4v tt - uair.library.arizona.eduuair.library.arizona.edu/system/files/usain/... · th tt n th bn th...

OFF IC IAL MIPORTof the

PROCEEDINGSof the

COLORADO RIVERCONFERENCE

Between del egat esrepresenting California,Nevada and Ari z ona

TC,425CL

1c)2.54V17 , (*. OTT

Between Delegates Representing California, Nevadaand Arizona

At The State Capitol,

Phoenix, Arizona,Monday, August 17th, 1925

OFFICIAL REPORT

of the

PROCEEDINGS

of the

Colorado RiverConference

Between Delegates Representing California, Nevadaand Arizona

At The State Capitol,Phoenix, Arizona,

Monday, August 17th, 1925

q919 IC7C71/9S-

Proceedings of theColorado River Conference

Held in the Senate Chambers, State Capitol BuildingPhoenix, Arizona, August 17th, 1925

COLORADO RIVER CONFERENCE

DelegatesCALIFORNIA:

Senator Ralph E. Swing, of SanBernardino, Chairman;

Assemblyman A. C. Finney, ofBrawley, Secretary;

Senator L. L. Dennett, of Modesto;Assemblyman Walter J. Little, of

Los Angeles;Arthur P. Davis, Oakland, Cali-

fornia, Engineer.

NEVADA:Charles P. Squires, Las Vegas,

Chairman;George A. Cole, Carson City;George W. Borden, Carson City;Levi Syphers, St. Thomas.

ARIZONA:

Cleve W. Van Dyke, of Miami,Chairman;

H. S. McCluskey, of Phoenix, Sec-retary;

Thomas Maddock, of Phoenix;F. A. Reid, of Phoenix;A. G. McGregor, of Warren.

John B. Ryan S. R. CriswellE. W. Powers

Official Reporters.

10:45 o'Clock A. M.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE (of Ari-zona): Gentlemen, if you will takeseats we will proceed with our busi-ness in hand. I wish to state for Ari-zona that we are glad to meet the dele-gates from the other states. I hopethat we will be able to accomplishsomething for the mutual welfare ofthe Southwest. We have with us thismorning our governor, and I takegreat pleasure in introducing our gov-ernor to you, who has a few remarksto make. (Applause.)

Gentlemen:You meet here today in conference

in an endeavor to find a remedy fqx,,and to reconcile some of the defectscontained in, the Colorado River Com-pact, which was negotiated at SantaFe, New Mexico. This Compact pur-ports to allocate the waters of theColorado River in accordance with the-terms of a uniform law passed byCongress and the seven states in theColorado River basin. By referringto the law you will ascertain the factthat it authorizes a compact appor-tioning the water of the ColoradoRiver "between the states."

The first fundamental error in theCompact is that it does not apportionthe water as authorized by law "be-tween the states," but between arbi-trary divisions called basins, the"upper' and the "lower" basins, andthis was done without considerationof conditions existing in the two arbi-trary basins created. Under the arbi-trary conditions established for thedivision of the water, Arizona, due toeconomic conditions, is subject to thesame difficulties as the upper basinstates and by signing the Compactwould, in competition with California,be signing away all her rights andhopes for future development.

The second fundamental error inthe Compact is that all of the waterthat the upper basin states can everuse (and some eminent engineersclaim more water than they can everuse) has been apportioned to them,while insufficient water was allocatedto the lower basin to irrigate all ofthe lands suscetible to feasible devel-opment and in return for this advan-tage in allocation of water they givenothing to the lower basin either inrecognition of rights, of storage facil-ities or otherwise, unless we exceptpassible freedom from legislative and

59862

4


departmental coercion and threatenedlaw suits.

The third defect, in the Compact isthat no provision is made to preventwater stored in the United States,when it is released and the low waterflow increased from being applied toMexican lands and possible waterrights acquired in that country.

The fourth defect is that in theallocation of water the upper basinstates will be served from the normalflow of the river, while the lowerbasin must depend on storage and noallowance is made for evaporationlosses which will result to the lowerbasin from the stored water.

Other defects exist which I shalltouch on later.

What is the reason for any compactbeing negotiated which sets aside lhepresent well established and definedwater laws which govern the utiliza-tion of water in all of the states ofthe basin and the principles of whichwere held by the United States Su-preme Court to govern as betweenthe states in the basin? The onlyanswer that can be made, logically andtruthfully, is that it is dictated by thefarsighted business acumen of someof the states in the basin who areendeavoring to secure for use in thedistant future rights which they donot now possess under the law. Theupper basin states are manifesting noaltruism in demanding a compact.They do not take the position that itis immaterial where development isundertaken so long as it is in theUnited States. They are demandingall that they can get for their politicalsubdivisions or states. Why shouldwe not do likewise?

Economic law may be harsh, but itis the only law that governs. We aretold by eminent authorities that $150,-000,000 in unearned increment will be-come attached to the lands of theImperial Valley as soon as adquatestorage facilities are provided to in-sure a steady supply of water forirrigation and flood control; and thatadditional hundreds of millions or per-haps billions of value in unearned in-crement will accrue to southern Cali-fornia municipalities and lands when

an abundance of electrical energy ismade available. Thus, under theterms of the Colorado River Compactthe four upper basin states and Cali-fornia achieve wealth, economic se-curity and the assurance of the con-tinuation of these benefits in per-petuity.

What of Arizona and Nevada, theremaining two states in the bain?We are told, quoting ex-governorBoyle, that Nevada can possibly util-ize 10,000 horse power from the Colo-rado River at this time; that theymay eventually utilize 100,000 horsepower and that they may irrigate notto exceed 80,000 acres of land, Mr.Weymouth and Mr. Davis, formerengineers of the United States Bureauof Reclamation state 3,000 and 4,000respectively.

You ask about Arizona? What doesshe want from the Colorado River?I say to you gentlemen, frankly, thatat this time all we ask for, if theeconomic laws are to be set aside anda treaty negotiated, is that Arizonareceive protection of her rights in-cluding her future development. Ifyou ask me specifically what we want,I reply to you frankly, without anyapology, that we do not know becausewe have not sufficient data availableto determine what is is practicable todevelop.

Arizona is in the position, if thepresent water laws remain undis-turbed and unimpaired, of askingnothing. We are fully satisfied withthe present laws as interpreted bythe United States Supreme Court.We are fully able, under present laws,to protect our interests from all of theother six states in the basin and fromMexico. We do not fear developmentin California or in the upper basinif the law, of priorities based uponappropriation for beneficial use, re-mains in full effect. But if that lawis to be disturbed, modified or setaside, we have immediate cause foralarm. The proposal to set the lawaside does not come from us.

We had not been particularly inter-ested in the immediate developmentof the 'Colorado River up to the timethe Compact was discussed. It is

COLORADO RIVER CONFERENCE 5

only 13 years ago since we obtainedstatehood. We have been developingour resources within the interior of

this State. We think we have madetremendous strides since 1912, con-sidering our small population andtaxable wealth; in that our percentageof increase in population exceededthat of any other state in the Unionduring that period. We were satisfiedto permit the Colorado River to re-main a potential asset until we wereready to utilize the same.

I have said to you that we do notknow in detail what Arizona wantsfrom the Colorado River. We do notknow because we have very few facts.Under the Kincaid Act, passed byCongress, the United States spentover $2,000,000 in the vicinity of Boul-der Canyon and practically none else-where on the River. There is sometestimony that the Imperial ValleyIrrigation District has spent half amillion dollars in connection with theproposed Boulder Canyon project andwe have no information as to howmuch money Southern Californiamunicipalities and the State of Nevadaand others interested have spent inthis connection. The lack of informa-tion and data in regard to any otherportion of the river, other than atBoulder Canyon, is very succinctlystated by Colonel William Kelley,Chief Engineer of the United StateFederal Power Commission, as fol-lows:

"The need for more facts is therather astounding conclusion onemust reach from study of the dataat hand. While hundreds of thous-ands of dollars have been expendedon intensive investigation at Boul-der and Black Canyons, the variousdamsites between Boulder and Dia-mond Creek are untested, as is alsothe site at Mohave Canyon. Drill-ing at these sites and sufficient in-vestigation and study to permit es-timates of comparable accuracy tobe made for each are necessary be-fore a satisfactory conclusion canbe reached."When the Colorado River Compact

was negotiated the representatives ofthe State of Arizona had not material

facts as to the possibilities of develop-ment in this State, unless the informa-tion as contained in the report of Mr.Arthur P. Davis is to be accepted byArizona as accurate — something weare not willing to accept.

The question may be raised that itis not the fault of the other statesthat Arizona is not in possesion of thefacts. Our reply is that Arizona isnot asking that the law of prioritiesbased upon appropriation for bene-ficial use, be set aside. Arizona isfully content with that law. We thinkit is fair, equitable and just. Underthe provisions of that law there hasbeen no need for Arizona to be in aayhurry about spending money for Colo-rado River surveys or to fear earlydevelopment of the Colorado Riverfrom any other source, as we spentour money elsewhere where there wasmore need of it.

Since the Colorado River Compactwas negotiated, engineers tell us thatit is possible to develop additionallyfrom 700,000 to 3,000,000 acres of landin Arizona from the Colorado River.Other engineers accept the data ofMr. Arthur P. Davis which state§_thatit is only practiceable to irrigate some280,000 acres of land, which includesthe Yuma Project, in Arizona from theColorado River. We think we havesecured sufficient information in thepast two years to justify the beliefthat a considerably greater area inthis state can be irrigated from theColorado River and we want the waterto do it, if further surveys prove itpracticable.

In negotiating a treaty concerningthe Colorado River, we do not see ourway clear to allocate, by treaty, anyof the waters from Arizona streamsas a portion of the main ColoradoRiver. We insist that the laws ofArizona shall govern on the basis ofprior appropriation for beneficial useand remain undisturbed on Arizonastreams. We grant the same right toNevada and to California to utilizethe waters of all of the streams thatoriginate in their territory but we de-cline to dispose of, to other states, bytreaty, rights in Arizona streams, thatcan be acquired in no other way.

6 COLORADO RIVER CONFERENCE

Economic law and self-preservationdictate our policy in this matter.

I think I appreciate fully that yougentlemen did not come to Arizonalooking for charity. If Arizona signedthe Colorada River Compact in itspresent form we would be signingaway our future right to utilize theresources of the river without recom-pense. If we have something youwant and can utilize, economic justicedictates that it be paid for. I believeArizona and Nevada have a definiteinterest in the Colorado River that re-ceived no consideration in the Com-pact and little consideration in thediscussion concerning it; and that isthe right to derive revenue from thepower developed by the harnessingof the river within our borders.

