OCR Text |
Show -18- and allocation of power. California refuses to separate this from their water proposal. The allocation of power and the revenue features to be discussed between the States should be taken up after the water agreement; the two can not be discussed together. We would not be willing to trade one against the other. Moreover, the revenue provision and the allocation of power involves the interests of States other than California and Arizona, and the water division, it is conceded by all of the basin States, is a matter solely between Arizona and California." At the conclusion of its reading Commissioner Ward, of Arizona, stated that he desired to supplement that by an oral statement. In effect this was a return to the so-called "yellow sheet," which was identified as the result of a conference between Mr. Heffner (an interested but unofficial member of the California delegation), and Mr. Ward, of Arizona, and which it was understood was acceptable to both California and Arizona, which so-called "yellow sheet" was an extension in figures of the principle set forth in a proposal made at Reno, in which there had been a division of the waters in the main stream on the basis of 4,400,000 acre-feet to California, and 2,800,-000 acre-feet to Arizona. Nevada made a statement through Mr. Thomas Cole, in the following language: "Without commenting one way or the other upon the merits of the compromise proposals exchanged between Arizona and California, we are of course regretful at the inability thus far of these two States to develop the attitude of flexibility so necessary to settle their differences over the division of water and thereby to make it possible for Arizona to feel that she may with safety enter |
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. |