page 50

Metadata

Title
page 50
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
50as other municipalities in California besides Los Angeles. I think there are nine different claimants for power. It is not confined to power companies near Los Angeles. The proposal here is that the Secretary of the Interior should find a method to divide this power in such a way as to satisfy them all. The bill provides that this job is left to the Secretary of the Interior.On that proposition I would like to make this suggestion for the consideration of the committee: That it is desirable to provide that the Federal Power Commission should make the division of power entirely under the water power act, including the whole of the act. The licenses should of course be issued subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior in order to secure the financial arrangements which would bring to him the necessary revenue to carry the amortization and interest on bond issues.Mr. HAYDEN. That is an amendment I certainly intend to insist shall be made to this bill. In the last Congress the three members of the Federal Power Commission appeared before this committee and stated:Congress also, in the Federal water power act, created a single executive agency for the administration of all water powers under Federal ownership or control. The plan thus adopted is proving eminently satisfactory. We believe any change in such method of administration is undesirable, and, therefore, whether the Boulder Canyon Dam or some other be built and whether at public or private expense, we believe the disposition of any power developed should be handled by the Federal Power Commission under the general terms of the Federal water power act, and not as proposed in the bill.I think the statement then made was perfectly sound. Congress spent 10 years in working out a compromise which would permit water-power development in the United States.Secretary HOOVER. I have the impression that it makes no difference in the intrinsic handling of the problem. I think you ought to maintain the national policies laid down in the water power act.Mr. SINNOTT. How far would you go toward recasting that law?Secretary HOOVER. I would issue licenses for use of water at the Boulder Canyon Dam in the same way as they would be issued if there was no dam.The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your presence here very much, Mr. Secretary.Mr. SWING. I would like to read into the record, as bearing upon some phases of this project, an article from the San Diego Union of February 25, as follows:San Diego, Calif., Thursday Morning, February 25, 1926.GOVERNOR RODRIGUEZ WOULD BAR BORDER TO CALIFORNIA TRADE--WLLL ADVISE CALLES TO CLOSE PORTS--DECLARES UNFRIENDLY ATTITUDE DISPLAYED IN LOS ANGELES JUSTIFIES ACT THAT WILL COST BUSINESS MILLIONS.CALEXICO, CALIF., February 24, 1926. Declaring that he was out of patience with what he called unwarranted attacks on his administration of affairs of the northern district of Lower California, Gov. Abelardo L. Rodriguez issued a statement at Mexicali to-day in which he said he had decided to recommend the closing of Mexicali and Tiajuana as ports of entry. They are the principal ports of entry into California from Mexico. Governor Rodriguez's statement is an outgrowth of the Peteet case at Tiajuana. His statement is as follows:

Cite this Item

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

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,2340

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

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

Comment on this object