page 41

Metadata

Title
page 41
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
41Mr. HAYDEN. I thoroughly approve of the attitude which Nevada has always taken on these matters. The governor of your State has always been willing to confer and cooperate and do whatever was necessary to bring about an understanding between the States. His attitude has been fine, as has been the attitude of your legislature and your people. You will find no quarrel in Arizona with Nevada. At least, I have seen no sign of disapproval.Our difficulty in Arizona is that we have been unable to arrive at an understanding with California. I am frank to say that we feel that if those who represent the State of California would cease putting pressure on Congress for the enactment of legislation at this time, and would go back home and resume and complete these negotiations, they would make much more progress, because the enactment of legislation at this time can be construed as nothing more than a threat against the State of Arizona. It would be an utter disregard of Arizona's rights for Congress to proceed to enact a bill without any prior understanding between the States.If the States of the upper basin have a right to insist that no part of the law shall go into effect until the original compact had been agreed to, there is no reason why Arizona should take any different position. She should have the same protection which is insisted upon for Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.Mr. SQUIRES. Frankly, I do not think one State has any real right to oppose its will against the will of six other States in a matter that affects all of them. I think there should be a fair division agreement arrived at. We hope that will be possible.Mr. HAYDEN. We are willing to concede that whatever time may be necessary should run to perfect the plan of the original Colorado River compact, but you would set a time limit within which Arizona shall come to an agreement with California and Nevada. Does that appeal to you as entirely fair?Mr. SQUIRES. Yes, sir; because there is a year in which to carry it out, and if then it can not be carried out, I suppose we would have to abandon that idea.Mr. HAYDEN. Why not put the same time limit on the approval of the Colorado River compact itself?Mr. SQUIRES. This practically does it, I think, because a tri-State compact, which would be an agreement between the three States, would, I assume, be predicated upon the terms of the seven-States Colorado River compact.Mr. HAYDEN. If Congress can legislate after the time limit has expired, what is the necessity of any agreement at all?Mr. SQUIRES. I think the necessity for action demands that there be legislation.Mr. HAYDEN. Regardless of whether the States agree or not?Mr. SQUIRES. I think so. I think we are leaving the door wide open with an invitation to Arizona to come with us, and it is our desire and hope that that will be done.Mr. HAYDEN. More progress will be made toward securing an agreement with the State of Arizona by pursuing a plan which omits compulsion upon any State, where you set a time limit and say to one State, "If you do not agree within that time, we will proceed,

Cite this Item

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

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,2331

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

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

Comment on this object