OCR Text |
Show -23- revenue from power developments on the river, whether at the hands of the Federal Government or of private interests, dawned upon Nevada's statesmen. To that State, with her sparse population and limited wealth, a continuing income from a project of the magnitude proposed, would prove a most welcome addition to her sources of revenue. At last this came to be seen by some of the Nevadans, and Arizona for a time and to a limited extent, had a new and a valuable ally. At the Denver Conference Nevada's able United States Senator, Key Pittman, was the outstanding figure in securing unqualified recognition of the rights for which Arizona had been contending for years-the right to control the appropriation of water within her borders, to control the bed and banks of her navigable streams, and to compensation for the use of her natural resources. A resolution, bearing Senator Pittman's name, and stating the law in strong language, was adopted with the concurrence of all of the Colorado River States except California, and was presented to Congress. There also it was ably championed by the Nevada statesman, and Nevada's spokesmen gave much aid and encouragement to the cause for which the Arizona forces were striving. But Nevada still, above all things, frankly desired the construction of the dam at Boulder Canyon. Whatever might be secured by way of a revenue was indeed greatly to be desired, and the principles embodied in the Pittman resolution were all but sacred, but after all the dam was the thing. Afer all, if the Boulder Canyon legislation failed, there might be adopted a plan of river development contemplating construction at some other point on the river-possibly at a point in which Nevada would have no interest. |
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. |