I am not fully informed as to howNevada feels about the matter; butthe State of Arizona expects to deriverevenue from every unit of electricalenergy generated in this State that isutilized in other states. The ColoradoRiver Compact does not deal with thisquestion, but the State Engineer ofCalifornia, in a communication ad-dressed to the Governor of California,states that the upper basin stateshave some claim on power that maybe developed in the lower basin. Ideny that any such right exists. I re-pudiate such doctrine. The ColoradoRiver Compact gives to the upperbasin states rights which they cannotacquire under the law except by put-ting the water to beneficial use beforeit is utilized in the lower basin. Whatdo they give in return? Whether thewater be apportioned under existingla*, or by treaty, when it comes tothe Arizona line the upper basinstates have lost all title and right toit and Arizona will conclude notreaty unless that right be fully recog-nized and established.

Something has been said, from timeto time, about the nationalization ofthe river; that Arizona is said to haveforfeited her rights under the termsof the Enabling Act granting statehoodto this State; efforts have been madeto distort the law as it relates to navi-gation and alleged rights the federalgovernment might have in a navigable

river are used as a basis for discuss-ing nationalization of the river; Inthis connection I say to you that solong as the courts of this land remainopen, Arizona anticipates no menacefrom that direction. We would expectto get from the courts the same rightsthat New York might.

Arizona asserts that she is a sov-ereign state, with rights equal to thoseof any other state. • That she hasjurisdiction over the bed of thestreams from high water mark to highwater mark within this State- and allof the water that flows therein exceptas title has been acquired under exist-ing law, and that between the Statesof Nevada and California, where thestream is a border stream, that thesovereign rights lay between thosetwo states and Arizona and that anyrights as to power sites that the fed-eral government may have in thestream are the rights of a proprietoronly, and I hope that some day thatusurped right of the United Stateswill be challenged and that Arizonamay have the opportunity to show inthe Supreme Court that when the Con-gress of the United States made thereservations as to power sites, that itexceeded its authority in denying ad-mittance to the Territory of Arizonato the Union of the states, which com-prise the United States, on an equalbasis with all of the other states.

Arizona asserts that, while the fed-eral government as a proprietor mayown the lands abutting the dam sitesand the lands that will be overflowed,the State of Arizona, as a sovereign,owns the land in the bed of thestream, upon which the dam will beerected and the water in the streamand that it reserves the right to taxand derive revenue from any develop-ment in the river in whatever mannerthe laws of this State may devise.

In conclusion, gentlemen, I believethat any decisions you may reachshould first of all stipulate that notreaty allocating the waters of theColorado River shall be effective untilit is fully established between theUnited States government and theMexican government, that no waterrights will accrue to Mexican lands


resulting from any storage facilitiesprovided on the Colorado River or any

of its tributaries. Second, I believe

that all the water that may renaainunappropriated for beneficial use, un-der the terms of the Colorado RiverCompact, by the upper basin, should

be the basis of apportionment in thelower basin rather than that the allo-cation be limited to 81/2 million acrefeet appropriated by the Compact.

At this time Arizona is asked tonegotiate and distribute resourcesfrom the biggest asset she has be-cause some other sections of thecountry assert that immediate devel-opment of this asset is imperative to-their welfare. We are unprepared tonegotiate but if an adjudication canbe worked out that sounds anywherenear fair and equitable to this State,I shall be very glad of the same. Istand ready to cooperate with youand to make available any informationwe possess. I trust that your laborsmay prove successful. (Applause.)

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Now,gentlemen, the next procedure willbe the determination on your part asto what your permanent organizationshall be like, and how the proceedingsshall be conducted. It has been sug-gested by representatives from Cali-fornia and Nevada that our procedurewill be along informal lines, more ofa symposium than a debating society,and I would like to hear from Sen-ator Swing of California as to his sug-gestion along that line.

SENATOR SWING; Mr. Van Dykeand Members of the Committee: Thisthought has occurred to me that per-haps we could get further if we wouldjust turn this desk around So theCalifornia Comrvittee could all sittogether, and the Nevada Committeecould all sit together and the ArizonaCommittee. I take it there may beone or two questions we would like toask after we get in that position, be-fore we proceed. If we could do thatwe could address one another backand forth as though we were sitting,each as a separate unit.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Your ideais not to have any formal organiza-

tion or any chairman or anything ofthat sort; just a symposium of dele-gates representing the differentstates?

SENATOR SWING: I am inclinedto think we may ask a little furtheralong that line. We are not an or-ganization; we are each here as aseparate unit. I think we ought tomaintain that.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Wouldyour - be that each statespea through individual representa-tives?

SENATOR SWING: 'Yes, I presumethrough the chairman.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Youwouldn't limit the representation ofthe state to the chairman? The chair-man may select any one of his dele-gation to discuss any particular topic?

SENATOR SWING: That is up tothe state.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Now, Mr.Squires, of Nevada, have you anysuggestion to make?

MR. SQUIRES (of Nevada): Mr.Van Dyke and Gentlemen of the Con-ference: I think that Senator Swing'ssuggestion is a good one; that wemeet in the form of a round table dis-cussion and that each state, being aunit, speak through its chairman ormember designated by its delegation,and I think we can do no better atthis time than to resolve ourselvesinto such a body.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Is thereany suggestion on the part of the Ari-zona delegation in reference to thatprocedure. Is there any objection onthe part of any delegate to that pro-cedure?

MR. REID (of Arizona): Mr. Chair-man: It seems to me like we couldget further if we would at least or-ganize ourselves into a temporary or-ganization with a chairman, and havethe same purpose in mind that thesegentlemen have, but I believe ourproceeding would be more orderly ifwe should select a chairman from oneof the other states to act as a chair-man of the w hole committeeand then carry out their ideas. Itseems we would get further and wouldbe able to work in a more orderly


manner in that method than we couldby not having some definite line orprogram; that's just a suggestion.

MR. MADDOCK (of Arizona): Mr.Chairman, I take the same viewpointI believe we could work out the sym-posium all together. At the. sametime it might be better to have achairman. I believe we can dispensewith a sergeant at arms, but I believeit would be better to have a chairman,so if we did slip or numerous peoplegot to talking at the same time wecould have a check on it. In orderto get at this I suggest the name ofMr. Squires of Nevada as chairman.

SENATOR SWING: We have notacquiesced in any such program andI know it is not the sense of the Cali-fornia committee to acquiesce in thatprogram, because the minute you or-ganize into an organization then youlose your identity as units, and youcannot progress, I don't think, alongthat line. Lknow that is the sense ofthe California delegation. This isnot an organization. We are simplyhere as independent units just asthough each were single persons sit-ting down to discuss this problem.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Any fur-ther suggestion in reference to thismatter; how will we determine whatour organization will be, gentlemen?Would it be wise to appoint first acredentials committee, Mr. Swing, toreport as to who are the authorizeddelegates?

SENATOR SWING: I apprehendthat we have notice of that. We haveofficial notice through our governorof the representatives of Nevada andArizona and I apprehend you have asimilar one. Governor Richardsonstated to me he had forwarded themto Governor Hunt.

MR. McCLUSKEY (of Arizona): Wehave never received them.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Howwould it be to permit each state tobe the judge of its own delegation?

SENATOR SWING: That wouldanswer the purpose.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: This or-ganization is suggested, it seems tome, to be an organization which is anorganization of states with a spokes-

man, and we would resolve ourselvesinto a sort of symposium where thespokesman could speak for his state.Is that the idea?

SENATOR SWING: That was thethought of the California committee.

MR. McGREGOR (of Arizona): Thatalso seems to be the thought of theNevada committee. It seems that itwould only be proper to yield to themajority and get together.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Any fur-ther discussion on this question? Ifthere is no objection on the part ofany of the delegation it will be soordered by the chair that the organ-ization will be one of state units anathat each state will be representedthrough a spokesman, either the chair-man or some one selected by the dele-gation to represent their discussion_

SENATOR SWING: Before we pro-ceed with that may I make inquiryabout the official report of the pro-ceedings. I notice these gentlemenhere (the reporters) arid we wouldlike to know that such report will beavailable at the conclusion of themeeting.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: The -Cor-poration Commission of the State ofArizona has kindly loaned to us theirofficial reporter—

SENATOR SWING: Thank you.CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: That is

our report. I understand that Cali-fornia has made other arrangements.

SENATOR SWING: I think thiswould be a good time to discuss thematter. I received a letter from acourt reporter out here; is this thegentleman (to Mr. Ryan)?

REPORTER RYAN: Yes, sir.SENATOR SWING: That is all

right.CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Is there

anything else to come before this tem-porary organization? We have withus the President of the Water Users'Association who would like to makean announcement at this time, and Itake pleasure in introducing the presi-dent of our Water Users' Association.

MR. REID (of Arizona): Mr. Chair-man, I just had to step out on a phonecall. Did you perfect a temporaryorganization?


CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: We de-cided to go into a state organizationwith the chairman representing eachstate or a spokesman from each stateto represent its orgatnization, and re-solve itself into an informal commis-sion which will discuss the matteralong symposium lines.

MR. REID: I see. The thing I wouldlike to say to you gentlemen thismorning who have come over on thisColorado River thing, Is that irriga-tion has a great deal to do with that.We feel that we have a very success-ful project here in the Salt River val-ley and one that is worth your timeto look it over, and I want to extend toyou an invitation on behalf of theAssociation, to spend a day with usand go over the project. We wont°like to show you how we have carriedon our development here, and we feelin a small way it is the same thingthat can be carried on in the Colo-rado River. We also feel that wemight show you something that wouldbe of interest to you, something thatyou might take back home with you,and we would be more than glad forthe committee to spare the time to goover the project with us and look itover. We will furnish you facilitiesfor transportation and everything, toshow you as easily as we can theproject. If that invitation be acceptedwe will be glad to make arrangementswhenever convenient to you gentle-men as our visitors to take you outon this trip. (Applause.)

SENATOR SWING: About how longwill it take?

MR. REID: Well, if we went to thedams it would take us probably theafternoon to drive up there. Theyhave nice acommodations up thereat the Apache Lodge where we couldstay•all night and come back in themorning; drive through a very largesection of the valley on the way upand also on the way back. About aday or a day and a half, we can showyou the high points of the wholeproject. We feel it will be worthyour while.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: I wouldlike to add to President Reid's invita-tion, that inasmuch as we have or-

ganized on the symposium basis thatI can see no reason why we cannothave informal discussions while enroute both ways and will give us, ifaccepted, an opportunity to get ac-quainted and get our ideas together,so when we come back we will knowmore or less what our program willbe. At the same time we will havean object lesson before us, in a meas-ure, of what the general situationwill be like.

