OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS Exhibit No. 2015 Identification:.................... Admitted: J.UL1.8H957 Extracts From Debate on H.R. 5773, S. 728, S. J. Res. 164 and H. Res. 208 (Fourth Swing-Johnson Bill), 70th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess.* [69 Cong. Rec. 10259-60 (May 28, 1928)] Mr. Pittman. • « • • Now, briefly, I desire to refer to another phase of this question. I have opposed final adjournment; I still believe if we shall be given sufficient time we may bring about action on the Boulder Dam bill. My fear has been, there being so many other matters before the Senate which Senators think of importance, and on which time is taken in discussion, that delay might eventually cause Senators to leave. Let me say that the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada are not very far apart on any of the questions involved. We spent four weeks at Denver, Colo., last summer and last autumn discussing them. At that time California's representative and Arizona's representative presented to a commission representing the seven Colorado River States their position. California asked Arizona, "If we agree on the equitable distribution of the benefits of the power development will you then be satisfied?" Arizona said, "If you will agree on two things, the equitable distribution of water and of power; yes." So they worked for weeks. I say that the question of *A11 Footnotes Supplied. |
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. |