page 69

Metadata

Title
page 69
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
69stances as they now exist, and in the face of the order of that Power Commission, in the face of the attitude of what I regard as the administration, as I see it, self-defense requires, compels us to take a course which will assist in bringing about this project in order that, in turn, the Colorado River compact will come through and in further turn, that the rights of Denver or the interests of Denver will be protected.As to the financial provisions of this bill, I am not a financier and not an engineer, but from all I can learn it looks as if the projects can easily be paid for out of the irrigation and power revenues derived. No appropriation is called for but a bond issue, and the Secretary is instructed that no bonds shall be issued until the contracts are actually in his hands whereby to retire the principal and interest of the bonds.The topic of power may require just a brief consideration. I am not interested personally, nor is the city of Denver, in the power features of this bill. What I mean is, it is going beyond our necessities to attempt to influence Congress in respect to what the power features should be. I know this, that we have in the lower basin those who earnestly believe in public ownership and those who believe in private ownership, and it remains to them to get together as best they can, under the guidance of this and the corresponding committee in the Senate.I have only one suggestion to make in respect to power, and that is this: That with these two opposing schools of public ownership and private ownership, it is evident, I think, that if we can get a bill through for the Boulder Canyon project, it must represent a compromise between these two elements. If we undertake to exclude the public ownership crowd from everything, then the measure, whatever it may be, will have the opposition of that element, and if we undertake to exclude in complete degree those who are advocates of private ownership, then the measure will have the hostility of that element.To me the question of power, while an important one, is an incidental one. There is more in this, gentlemen, than simply the question of power. There is the preservation of our interests as against Mexico, and to me more important than that is the allocation of this water as between these two great basins, and I am sincerely in hope that the members of this committee will see that in this problem there is more than power, there is more than reclamation, there is the settlement of this great, and what will be an interminable, controversy among States unless you gentlemen come to our relief.Those who are on this committee and on the corresponding committee in the Senate, and who are in the basin, know that what I say is true, but the Senators and Representatives who come from outside States should realize that this is not a mere reclamation project or a mere power project; that it is the solution of a great controversy.To my way of thinking it would be bigotry for adherents of public ownership to seek to impose their public ownership will upon a measure of this kind, and thus defeat it in its greater objects, and it would be an act of supreme selfishness for private power interests

Cite this Item

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

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,2359

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

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

Comment on this object