My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07803
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07803
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:28:58 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:36:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1922
Author
W. S. Norviel
Title
Compact Proposal by W.S. Norviel, Colorado River Comissioner for Arizona
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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 />, <br /> <br />Is not the question of allowable use quite fully covered in <br />your paragraph seven? <br /> <br />V Your eighth and minth: Thirty years - or other period holiday _ <br />open for appropriation: <br /> <br />Would not such a provision or, indeed, any plan that may be <br />adopted purporting to eliminate priority as between the states, <br />prove unworkable except or unless it be bronl5ht about by or <br />through some clear statement of equil~able division between <br />tpe states? ' <br />or <br />Why not adhere closely to the priority rule up to the point of <br />impend ing unequitable use by some state'? <br /> <br />Should not the coming Colorado River Commission be clothed <br />with full authority to refuse any further appropriations <br />within any state proposing to take what may appear tu be and <br />excess? <br /> <br />Are we not entirely safe in coX'cluding that loug'before any <br />occasion for such possible refusal by the Commission may arise, <br />said Commission will have at hand ample data on which to de- <br />termine ~:E!qQUabI9 division"'? <br /> <br />May not suoh a Commission be tl'us ted tOok) t fai:::ly? <br /> <br />VI <br /> <br />Your thirteenth: Why p:.llce an;)" l'6st:r.>'t,;,'Jll on diversion out~ <br />side the baSin, asbetwoen the Se\7Sn ntateB? Why not apply <br />the same principle as to priorit;c' eni.l8qu.it(;>_bl~, division we <br />.propose to be in use among the stato0. sr;1eX"(111y, to the whole <br />family of s ta te<:!? <br /> <br />VII <br /> <br />YOUR ARTICLE TWV <br /> <br />I question the wisdom of the creation of a Commission to be <br />appointed by the Presid snt, 1111le,ss he name seme members of <br />his Ce.binet, ~ saY, Secretar;rs of Interior, COmll1erOe andAg- <br />riculture. Such a Commission ,could very well provide for 'v <br />every oontingency that might arise. <br /> <br />In lieu of such an ex-officio Ccmmission, I would prefer-one <br />constituted somewhat like the present one - representatives <br />of the states and the Federal Goverr~ent. <br /> <br />In oonclusion: and recalling the idea emphasized by Secretary <br />Hoover and Dr. Widstoe at salt Lake City: May we not have a <br />shorter declaration? Why not something along this line? <br /> <br />1. Provision for the organization of a permanent Comm- <br />ission and giving it authori ty and mea.ns to fUJ1C tion. <br /> <br />2. Beneficial use shall be the measure and limit of <br />rights to be acquired. <br /> <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.