Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />As I look at it now, the allocation between these two great <br />divisions is practical and no doubt the simplest solution. It will be <br />proper if it goes far enough. Judge Davis would like to see the matter <br />go further, to have an allocation of water made to each of the <br />individual states. When we do that we are getting into more <br />refinement and. . . <br /> <br />Mr. Scrugham: (Interrupting quickly on Emerson's comment) <br />More danger of failure to secure approval of the pact by the <br />interested states. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you call for a vote of <br />each representative of each state, yes or no, on the principle of <br />division of water between the upper and lower basins. <br /> <br />Mr. Norviel: <br />(exasperation that he can't seem to get priority of new uses established as <br />the common point for the compact) <br />Let's first find out whether that is what we are here for! <br /> <br />Secretary Hoover: <br />(appealing to Norviel not to obstruct progress in the negotiation) <br />Is not this a question, Mr. Norviel, of whether we go back to our <br />previous elaborate discussions on apportionment to each state? I <br />think most all of us have, more or less, mentally abandoned the notion <br />that we could ever agree upon an apportionment to each state. <br /> <br />Mr. Norviel: <br />I can conceive no way to administer it. <br /> <br />Secretary Hoover: <br />(turning to the Californian for help) <br />What is your impression, Mr. McClure? <br /> <br />Mr. McClure: <br />Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago I spent a full day attempting to <br />outline some definite allocation between the states, going back to the <br />minutes of our sixth meeting in Washington and looking all through <br /> <br />23 <br />