obstacles in our way. . . . [Y]ou should assist us in getting this bill through, as it is the only way you are ever going to get your Colorado River Compact ratified." Carpenter's sympathy for Arizona, Swing continued, was misplaced and unproductive. "Speaking