OCR Text |
Show C. Statement of Ray E. Lee, Attorney General of the State of Wyoming; "Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will make my statement very short, because Mr. Bannister has fully covered our position." (P. 1824.) ". . . . [T]he point is, if, by priority of use-and this is the whole theory-if we step aside and permit the development of great irrigation projects in Arizona without protest and permit the Gila Valley project to be developed, and $80,000,000 expended in it, then is a court or the Congress going to listen to us if we come in at a later date to attempt to take away some of the water that they have appropriated or are using, although it is far in excess of what would be their share under the interstate division which Congress has approved? "That is the point; and that is why, when Congress passed the Boulder Canyon Project Act, it included this in section 4 of the act [reading]: "'This chapter shall not take effect * * * and further, until the State of California, by act of its legislature, shall agree irrevocably and unconditionally with the United States and for the benefit of the States of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming as an express covenant and in consideration of the passage of this chapter, that the aggregate annual 4. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |