Page 14

Metadata

Title
Page 14
Source
Partial proceedings of Conference of Governors, Commissioners and advisors of the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, on the Colorado River
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
ON THE COLORADO RIVER 13 there will be no disposal of power, created by any dam, for a longer period than one year without an agreement to which Arizona will be a party, determining the distribution of the power and the terms upon which it will be distributed." They have not changed their position on that. And they should not change their position on that. They would be foolish if they did change their position on it. Why? Because the bill will be drawn as it was before, giving the secretary of the interior the authority to dispose of the power generated to whom he pleases and upon any terms he may fix, unless we agree here upon the principles that shall govern and the limitations that shall be incorporated in the bill. But it is contended that it is only a congressional matter, and that this conference has nothing to do with it. The Swing-Johnson bill recognizes the fact that it is a state matter. Why? Because there was a statement in there providing that the power should be disposed of by the secretary of the interior in accordance with an agreement to be entered into between Arizona and California and Nevada, but that agreement had to be entered into before the secretary of the interior had contracted for the disposal of the power. The secretary of the interior reported that he intended to contract for the disposal of it as soon as the bill was passed. California would get all the power if there was no agreement between the three states, so, of course California would enter into no agreement. What we want is an agreement that shall be incorporated in every bill effecting power created by Nevada waters, or in connection with a dam on Nevada land. But Arizona's proposition does not mean development. It meant that there would not be a settlement that could result in the building of the dam, because Arizona said, "If the terms are satisfactory with regard to water, we will agree on them with the condition that there shall be no power sold, etc." Do you think that the congress of the United States would be so negligent as to appropriate possibly $120,000,000.00 when their only chance to get their money back would be from the sale of power, and that right to sell the power for a longer period than one year could be prevented by one state? That would mean that there would be no dam built by the government on the Colorado river. California wants a dam built on the Colorado river. Nevada wants a dam built on the Colorado river. We have our reasons for wanting a dam built on the Colorado river, but not under the terms of the Swing-Johnson bill. Even if you reach a settlement on the division of water in the Colorado river, you will have to reach a settlement on the power question before Arizona will go into the Seven States compact. If

Cite this Item

When linking to this object, please use the following URL:

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,1799

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

There are no comments yet. Be the first to comment below!

Comment on this object