| OCR Text |
Show -22- Mr. Bratton. We entertain the friendliest feeling toward each State; but it does seem to me, representing one of the upper-basin States deeply and vitally concerned in the matter, that when we are dealing with 15,000,000 acre-feet, a difference of 400,000 acre-feet should not be permitted to defeat the entire proposal. . . . [70 Cong. Rec. 170 (December 6, 1928)] Mr. McKellar. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Arizona a question? I just want to see if I understand the differences between the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from California in reference to this bill. First, as I understand the Senator, there is a difference of 400,000 acre-feet of water. California claims that much more than the Senator, representing Arizona, is willing to give. Is that correct?1 Mr. Hayden. It might well be stated in that way. Mr. McKellar. It might be stated in that way- 400,000 feet out of 7,500,000 feet? Mr. Hayden. Yes. Mr. McKeller. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that the Senators from Arizona and California surely ought to adjust that difference. If it is only 400,000 acre-feet out of 7,500,000 acre-feet, there ought not to be any real difference on that score. 1See footnote 1, p. 19. |
| 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] : California exhibits. |