(At this point J. K. Doolittle, a per-son interested in some irrigation pro-ject attempted to make a statementbut was informed by the chairmanthat he would recognize only dele-gates at this time.)

SENATOR SWING: Is it your ideawe go up before we attempt to—

MR. REID 'interposing): My idea,gentlemen, would be that we makethis trip first and give us all a chanceto get acquainted and give us a chanceto visualize some things which wethink are possible on the Coloradoriver; and give you some new ideasto take back home with you gentle-men on your project; give us an op-portunity to discuss these things inrather an informal way and we felt itmight make for speed in this con-ference.

SENATOR SWING: It is suggestedby some of the members of the Cali-fornia Committee that they are anxiousto get away. Personally I would liketo take the trip and at least one othermember of the California Committeeis very anxious to take the trip. Twoof them are quite anxious to completetheir work and get away. So couldn'twe at least get started and then tryto complete our work or get startedon it any way and then arrange sometime to go up. As I say, speaking per-sonally, I want to accept the invita-tion.

MR. REID: I will say this, gentle'men, we would be very glad to haveyou arrange that according to yourown program. If you accept it nowwe will be glad to arrange it now. Ifyou feel that some of the members arein such a hurry they haven't the timeto spare, and later on some of themembers might lay over and make the

10


trip we will be glad to extend the in-vitation that way. We felt this wouldperhaps give us some ideas in work-ing out the proposed agreement, ifany, between the states as to the Colo-rado River. In other words, wethought it might help by getting first-hand view of a picture of our projecthere. Maybe it wouldn't.

SENATOR SWING: Then may weproceed with the discussion here withthe understanding we may take thisup later?

MR. REID: At any time. It is sug-gested we proceed with the under-standing we can take it up at anytime and accept this invitation.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: What isyour position with regard to Nevada?

MR. SQUIRES: That is very satis-factory to us.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: What isnext in order of procedure?

SENATOR SWING: Mr. Van Dyke,may we not move the desks so we canget California around here and Ne-vada there and Arizona there, and thereporters can sit there?CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: All right,

we will proceed to organize on thatbasis.

(At this time the desks are movedaround in the form of a circle andcloser together.)

SENATOR SWING: Mr. Van Dyke,as chairman of the Arizona Commit-tee, I would like to ask whether ornot the address of Governor Huntexpresses the sentiment of the com-mittee. First, for the purpose of therecord, the California committee iscomposed of Senator L. L. Dennett,Assemblyman Walter S. Little, Assem-blyman A. C. Finney and Ralph E.Swing. Mr.. McClure, state engineer,is not a member of the committee, butan advisor of the committee.

MR. McCLUSKSY: The Arizona listis composed of C. W. Van Dyke,chairman, F. A. Reid, A. G. McGregor,Thomas Maddock and H. S. McClus-key.

MR. SQUIRES: Nevada representa-tives, George W. Borden, George A.Cole, Levi SypherS and C. B. Squires.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Now, Mr.Swing, did you have a question you

wished to ask of the Arizona dele-gation?

SENATOR SWING: Yes, does thisspeech of Governor Hunt here expressthe sentiments of the committee rep-resenting Arizona as far as thesenegotiations are concerned?

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: The com-mittee has been authorized by thegovernor to use its own discretion inall matters as they may develop with-out any restrictive instructions what-soever.

SENATOR SWING: That isn't quitean answer to the question. I wastrying to get at whether that ex-presses the sentiment of the Commit-tee.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: I don'tsee, senator, just what bearing thatwould have on the matter. I presumeour policy will develop as we go along.We would have a right to develop ourpolicy as to Arizona the same as youwould have a right to develop yourpolicy.

SENATOR SWING: I assume per-haps the speech would neither havebeen made nor distributed had it notbeen for some purpose. Otherwise itwould be entirely foreign to any dis-cussion. Now, if it is foreign to thediscussion, of course, it is no part ofthese proceedings.

MR. SQUIRES: Gentlemen of Cali-fornia and Arizona: In behalf of theNevada delegation, I wish to expressour appreciation of your invitation tomeet in this conference and our pleas-ure at meeting with you today. Inview of the fact that in a measure theaddress of Governor Hunt seems tostate the position of Arizona, and withthe idea of placing the other statesperhaps on record as to what theirposition may be in this conference, Iwill speak now for Nevada. Nevadacomes to this conference with thehope she may be helpful in bringingabout a better understanding betweenthe three states of the lower basin ofthe Colorado, and that she may lendher co-operation and assistance to hersister states in settling the more ap-parent than real conflict of interestswhich have involved previous dis-cussions of the Colorado River prob-


lem.The question of the development of

the Colorado River, as it seems to us,advanced through various stages ofsentiment and politics until it hasnow, we think, been crystalized bythe pressing necessities of the pres-ent into a practical economic prob-lem from which immediate relief mustbe found.

Therefore I will state that the basis

of all negotiations in this conferenceas far as Nevada is concerned must

be the recognition of the immediatenecessity for a dam at or near Blackor Boulder Canyon on the ColoradoRiver. That, gentlemen, is the posi-tion Which Nevada takes in this mat-ter.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Now, yourposition there is that the basis ofnegotiations must be what?

MR. SQUIRES: Must be the recog-nition by this conference that thatis the thing to do.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Shall bethe recognition of the constructionof—

MR. SQUIRES: Shall be the recog-nition of the necessity for a dam atBoulder or Black Canyon.

SENATOR SWING: May I ask aquestion? As I understand the con-dition precedent to a discussion andfurther proceeding in this matter, youthink that question should be disposedof?

MR. SQUIRES: So far as the in-terests of Nevada are concerned thatis the primary question. If we can-not determine on that policy there isno use of Nevada going any furtherwith the discussion.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: WouldNevada insist upon a determination ofthat before we have any further dis-cussion or would you permit us todiscuss the general phases of the sit-uation leading up to the ultimate, ade-quate and proper solution?

MR. BORDEN (of Nevada): Withthe consent of the chairman, I wishto state that our interests lie entirelywhere our boundary is and if thereis no location of the dam along ourboundary we cannot very logicallycome to any point in your territory

and tell you what to do with water atthat point, or that we had a part inthe solution of that question. Wehave, as we believe, certain rightsalong the Colorado, and the majorportion or practically all of thoserights lie in the Boulder Canyon orvicinity. For a basis of determinationof any other situation which mayarise, Boulder Canyon is the logicalpoint for us to start from; we wouldbe on foreign ground any other placeand that is the reason for our standin that respect.

MR. MADDOCK: If the desires ofNevada could be covered in a gen-eral proposition tliat would include theentire question, you wouldn't desireto have this determination first, orto make any discussion of any otherquestion predicated upon a previousdiscussion of one particular subject,will you?

MR. SQUIREIS: I think we are justi-fied in assuming from this address ofthe governor that such a direct solu-tion of the question would not befavorably received by Arizona. There-fore, I think we might as well decidethat question first before we go anyfurther.

SENATOR SWING: California, ofcourse, is already on record in what isknown as the Finney Resolutionadopted by the California legislature,ratifying the Colorado River Com-pact, in which the ratification is madedependent upon that, so our positionis in accord with yours, I think, atleast to some extent. It is perfectlyagreeable to us, I think, to concedethe position taken by you, as statedby the Nevada delegation, and deter-mine that question first.

MR. REID: Mr. Squires, may I aska question: Wouldn't it be logical forthe Nevada representatives here toundertake to work it out in a broadway, leading up perhaps to what youwant, rather than to start in the otherend to? It seems to me like if thereis any development made where weare all going to be jointly interestedin it, we have got to have some agree-ment worked out. Now, if, as thething progresses and as things de-velop, then the position which you


stated in the beginning, might be verywell taken in the end, provided youare not satisfied with the negotiations.It seems to me like it puts Arizonain rather a wrong position to start inwith the idea that "Now, we havecome over here to negotiate the build-ing of the Black Canyon Dam" or anyother dam. "Otherwise, we are notready to proceed with this confer-ence." I don't hardly think you gen-tlemen want to put us in that posi-tion, where we have got to take it orleave it. I don't assume that is theidea of this delegation coming overhere.

SENATOR SWING: Haven't webeen pretty near put in that positionby this statement of Governor Hunt?

MR. REID: I don't think so, Mr.Swing. Governor Hunt appointed acommittee here without any instruc-tions whatsoever. The committee rep-resenting Arizona is open to undertaketo negotiate some kina or a satisfac-tory agreement with the three statesat interest here, and there is no rea-son why we can't proceed along thatline. I would assume that if we nego-tiate something here that GovernorHunt would not agree to he would tellus so. Until then we are going toassume we have a perfect right to goahead with the conference and workout a solution of this problem. Butup to this time we haven't been toldthat.

MR. BORDEN: We understand fromGovernor Hunt's statement there'scertain things he won't approve. Hehas definitely placed out of considera-tion certain things, because his ap-proval is necessary as we look at it,and at the same time, while he hasdefinitely stated these things, we havea definite statement which Mr.Squires has given which we think isnot in accord at this time with thestatement already made by the gov-ernor, and if we can't get togetheron his statement then we are in aposition that is not altogether satis-factory, so with that thought in mindwe have presented the statement asgiven by Mr. Squires.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Suppose

we proceed to a general discussion ofthe problem and see if we haven'tsome common ground upon which wecan stand and work toward that end.I don't think you will find Arizona op-posing any legitimate construction de-velopment of the dam at the earliestmoment possible. Now, as to what theposition of the Arizona delegation willbe, I don't think it ought to be statedbefore the discussion is made. I thinkit is only fair that we discuss the gen-eral situation first and find out if wehaven't some common ground onwhich we can stand. I don't think weought to, in a commisson of this kind,make a final statement. It is true ifwe are going to get together we havegot to have a general discussion of aninformal nature and find out first whatwe have in common. Second, buildfrom that. My opinion is this: I don'tthink that the governor's statement isone which he restricts this committeeto follow, His instructions to thiscommittee are to go ahead and seeif we can't work out some solutionof this problem and present the find-ings of the committee and we haveauthority to negotiate with you onthat basis.

SENATOR SWING: May I inquireon that basis, what I deem now to bequite important, what are we to un-derstand is the authority of this com-mittee of Arizona? How far can yougo in binding the state and disre-garding the governor's statement?

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: I will askMr. McCluskey to answer the questionfor the Arizona delegation.

MR. McCLUSKEY: There is reallyno authority in law for an officialArizona committee. The authoritythat was granted for the negotiationon the compact itself is granted by anact passed in 1921, which authorizesthe appointment of an official nego-tiator for the State of Arizona. Asmatters stand now that law is dead;that is the work for which that lawwas passed has been accomplished.The compact has been negotiated.Resolutions and bills were introducedto create other official negotiationsin the last session of the legislature,none of which became laws. I take


it that this committee is unofficial,that is as far as the law is concerned,but it has been designated by the gov-ernor to try to work out some pro-posal that might be submitted, ormight be agreeable to the other twostates, and that might be submittedto other legislatures or to the peopleof the state as a possible solution ofthe whole question. We are not boundby any instructions whatsoever; weare free to act.

SENATOR SWING: Have you au-thority to enter into a compact on be-half of your state?

MR. McCLUSKEY: No, sir.MR. MADDOCK: May I say this:

The constitution of the State of Ari-zona provides that the governor hasthe authority to handle business be-tween states, to negotiate. We feelthat we are working under that, butwe feel that we have no more au-thority than any other delegationhere; that we cannot bind our stateand neither can any other delegationbind the states; that the only thingthat can bind the states are the re-spective legislatures of the states.We feel that the various states havedifferent ideas. Various legislatureshave certainly shown that they hadvarious ideas, and we proposed if wecould get together some two years ormore after the last time that therewere any delegates together, we mayiron out some of these difficulties orat least understand one another, butwe don't feel we can bind the Stateof Arizona, nor do we feel that you canbind California, nor the Nevada dele-gation bind their state.

SENATOR SWING: The Californiadelegation, of course, has authorityto act.

MR. MADDOCK: Has the legisla-ture of California the right to dele-gate legislative authority to your com-mittee, and have they done so?

SENATOR SWING: Not legislativeauthority. Authority to enter into thisconference.

MR. MADDOCK: And anything youwould agree to would not bind theState of California?

SENATOR SWING: No, would besubject to confirmation.

MR. MADDOCK: We feel the sameway.

SENATOR SWING: Assuming nowthat you are acting under the consti-tutional authority and the governorhas the authority in the matter, thendon't that dignify his remarks here tosuch an extent that we have to ac-cept them as being the position ofArizona, the governor being the per-son, which under your constitution isthe only one authorized to negotiate?He has stated to us the position ofArizona. Assuming he is acting un-der that constitutional authority weare justified in assuming that this isthe position of Arizona, which, tak-ing it a little further, is directly inconflict with the position stated byNevada that they wish to assume.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Well, wetake it for granted, Mr. Swing, thatthe purpose of this conference is todiscuss the fundamental relationshipthat exists on the Colorado Riverlooking toward a solution of the prob-lem where we can make progress. Itake it for granted that this is Gov-ernor Hunt's opinion. He has ap-pointed a committee here to repre-sent Arizona and if we go into a dis-cussion of the details of this prob-lem in a general way we might findsome common ground upon which wemay stand, and it seems the logicalthing to do when we are gathered to-gether here, to begin to discuss themerits and demerits of the variouspositions we have here. There maybe some things upon which we canget together, and if there are I be-lieve the peopl e of our respectivestates expect us to do that. We arehere ready for progress; ready to dosomething. We want to co-operatewith you in every way we can. Youcan justify your position and we canjustify our position, and we can'tget anywhere by stating ultimatums.We don't presume to state we have putIn an ultimatum here. We are anxiousto negotiate with you and to do some-thing for the development and pro-gress of this problem at this time.I think that is our position. It seemsto me there's certain general thingswe can discuss here leading up to


this as we go along and perhaps wecan find a common ground upon whichwe can stand. It may be we are pre-pared to give you people everythingyou want when we know what youwant, and the only way to find thatout is to discuss it and to proceed.I cannot see that the speech made bythe governor is any deterrent to adiscussion of the situation in detail.

SENATOR SWING: We came outhere with the same thought in mind.California's only purpose is to attemptto arrive at an equitable solution ofthis question. California wants noth-ing that is unfair; California wantsnothing that she is not willing to ac-cede to every other state, but we .didnot anticipate when we camethat the supreme power of the Stateof Arizona was going to make a state-ment that is practically—it is almostan ultimatum, gentlemen. I don't seehow you can view it any other way.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Well, wewill concede at first that Arizona hassome equities in the Colorado River,isn't that true? We will all concedeArizona has some equities. We arewilling to concede that California hassome equities and we are willing toconcede that Nevada has some equi-ties. That's our first concession.Now, let us proceed to a determina-tion of what those equities are.

MR. SYPHERS (of Nevada): Gen-tlemen, you will excuse me for stand-ing on my feet while I speak. I wasvery much interested in the very able-way in which Governor Hunt pre-sented what he deems to be the claimsof Arizona. Governor Hunt, being theadministrative authority of the statehas done us the courtesy of appoint-ing a committee to confer with us inthis matter. Yet, his speech, as chiefadministrative authority of the statehas been so emphatic upon somepoints, practically saying that, "comewhat will, certain phases of the ques-tion we are going to take to the su-preme court of the United States ifdecided against us." Then, underthat, he says in the concluding para-graph of his speech: "At this timeArizona is asked to negotiate anddistribute resources from the biggest

asset she has because some other sec-tions of the country assert that theimmediate development of this assetis imperative to their welfare. Weare unprepared to negotiate but ifan adjudication can be worked outthat sounds anywhere near fair andequitable to this state, I shall be veryglad of the same. I stand ready toco-operate with you and to make avail-able any information we possess. Itrust that your labors may prove suc-cessful."

Now,- on the face of it that seemsvery fair, but by some declarationsmade by the governor most emphati-cally we cannot infer anything elsethan that if Arizona does not get thatthe matter is going to be taken intocourt. So far as I can perceive thesituation, we other states are not ina position to yield those things whichthe governor makes imperative, and onthe face of the thing it seems to methat Nevada is not taking any logicalposition, in the light of the governor'sstatement as chief authority of thestate, when we do say we have afoundation on which to negotiate. Ifthis committee is in position to saythat, whether or not Arizona cancarry these matters into the supremecourt that the governor has stated em-phatically must be done, if you areprepared to say that is not so, thenthere might be some profit in dis-cussion, but unless you are preparedto say that, it seems to me it is aloss of time as far as Nevada is con-cerned.

MR. McGREGOR: I was wonderingif you would make progress if youwould point out to us what is so ob-jectionable in the statement madeby the governor.

MR. FINNEY: Is that assuming thatthis is your statement and that youcommend everything here? We oughtnot to be required to point out ob-jections. If you are putting it forwardas a platform, then of course, it isthe subject of discussion

MR. MADDOCK: May I say this—I am only speaking for myself; I can-not speak for any one else:—For my-self, for my conscience and for mycitizenship to the State of Arizona, I


15

am here absolutely independent, andbefore I was appointed I made nopledges, nor was I required any bythe governor. At no time — I amspeaking frankly and openly—have Ibeen asked to state my position. Theonly thing that binds me to any ar-rangement is my conscience and mydesire to help my state, and I thinkthe other members of our committeeare the same way.

SENATOR SWING: What is youranswer to Nevada's position?

MR. MADDOCK: My Answer to Ne-vada would be that the part is notgreater than the whole, and I don'tthink our entire discussion should belimited to one part of a great bigproposition.

SENATOR SWING: I concede that,but assuming now that their positionhas been made clear, is it as wasstated by one of their delegates, worthwhile to take up the rest of the dis-cussion?

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: We be-lieve it is, Mr. Swing.

MR. BORDEN: As I understand it,I think your constitution is similar toours, and we looked into that as faras our own constitution is concernedbefore we came down, and I don'tknow that California is that way, butI think Arizona's is, that the mattersbetween states must be handledthrough their governors and conse-quently this statement comes to usout of rather a clear sky and as moreof an ultimatum, in fact more of anultimatum, I think, than ours was,that there were certain things thatthe governor wouldn't stand for, andregardless of what was done here itcouldn't be carried on in that way;that he would oppose it, and underyour constitution we think that he isthe last line on the subject unless itgoes to the Supreme Court. Conse-quently we felt we should put forth aproposition and find out whether ornot the Boulder or Black Canyon damcan be a method of consideration anda basis by which, if it was construct-ed, then the division and everythingelse could be worked out accordingly.That does not, to our way of think-ing, interfere seriously with suchpower projects that you may have up

the river, but it does vitally interestus, and it interests us all the morein view of your constitutional author-ity making the statement he has madethis morning.

MR. McGREGOR: He hasn't saidanything about the location of anydam.

MR. BORDEN; No, only by infer-ence.

MR. FINNEY: Does Arizona con-sider that Nevada's request conflictswith the statement of the governor?

MR. McCLUEKEY: I don't seewhere it does. I think that the speechof the governor must be taken as awhole and considered as a whole,and that the speech must be predicat-ed on a discussion of the ColoradoRiver Compact as drawn at Santa Fe.He points out what he summarizes asdefects in the compact and objects tothose defects in the compact, andsuggests that those ought to be rem-edied as a basis for any adoption ofthe compact as such, and he lays thebasis or what might be consideredreservations or limitations on the com-pact and discusses in general the re-lationships that exist between thethree states in the lower basin, andtheir relationship to the compact.

Now, if the compact is eliminatedfrom the discussion entirely; consid-ered as a dead proposition, the matterthen becomes a question, I wouldtake it, of what the economic inter-ests of the three states are in thelower basin; what the three states'economic interests may be at BoulderCanyon, if you care to discuss BoulderCanyon. Arizona has an interest atBoulder Canyon equal to any of thethree other states. At least an equalinterest with Nevada. The damsitewould be between those two states;the stream is a border stream there.It might be that .our interets, grant-ing certain qualifications, might beadvanced further at this time by thebuilding of Boulder Canyon Dam, Idon't know. That is a matter forsubject of discussion. It may be thatCalifornia's interests as stated in yourresolution and stated by Mr. Swing,is predicated wholly upon a discus-sion of the proposition and the build-ing at Boulder Canyon.

But, I think, as the governor has


pointed out, that Arizona has otherinterests as well as the interests atBoulder Canyon; interests aboveBoulder Canyon and interests belowBoulder Canyon where the river be-comes a border stream between Cali-fornia and Arizona, and in the con-sideration of an agreement there issomething to be decided betweenCalifornia and Arizona as well as be-tween California and Nevada. I takeit this speech of the governor mustbe taken, as I said as a premise, asdiscussing the compact as written.I concede and I contend, and I thinkthe Arizona delegation concedes andcontends that there is au identity ofinterests in the building of a storagereservoir, flood control, water for it:-rigation, and power, and all threestates have an interest in that beingaccomplished at an early date.

The question of division of thebenefits that might accrue from thatdevelopment, I think is of interest tothe three states. I feel confident thatneither Nevada nor California wouldassert that Arizona would have no in-terest in the dam at Boulder Canyon.I know that Arizona has no such ideain mind. It is certain that Nevadahas interests at Boulder Canyon, Cal-ifornia has interests at Boulder Can-yon. I take it that the governor'sstatement in connection with the ben-efits that would accrue from develop-ment at Boulder Canyon is suggestiveof why Arizona needs some furtheragreement than the Colorado RiverCompact—as a basis—some other bas-is than the Colorado River Compact,to be arrived at before Arizona agreesto the proposition of giving a permitfor the development from our StateWater Commissioner and under ourstate law. And, I take it, when ref-erence was made to the courts thathe answers the arguments or thestatements and the proposals—goingso strong as that—as advanced by, Iwill say representatives, of the statesat interest, in pending legislation, instating that Arizona would resist de-velopment until an ageement wasmade defining her equities.

I see no reason to take it or tostate that the governor's remarks arean ultimatum. I take it he expresseshis viewpoint as to what he thinks

the situation should be. He has stat-ed to this commission or to his dele-gates that they are absolutely free,untrammeled and unbound and I donot believe he knows the sentimentor the beliefs of the delegates thatare on this commission. I know thatI do not know what the views of thisdelegation are on all subjects or whatthis conference might result in. Itmight be satisfactory to the governorand it might not. It might be satis-factory to the governor and not tothe people of the State of Arizona,through its legislature.

The only thing I can say to you asone member of the delegation and amember who does not expect to havevery much to say beyond what I havealready said, that I think we are allprepared to go to work and try towork something out here to find wherethe identity of interests lie and ar-rive at some basis where we can set-tle upon an equitable apportionmentof these benefits.

MR. MADDOCK: I would like toadd a little aside that we have beentwo days trying to find out what ourown opinions arc.

MR. SYPHERS: I am seeking in-formation in regard to some ques-tions I asked. Take on page two - ofthe governor's statement, paragraphthree: "You ask about Arizona?What does she want from the Colo-rado River? I say to you gentlemen,frankly, that at this time all we askfor, if the economic laws are to be setaside and a treaty negotiated, is thatArizona receive protection of herrights including her future develop-ment. If you ask me specificallywhat we want, I reply to you frankly,without any apology, that we do notknow because we have not sufficientdata available to determine what it ispracticable to develop." Now, if thishonorable committee has data to clear-ly define the position or basis onwhich we can negotiate we would hevery glad to know that, but in theface of the governor's statement thatyou haven't, it seems to me it wouldbe rather difficult to get it.

MR. REID: Mr. Chariman, I wantto say this on my own account, thatmy appointment on this committeewas made by Governor Hunt without

COLORADO RIVER CONFERENCE' 17

any restrictions whatsoever. There'sbeen no time since we have been inconference that he has imposed anyrestrictions on us . In fact we havenever discussed this matter withGovernor Hunt : the committee hasnot, and as far as the governor know-ing the ideas of this committee, hedon't know it any more than you do.I think this committee has ideas of itsown as to the way this developmentshould be made. Whether those ideasare in accord with the ideas of yougentlemen we don't know until weget into the discussion of it. I feelcertain that each member of the com-mittee is in the same position I amin. I do not feel that this committeeis bound by any instructions what-soever. I think Governor Hunt'sspeech here this morning was made,as Mr-, McCluskey says, as a whole tothe proposition, without any referenceto details. I do not think there isany question but what we have gotenough information; I think this com-mittee feels we have got enough in-formation to work out an agreementhere to be submitted to the legislat-ors of the State of Arizona or to thepeople to work out a satisfactory de-1, elopment on the Colorado River. 1 be-lieve if you people take the same atti-tude we will get somewhere on it.

If we are coming in here, each mak-ing ultimatums, saying we are goingto have this or are going to have thatbefore we get anywhere, all I can sayon My own part is that my feeling isthat all that Arizona is going to askfor is what is right and fair and just.We are ready to go ahead; ready toproceed with this development justas last as we can get it in shape with-out delay any further than is neces-sary to have these things put inlegal shape, and if the delegationsfrom Nevada and California can takethe same position I think we havegot some common ground to startfrom.

MR. BORDEN: There Is one thingthat has been mentioned that we feelis entirely out of our jurisdiction;that is the Santa Fe Compact. Ourstate, through the legislature and thegovernor has approved the Santa FeCompact, and we can begin from

there and go ahead, but to go back ofit we have no authority.

MR. McGREGOR: Does your statehave any objection to the substitutionof prior protection rather than thecompact?

MR. BORDEN: Our legislature hasanswered that for us.

MR. MADDOCK: Could we saythis: That the Compact has beenbefore the people of the various statesfor more than two years. This statetwice has had the matter up for thesolution of the legislature; the legis-lature has twice refused to solve theproblem. Since California approvedit they have turned it down. TheCompact, having apparently been un-able to be adopted, what we wouldlike to do is to find out what canbe approved.

MR. BORDEN: Our legislature bastaken definite action on that. Thefact is we are not a legislative com-mittee or body such as would haveany authority to go back of their ac-tion.

MR. REID: Then are we to assumethat your authority has been entirelytaken away from you by the action ofthe legislature, and that you camedown here to do one thing, and thatis to have Arizona ratify the Com-pact?

MR. BORDEN: No.MR. REID: What did you c,'- me

down here for?MR. BORDEN: We came down here

with the idea of settling the lowerbasin question if we could all threeget together on it, but you gentlemen,the minute we state the lower basinquestion, consider it as a questionthat is predicated upon the Compact—

MR. REID: Not as far as Arizonais concerned.

MR. BORDEN: No, but it is withus.

MR. REID: Not necessarily. TheCompact has not been ratified. Itisn't legal and isn't binding upon theState of Nevada until the other statesratify it.

MR. BORDEN: We have ratified itand it is binding upon us co that ex-tent.

MR. REID: Not until ratified byall seven states and approved by Con-gress.


MR. SWING: California ratified it.MR. REID: Didn't ratify the six-

states compact?MR. SWING: Yes.MR. REID: Indeed they didn't, not

according to the dope we have; wehave the proceedings.

MR. SWING: We ratified it.MR. REID: With reservations.MR. SWING: Yes; have to be ac-

cepted by all the rest of them.MR. MADDOCK: We think there

is a lot of misconception here simplybecause we are each figuring for ourown states. Some one is carryingthe worst things in each state. Whatwe would like to do is to try to get,at a joint meeting, some suggestion wecan offer to the legislatures of thethree states that will be approved bythem.

MR. SWING: We came here inthat spirit, as I anticipate Nevadadid also, but the minute we come inwe are confronted with an ultimatumalmost, containing things that cer-tainly, from Nevada's standpoint, putsthem out of the running, and I amnot sure but what it does California,and while you say you are not boundby the governor, you are here repre-senting the governor because you arethe governor's committee, appointedunder that constitutional authority,and whatever you may say you arenecessarily, under the law, the gov-ernor's representatives here today,and when the governor speaks henecessarily speaks for you, perhapsnot individually but collectively, butwhen he speaks as he did this morn-ing, as Nevada says, that cuts themout.

MR. REID: 1 am sure he is notspeaking for, this committee.

MR. SWING: Not individually butcollectively. You are his committeeand he is the only authority there is.

MR. REID: That is all right.CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Mr. Mc-

Cluskey would like to ask a question.MR. McCLUSKEY: I would like to

ask a question of Nevada, whereinthe governor's remarks lets them outof the picture.

MR. BORDEN: You are asking aquestion with regard to us that youjust answered California and my an-swer would be the same as yours that

the general policy there is such wedo not understand it exactly; mit behas outlined definitely what he callshis policy. Now, I think you fellowscan better give us an idea of what hispolicy is. As we see it, from thewords that's been read here, I don'tthink it is necessary to repeat them,that we are more or less out of ths pic-ture; in the first place with regardsto the Santa Fe Compact.

MR. McGREGOR: Would you likeus folks to repudiate what the gover-nor says and start from there?

MR. SWING: I don't see how youcan.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Arizonais ready and willing at this time toenter into a negotiation and discus-sion relative to the merits of this sit-uation covering the entire subject andwe would like to proceed with that,-with the hopes that something can beaccomplished for the welfare of thethree states. There's no definite ac-tion taken as yet. Nothing has real-ly happened yet concerning the mer-its of the situation. I can see no ob-jection inasmuch as we are here, togoing ahead and discussing the rela-tive positions of the three states onthis matter in the hope that we canarrive at some conclusion which willbe beneficial to all. I don't thinkArizona is opposed to your wishes. Ithink probably we can work out some-thing here which will be satisfactoryto all concerned, so that you will allget just what you want. Certainly wecan't determine that by refusing todiscuss the problem. We are hereand we are ready to discuss, ready toproceed. We believe we can workout an understanding here which willbe fair and just to all interests. Mr.McCluskey would like to ask Nevadaa question.

MR. McCLIJSKEY: Is it the ideaof the Nevada delegation, based uponthe statement that you were bound bythe compact, that Arizona should berestricted in her developmeui u., theterms of the Colorado River Compact?

MR. BORDEN: We undertook tomake no statement with regard toArizona. We are stating our ownlimitations.

MR. REID: Gentlemen, I makethis suggestion: I think it is about


the noon hour and I think it would bewell to adjourn this meeting untilabout one-thirty or two oclock andthen you gentlemen get together anddiscuss this problem between your-selves. Our position is as the Chair-man stated. We are ready to goahead with this thing. We are readyto enter into negotiations to see whatwe can work out. I don't see any rea-son why the other delegations can'ttake the same position, even thoughit was unofficial. We don't expectthat all the things or acts or agree-ments made here by this conferenceare going to be binding upon thèstates. We feel if you gentlemen en-tered into an agreement here youwould have to refer it back to yourlegislature anyhow, so if we could getsomething we could all agree on andrefer it to these different legislativebodies it seems to me like we wouldbe getting somewhere, rather thantaking Oie position we are only will-ing to negotiate when this is done orsomething else is done. I suggest weadjourn until 1:3G o'clock.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: The sug-gestion is made that we adjourn untiltwo o'clock.

SENATOR SWING: Don't forgetwe are living by a different hour thanyou. Consequently we eat an hourlater and get up an hour later.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: I takeit our time now says twelve thirty.

SENATOR SWING: If the positionis as stated I see no use of furtherdiscussion.

MR. SQUIRES: It seems to theNevada delegation that the whole dis-cussion of the Colorado River prob-lem from our standpoint and prob-ably from the standpoint of the Cali-fornia delegation as well, is based up-on the question of whether or not Ari-zona is prepared to withdraw its op-position, if any it has, to a project atBoulder Canyon, and the details of thatbeing worked out to some extent in away that may be found satisfactory'to Arizona, if they are then preparedto work in favor of such construction.It seems to me from the standpoint ofNevada that is the only point at issue,and if we can assume that there is noobjection on the part of Arizona towhat we consider the essential tea-

tures of this development then itseems to me we can go ahead withother discussion and details and dis-cuss other questions appertaining tothe subject, and I would suggest thatat the close of this recess Arizona,if she may and is able, give us an an-swer on that one particular question.Then we can know whether we areable to proceed with further discus-sion.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Wouldit be all right to adjourn to two o'clockand give us an opportunity at thattime to answer the question?

MR. McCLUSKEY: Let me put aquestion first. Mr. Squires, are we tounderstand that the only discussionor only understanding that is possibleto arrive at here must be predicatedupo,.- the acceptance by Arizona ofthe ( )1orado Compact?

MR. SQUIRES: Not necessarily.SENATOR SWING: I don't under-

stand that that question is involvedin this.

MR, McCLUSKEY: Let us say forthe sake of argument or for the sakeof developing the idea, that develop-ment cannot proceed at Boulder Can-yon without a permit from the Stateof Arizona; let us assume that, andthat as a precedent to obtaining thatpermit Arizona demands further pro-tection than that given to her in theColorado Compact. Let us assumethat Arizona wants to see a dam con-structed immediately at Boulder Can-yon or anywhere, are we to assumethat Nevada and California will notundertake to co-operate with Arizonain trying to find a basis for givingArizona the protection that she thinksshe ought to have, as a basis to thediscussion of a development at Bould-er Canyon? Assuming that the Impe-rial Valley needs flood protection im-mediately, a regulated water supply,and Nevada places her entire stakeor interest in this pot at Boulder Can-yon, Arizona having an interest thereI would like to know if Nevada andCalifornia are willing to discuss somefurther protection for Arizona thanthe Colorado River Compact givesher, precedent to a, discussion of thedevelopment at Boulder Canyon?

MR. FINNEY: In other words youwouldn't be prepared to go on and


further negotiate unless these otherdelegates are prepared to negotiate tochange the terms of the ColoradoRiver Compact?

MR. McCLUSKEY: We would liketo know whether or not Nevada andCalifornia, through their delegationshere, as a basis for negotiations, aregoing to hold Arizona to the termsof the Colorado River Compact?

MR. FINNEY: Wouldn't it be tb,irfor us to ask you whether you will ne-gotiate further unless we are prepar-ed to change the terms of the ColoradoRiver Compact?

SENATOR SWING: I don't thinkthe Colorado River Compact is in-volved in the present discussion.

MR, FINNEY: It has been brought,in.

SENATOR SWING: I don't thinkit is involved.

MR. McCLUSKEY: Then if theColorado River Compact is not in-volved I would say that Nevada andCalifornia have no cause to take anyexception to the statements contain-ed in the governor's speech, inasmuchas his whole speech is predicated up-on the Colorado River Compact beinga portion of this discussion.

SENATOR SWING: You under-stood the question as asked by theNevada delegation? .

MR. McCLUSKEY: I am trying toget a basis wherein we can consideran answer to their question.

MR. McGREGOR: It seems that itis not out of the way for the Nevadadelegation to point out specificallywhat they are objecting to.

SENATOR SWING: Let us ,;es ifwe understand Nevada. As I under-stand Nevada's position is this, theyare prepared to go ahead and negoti.ate with reference to the various mat-ters provided Arizona will agree towithdraw all objections to the con-struction of the dam at or near Boul-der Canyon.

MR. REID: I didn't understand itthat way.

SENATOR SWING: Let's see if Icorrectly stated it, and if you will co-operate in the construction.

MR. MADDOCK: Personally I amperfectly prepared. I think I am pre-pared to enter into any discussion,and in that sum total everything that

Nevada wants at Boulder Canyon issubject to discussion.

SENATOR SWING: That may be,but from their standpoint, as I gettheir remarks, it would be a waste oftime to take up the other matter ifwe are going to break on this even-tually.

MR. MADDOCK: The objection ofthe upper basin states to any con-struction in the lower basin is topreserve their rights. That is whythe compact was entered into. Youcannot do anything in the Colorado inone place without inadvertently do-ing something somewhere else. Allwe would like to do would be to haveall the various phases of the mattersdiscussed openly and frankly.

MR. SYPHERS: Mr. McCluskey,do I understand it to be your position,and I seem to get that idea from yourremarks, that in order for your com-mittee to accede or agree to the con-struction of a dam at Boulder Canyonthat there must be an agreement forfurther protection for Arizona thanthe seven states compact at presentprovides?

MR. McCLUSKEY: I would an-swer that this way: The Arizona leg-islature has twice considered the Col-orado River Compact, for 120 nays,60 days at each session. The Colo-rado River Compact hasn't had achance to receive the approval theArizona legislature as written. Thealmost unanimous sentiment of thelast legislature was to require reser.vations. I think that the overwhelm-ing sentiment of the people of theState of Arizona at this time isagainst the Colorado River Compactwithout reservations being made togive us further protection.

Now, if Nevada puts us in the posi-tion, and California puts us in theposition, of saying to you that we haveto withdraw all objections to BoulderCanyon as a precedent to further dis-cussion here, that simply means thatwe have got to put ourselves in theposition of saying to you that wehave got to accept the Colorado RiverCompact, something we cannot do.

Now, what we thought we might beable to do here is to discuss ouridentity of interests; what our in-


terests were and what your interestswere and what California's interestswere at Boulder Canyon. I think youare all agreed we all have some in-terest there; is that agreed?

MR. SYPHERS: I understand yourposition to be this, that because ofthe history of the Compact before thelegislature you wouldn't like to goback to the legislature and ask thatit be accepted?

MR. McCLUSKEY: I don't thinkthey would do it.

MR. SYPHERS: We are in the sameposition on the other side of the line.The Nevada Legislature has ratifiedthe compact, and while, as you say,we are not bound by it until all haveapproved it, yet our committee wouldfeel rather delicate about going toour legislature and saying "You fel-lows have made a mistake." We arein the same position only on the op-posite side of the line.

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: That isthe reason for the conference, is itnot?

SENATOR SWING: Did I correctlystate Nevada's position, Mr. Squires?

MR. SQUIRES: I think so.CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: We all

understand that position. Suppose weadjourn. Let us adjourn then untiltwo o'clock.

(Whereupon the conference ad-journed until two oclock, Monday af-ternoon, August 17, 1925.)

2 o'clock P. M., August 17, 1925.All parties being present, as here-

tofore noted, the proceedings of theColorado River Conference were re-sumed as follows:

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Are weready to proceed, gentlemen? I haveasked the reporter to give us in writ-ing the question propounded by Mr.Squires just before we adjourned;and we have prepared an answer bythe Arizona delegation. Mr. Squires'question was: "It seems to the Ne-vada delegation that the whole dis-cussion of the Colorado River prob-lem from our standpoint and prob-ably from the standpoint of the Cali-fornia delegation as well, is based up-on the question of whether or not

Arizona is prepared to withdraw itsopposition, if any it has, to a projectat Boulder Canyon, and the details ofthat being worked out to some extentin a way that may be found satisfac-tory to Arizona, if they are then pre-pared to work in favor of such con-struction. It seems to me from thestandpoint of Nevada that is the onlypoint at issue, and if we can assumethat there is no objection on the partof Arizona to what we consider theessential features of this developmentthen it seems to me we can go aheadwith other discussion and details anddiscuss other questions appertainingto the subject, and I would suggestthat at the close of this recess Ari-zona, if she may and is able, give usan answer on that one particular ques-tion. Then we can know whether weare able to proceed with further dis-cussion.-

Arizona offers this in reply: "TheArizona Committee would reply to Mr.Squires that it is ready to negotiatewith reference to the project atBoulder Canyon or any other site, pro-vided the details with reference tothat development can be worked outin a manner satisfactory to Arizona,and in the event we can arrive at anagreement the Arizona Committee isfully prepared to urge co-operation tothe fullest extent in such develop-ment.

MR. SWING: Could we have thatread again, please?

CHAIRMAN VAN DYKE: Yes, Iwill read it. (Typewritten copies ofthe repli were handed to the Ne-vada delegation and to the Californiadelegation.)

MR. SWING: May I make this in-quiry from the Arizona Committee?I just wrote this down hurriedly aminute ago after I came in afterlunch. I think it expresses what wewere trying to arrive at, and I sub-mitted it to Mr. Squires a momentago. I will just read it. I think thisreally expresses the Californiathought, I know on the subject. Itwould have to be in some such form insubstance as this: It is agreed be-tween the various representatives of


the states here assembled that anyagreement entered into shall containin substance a proviso that the Stateof Arizona shall immediately with-draw its opposition to the construc-tion of a dam at Boulder Canyon, ator near Boulder Canyon, a darn in theColorado river at or near Boulder Can-yon, and will urge immediate develop-ment of such project in order thatthe said states and the people jointlymay utilize at the earliest possiblemoment the resources of this greatriver now being wasted. If we canagree on that I think we can pro-ceed.

MR. REID: Mr. Chariman, may Iask Mr. Swing a question?

CHIRMAN VAN DYKE: Yes.MR.: REID: Is that in the form of

an ultimatum to the committee, to theArizona committee, that we mustagree on something like that in or-der to proceed?

SENATOR SWING: Oh no. I triedto express in here what I under-stood was the question we werediscussing just before noon and theform in which some action should i.,etaken.

MR. REID: In other words, youwant us to enter into an agr2ementto do certain things even beforewe discuss it, is that the idea?

SENATOR SWING: No.MR. REID: What is the object c.f

that resolution then?SENATOR SWING: Tt is not in

the nature of a resolution. In fol-lowing up the Nevada representa-tive's statement then of course ifwe are going to go ahead we wantto decide this question and getit out of our way. We dispose of itin this way, that in any agreementthat we may enter into in the futurebetween us here that agreement shallcontain a proviso in substance alongthe lines I have read.

MR. .R.EID: Well, Mr. Swing, youare not in a .position now, nor pre-pared to state at this time justwhat Nevada wants in that agree-ment are you?

SENATOR SWING: No, I am notin a position to state anything in re-

gard to what Nevada wants insofaras Nevada goes.

MR REID: Are you in a positionto state just what California wantsin that agreement?

MR. SWING: Not entirely, no.MR. REID: Is Mr. Squires, for

Nevada?MR. SWING: You will have lo

address that remark to him.MR. REID: Are you, Mr. Squires,

in a position to state definitely whatNevada wants in this particular de-velopment?

MR. SQUIRES: I think so. Ourposition is quite clear, that assum-ing that opposition to the construc-tion of a dam at Boulder Canyonis withdrawn by Arizona—

MR. MADDOCK: (Interrupting)Just a moment. For my particular,personal privilege and benefit, whatobjection has there been on the partof Arizona to the construction ofa dam at Boulder that must be with-drawn?

MR. SQUIRES: I can't say def-initely except it has been generallyunderstood that your governor hadthe dam at Glen Canyon or someother place up the river.

MR. MADDOCK: That is why wethought this morning that we oughtto enter into a general discussion inorder that we could dissipate someof the general misunderstandingswhich were not real misunderstand-ings and don't exist.

SENATOR SWING: Then, if thereis no opposition, why can't we saythere isn't any? Then that is easy.

MR. MADDOCK: We have submit-ted the answer.

MR. SQUIRES: With reservations,however.

MR. REID: The question whichMr. Squires asked this morning ifArizona would withdraw its opposi-tion, if any it had, to the projectat Boulder Canyon, as far as I amconcerned, I never heard that Ari-zona had any objections to a dam atBoulder Canyon.

SENATOR SWING: Then therewould not be any serious objection tosuch an agreement on your part?

MR. REID: Not at all if we had


a clear understanding of what thatdevelopment was going to be. Nv edon't want to agree to do somethinguntil we know how the details of thatis going to work out. You say you arenot in a position to submit at thistime just what California wants inthat.

SENATOR SWING: On that particu-lar 9

MR. REID: On that particular, areyou?SENATOR SWING: I think suffici-ently.

MR. REID: If you will just submitthat we will surely try to work it out.

MR. SWING: You know what theconstruction at Boulder Canyon is.There isn't anybody in this room thatdon't know that.

MR. REID: We don't know whatCalifornia wants out of that. Youhaven't stated; neither has Nevadastated what they want out of it. If youwill state that we are prepared toenter into a discussion of it with you.

SENATOR SWING: Have you everheard of the construction of a damin Boulder Canyon?

MR. REID: Yes.SENATOR SWING: Are you in fa-

vor or opposed to the construction ofa dam in Boulder Canyon?

MR. REID: That depends on thisagreement entirely.

SENATOR SWING: What do youmean by agreement?

MR. REID: What kind of an agree-ment we would come to. Assumingevery detail was worked out to oursatisfaction I would be in favor clit.

SENATOR SWING: That isn't whatthe governor says.

MR. REID: We are not talkingabout what the governor says: we aretrying to negotiate something throughthis committee.

SENATOR SWING: I think youwould have to go back to your prin-cipal.

MR. REID: I don't think we do. Idon't think, I don't believe that needsto enter into this agreement at all.

MR. MADDOCK: Will you allowus to seek our own peace with ourgovernor?

SENATOR SWING: I haven't anyobjection to that. That might be doneby a withdrawal of this statement.

MR. REID: I can't see any necessityfor the governor to withdraw anystatement. If we are going into a par-ley here to come to an agreement, weare going into it with open minds.This committee, is I am sure to tryto work out something for the bene-fit of California, Arizona and Nevada.I am sure Arizona is just as much in-terested in that development as anyof you gentlemen here. I feel we areready and willing to go ahead withit. We want to see it go ahead. Nowyou come in here and say that wehave to agree to something beforeyou work out the details; we have toagree to a contract before we under-stand what the nature of that contractis. You are asking too much. Bemoderate in your request and we willgrant it.

SENATOR SWING: All we ask isthat you withdraw your opopsition.

MR. REID: We haven't offered any.We never had any opposition.

SENATOR SWING: Then if youhadn't any it is easy to agree to thebalance of it.

MR. REID: We can't withdrawsomething that has never been ex-pressed.

SENATOR SWING: It has been ex-pressed.

MR. McCLUSKEY: Mr. Swing,there are discussed in connection withBoulder Canyon a Clark dam, a LosAngeles project, a Southern Califor-nia Edison project, an Arthur P. Davis,the high dam project, a lower damproject and a Kelley project, andBoulder project and Black Canyonproject, all with several differentheights of dams and several differentmethods of financing them and sev-eral different methods of control. Weare particularly interested in the de-tails of affecting those various pro-positions. We have three or four dam-sites in Arizona that one or two ofthose dams propose to flood out. Weare interested in that detail amongmany other details. The proposition ofa general statement—I don't know ofany particular objection in Arizona to

24


development at Boulder Canyon. Theremay be objection to certain develop-ments at Boulder Canyon. That isonly one of the details that must beironed out by a discussion and workedout.

MR. McGREGOR: There is lots ofobjection in California to Boulder Can-.yon also.

MR. REID: May I ask you anotherquestion ? Haven't you some idea onthe part of the California delegationas to the method of controlling theappropriated and flood waters whichmight be stored in any reservoir whichwe would build on the river?

SENATOR SWING: Ask that ques-tion again.

MR. REID: Haven't you some idea,or your committee, of the method ofcontrol which might be used on anyreservoir that might be built in theriver, whether at Boulder Canyon orBlack Canyon or whatever it may be?

SENATOR SWING: I can't answerthat question. In fact I don't think so.

MR. REID You don't think youwould be interested in the control fea-ture of it at all?

SENATOR SWING: I didn't saythat. That isn't what you asked me.

MR. REID: You haven't any definiteplan on it?

SENATOR SWING: We haven't anydefinite plan on it.

MR. FINNEY: Do you mean be-tween private or government control?

MR. REID: I mean a division ofwaters and a control of your normalflows which is appropriated in theState of Arizona and California to-day. It seems to me like there art alot of things to enter into the ques-tion of any construction, not onlyfrom Nevada's viewpoint but fromCalifornia's, that you are just as in-terested in it as we are.

SENATOR SWING: There is onething that Nevada wishes to know, andthat is that the construction of thisdam will be at or near a certain loca-tion.

MR. REID: Let me ask you this inthat connection—

MR. MADDOCK: I don't quite un-derstand our parlimentary procedure.I have never participated in this par-

ticular arrangement, but an orderlyprocedure would be, having replied toNevada that Nevada would tell uswhether or not our reply is satis-factory, and I think we ought to set-tle that before we proceed to the nextstep.

MR. REID: Probably would, but theidea I had in mind was that Mr.Swing's proposal there—

SENATOR SWING: I thought Istated at the time my own thoughtslpon the subject.

MR. REID: I was trying to find outwhether the California delegation wasin a position to accept in its entiretythe proposition that the reservoirmight be built at Boulder Canyonwithout any reservations.

SENATOR SWING: That questionhas not been addressed to us directlyyet. The question now to be answeredis—

MR. REID: We tried to answerthat and if it is satisfactory—

SENATOR SWING: We will waituntil Nevada replies to you.

MR. REID: If it is satisfactory weare ready to proceed. If it isn't satis-factory it may be we can give youa better answer.

MR. MADDOCK: I think if we hadgone on that trip we would breakdown this reserve and get a little bet-ter acquainted and WOUIG not De soscared of one another. It looks like alot of preliminary hours are beingwasted by feeling the other fellow out.

MR. BORDEN: Well, gentlemen, weconsider this an answer in general-ization with reservations similar tothe speech made to us this morning.As far as the governor is concernedwe can see no difference in this andthe general trend of that talk. Butthe meeting was started off layingthose premises and we feel that thisanswer is in that same line, a general-ization without any definite statement as to action except with reserva-tions.

MR. REID: Well, have you gentle-men got any specific proposal thatyou want to make to have us give youa specific answer on in reference tothat development?

MR. BORDEN: A dam at Black of


25,

Boulder Canyon.MR. REED: You have made it two

now instead of one.MR. BORDEN: The Boulder Can-

yon is a long one. The upper end isthe Boulder site and the lower endis the Black Canyon site. They areabout fifty miles apart.

MR. SQUIRES: Twenty miles.MR. REID: Just how do you want

to make that development so we cangive you a specific answer: at whichpoint do you want to .make it andwhat is the height of your darn andwhat do you want to use it for, poweror irrigation or regulation of floodcontrol?

MR. BORDEN: We want to put thedam in there and begin its develop-ment.

MR. REID: For what purpose areyou going to put it in?

MR. BORDEN: Any useful develop-ment we can get in our :tate. Wecan get the same possibly in a dif-ferent manner than you people can,and we are willing to arbitrate thoserights as far as they are concerned;but you have to start with something.You can't start all over the state ofArizona or Nevada and say "now someplace up here we are going to putin a dam." Now what are the rights?We want to cOnfine it to a '.ocationwhich is in the Boulder Canyon, eitherat the upper end at the Boulder Can-yon site or at the lower end wherethe Black Canyon site is. Put in orne-thing. Start with a darn and then be-gin to develop the use of the waters.

MR. REID: You ask us to make youa definite, specific statement wth ref-erence to this development and now Isay on the part of the committee Ithink the committee can answer youjust as definitely if you will give usdefintely just what you want to doand how you want to do it. I don'tthink we could do that until we knowjust what you want the committee todo, whether you want the dam for apower dam, or whether you want thedam for a flood control darn or wheth-er for storage of the normal flow ora combination power dam or what.

MR. BORDEN: All four.MR. REID: Just how do you want

to make that?MR. BORDEN: Any time you get

water up above its normal flow so.you can develop a head you can de-velop all four of them. Suppose it isonly ten feet—

MR. REID: (Interrupting) How doyou want to do that and how do youwant to divide that water storedthere?

SENATOR SWING: Unless we getrid of the first question it is no usediscussing the second one.

MR. REID: If we are going toagree we are going to build a dam weought to know how it is going to bebuilt.

MR. SWING: The latter part Is-how it is going to be built, whetherwith cernent or—

MR. REID: (Interrupting) No, Idon't mean the type of construction. Imean whether it is going to be builtfor a power dam or whether it is go-ing to be built for flood control orwhether it is for a storage reservoiror whether it is going to be a com-bination darn to develop power andstore those waters and how we aregoing to divide the water and thepower.

SENATOR SWING: Well, triequestion is one of construction.

MR. REID: Leave that out.SENATOR SWING: Even the size

of it is a matter for the government;it isn't a matter for our determina-tion, but whatever dam is constructedthere should be constructed immedi-•ately and it should be constructed ator near this point. That is all weare concerned in.

MR. REID: Would you be in favor-

of constructing a darn at Boulder Can--yon which would be a power damalone?

SENATOR SWING: That isn't aquestion for me to determine. Thatisn't a question which this delegationwill have to determine.

MR. REID: I mean would your -

delegation be in favor of that?SENATOR SWING: That isn't a

question that this delegation will haveto determine.

MR. REID: It seems to me you .would have some influence in that.


SENATOR SWING: Whateverdam is constructed Nevada wants itconstructed at once at that point atthe earliest possible opportunity andwe agree on that.

MR. REID: As I understand Ne-vada has two points instead of one.

MR. BORDEN: It is all the same.MR. REID: That is two damsites

you have in mind?MR. SQUIRES: It is all the same.

Perhaps they have made examina-tions at three or four or half a dozendifferent sites in the same generalcanyon, in the same locality with aview of getting the best foundationconditions and ascertaining where isthe most feasible site. It is all thesame thing.

MR. REID: Why, Mr. Squires, yousay—you didn't, but the other gentle-man there did state our answer wasn'tspecific enough. Just in what respectisn't our answer specific enough?

MR. SQUIRES: It says you a.toready to negotiate with regard tothe construction of a dam at BoulderCanyon or some other site.

MR. REID: We have stated we areready to negotiate with regard to theconstruction of a dam on the riveranywhere which might be beneficialto the parties interested. We don'tcare where the place is. If it is foundit is most feasible there I assume wewould all be for it. I don't see any rea-son why we should mot.

MR. MADDOCK May I ask thisquestion, Mr. Swing, suppose the en-gineers of the government that arenow engaged by the government werenot for Boulder Canyon as an initialdevelopment but for some other point,do you think in our acquiescence towithdrawing all objection, which wedo not admit exists, we should alsosay we should do everything we canto overcome present governmental en-gineers' opinions of some other point?We are about in the saine positionas you would if we should ask you,California and Nevada, to withdrawall objections to Diamond Creek siteand immediately you would feel upin the air, I presume.

MR. SWING: No. I don't think wewould be up in the air. We know ex-

actly what we mean. 1 assume youknow pretty well what this other sub-ject means.

MR. REID: We think we do andthat is the reason we want to findout what he wants us to answer spe-cifically.

MR. FINNEY: May I make an inquiryhere? Suppose you define a littlemore definitely the construction andthe manner of building and the con-trol.

MR. REID: That is the point ex-actly.

MR. FINNEY: Just supposing wesay, and perhaps it may be agreeableto Nevada that you should favor theconstruction of a dam ai- or near Boul-der Canyon, that is the way the en-gineers have expressed it, and that isa matter that we, you, nor I can de-termine in this negotiation, but thegeneral location that you would besatisfied to support a darn at or nearBoulder Canyon would confine 25,000,-000 acre feet of water, which wouldbe constructed by government influ-ence, owned and controlled by thegovernment. Would not that be a def-inite proposition?

MR. REID: It would be quite def-inite and I think the committee wouldbe in favor of construction at BoulderCanyon if after we work out the de-tails—

MR. FINNEY: What details? Ne-vada has asked you simply to agreeto that in principle, not as to how wideor thick the walls should be or justwhere the abutment should be placed,but just asking an agreement in prin-ciple.

MR. REID: No, I think not, be-cause an agreement in principle wouldinvolve an agreement in detail, be-cause if we agree to go into anan agreement to build a reservoir atBoulder n_ anyon we might be readyto do that provided we knew how thewater was going to be distributed, andprovided ws knew how the powerwas going to be discributed and thecontrol over that dam.

MR. FINNEY: I suggested a gov-ernment co itrol and that would suggesta manner of working out the divisionof the water, the allocation of the


water and the development of powerand also the division of power.

MR. REID: We could agree wheth-er we wanted government control orwhether we didn't want governmentcontrol.

MR. FINNEY: I have suggestedwhat California really wanted with ref-erence to that when it undertook—

MR. REID: Now, isn't it a factthat the thing that California is inter-etsed in in any construction on theriver up there is flood control; second,regulation of water supply; and third,division of such flood water as thatdam may store; and fourth, the di-vision of the power, or the allocationof the power as it might be developed.Aren't those the things that you areinterested in?

MR. FINNEY: Yes.MR. REID: Now the means that

you arrive at that—MR. FINNEY (interrupting): The

distribution of water would have tobe controlled by a division of thewater in the lower basin.

MR. REID: That is all we ask yougentlemen to do, is to say specifi-cally how you want that done and wewill give you a definite answer.

MR. FINNEY: That can't be doneuntil we dispose of all other questions,like first claim upon the water—

MR. REID (interrupting): That isthe way we feel about it.

MR. FINNEY: But they say youcan't do it unless you are willingto agree, in principle at least, thatthere shall be a dam constructed ator near Boulder Canyon, somethingin the nature we have described.

MR. MADDOCK: One point here:You made the statement the dam atBoulder Canyon of 25,000,000 acre feet.

MR. FINNEY: Yes sir.MR. MADDOCK: As I remember it

the copy I saw of the California billsaid 20,000,000.

MR. FINNEY: Yes, it did. Thatwas my bill.

MR, MADDOCK: You have raisedthe figure five million.

MR. FINNEY: Well, the height ofthe dam, we always concluded is 505feet, I believe. I don't remember th.1exact amount that would be stored,

actually 26,000,000 acre feet, and ifyou allow for evaporation, and to al-low for variation we named 20,000,-000 acre feet. That is the real basisclaimed but we gave the specificmillion feet.

MR. MADDOCK: I was just won-dering about the increase and whetheryou weren't in close accord withyour own legislature which said twen-ty million if I remember it.

MR. REID: I Want to ask Mr.Squires one more question over thereto try to clear up this Boulder Canyonthing. Mr. Squires, on the part of theNevada delegation, isn' it tyou thoughtthat any development made in thecanyon should, whether it is BoulderCanyon or Black Canyon, inure tothe benefit of Nevada to such an ex-tent as you would work out by anagreement with the other three states?

MR. SQUIRES: Oh, yes, certainly.MR. REID: Now, if you could not

get a satisfactory agreement whereyou weren't going to get any ad-vantages out of Boulder Canyon youwould not be very much in favor of it,

would you?MR. SQUIRES: I think we are in

much the same position as Californiais in that rPsnect. The Question hasbeen discussed in its various phasesfor five or six years and the best in-formation seems to be that the way toutilize the river to the greatest ad-vantage of the three scr , thern statesis for construction at Boulder Can-yon.

MR. RETD: Well, you can all saythat might be true. On the other handif you arrive at any agreement as tothe division of water and the powerthat that darn would develop—

MR. SQUIRES (interposing): Wehave not arrived at any agreement asto the d'-'^ion. but we have asked thatas a preliminary to attempt to arriveat such an agreement that you ce'n-cede, at least in principle, that that isthe proper place for the construction,that that is a suitable place.

MR. REID: Would not you insist onthe part of Nevada that a satisfactoryagreement to that effect be negoti-ated before you would enter into an


agreement to build a dam at BoulderCanyon?

MR. SQUIRES: We would cer-tainly insist that we should receivesuch protection and such benefits aswe consider essential before we couldenter into a final agreement.

MR. REID: Just what are those?MR. SQUIRES: Oh, I think that

this matter is simply preliminary tothe discussion of the other problems.If we can arrive now at an - agreementsimilar to what Senator Swing read,why I think then we are in a positionto go on and discuss the various de-tails and phases of the division ofthose benefits.

MR. REID: I think the ArizonaCommision's position is very clearthat we have no objection to a damat Boulder Canyon or any other place,providing you can show us that thatis the feasible place to put it.

MR. SQUIRES: Of course we don'tassume that any proposal you mightmake for a dam there would be thefinal and binding decision of this con-ference necessarily, if the detailscould not be worked out in a mannersatisfactory to California, Arizona andNevada.

MR. REID: Your interests are justthe same as ours in the Boulder Can-yon, aren't they. You have half onyour side and half on the Arizona side.

MR. SQUIRES: Much the same.MR. REID: You would want those

interests protected before you wouldenter into an agreement to allow any-body to build a dam?

MR. SQUIRES: Certainly.MR. REID: All we want to find

out is that—is just what that is, andwe may be with you one hundred percent.

MR. SQUIRES: Having assumedthat that is a proper place to beginthis development, then it seems we areon ground for discussion of theseother details; but, it seems to methat first we should have a clear un-derstanding, expressed in about thewords of Senator Swing, that that isthe general project.

MR. REID: Could you assume this—could you assume that you would

very likely come to an agreement withall parties concerned if it developedthat all those things could be takencare of, and which Arizona wantstaken care of, and which I am prettysure California wants taken care of,could be worked out in detail, thatthen we might all agree on buildinga dam at Boulder Canyon?

MR. SWING: I think that wouldbe a violent assumption in view ofyour Governor's statement here.

MR. MADDOCK: Just what was theGovernor's statement about BoulderCanyon? I have been looking for it,and I do not find it.

MR. SWING: The entire tone ofit.

MR. MADDOCK: But what is thestatement?

MR. SWING: You have the state-ment.

MR. MADDOCK: I can't find it.Will you point it out?

MR. SWING: The only thing wewant—

MR. MADDOCK: If you make itPlain, we will answer you.

MR. SWING: If we enter into anagreement at all, if we come to anagreement, then that the agreement,when reduced to writing, shall con-tain a proviso in substance as I reada moment ago. If we don't enter intoan agreement, we can throw it in thewaste basket.

MR. REID: Why not work outthese details and then do that?

MR. SWING: We came here to dothat, but when I heard this speechthis morning—

MR. REID (interrupting) I want tostate again on the part of the Commit-tee of Arizona that we are ready andwilling and anxious to go ahead withthese negotiations, and work out asatisfactory agreement if one can bereached.

MR. SWING: Perhaps you are. Iam not questioning your sincerity atall.

MR. REID: If you people are notwilling to do that, we are sorry, but wecan't help it.

MR. SWING: If you will agree any


agreement we enter into shall containa provision, a stipulation in substanceas I read, we can go ah ead. Withoutsuch an agreement, I don't see theuse of taking up the discussion of anyother question at all.

MR. REID: What do you mean?We will agree to what, now?

MR. SWING: Do you want me toread it again?

MR. REID: Yes, read it again.MR. SWING: Well, it is in sub-

stance—MR. REID: Make it specific.MR. SWING: Well, I did. Enter In-

to an agreement between the variousrepresentatives of Arizona, Nevadaand California, here assembled, thatany agreement entered into shall con-tain in substance a proviso that theState of Arizona shall immediatelywithdraw its opposition, if any it has,to the construe-don of a dam in theColorado river at or near BoulderCanyon, and will urge the immediatedevelopment of such project in orderthat the said states and the peoplegenerally may utilize at the earliestpossible moment the resources of thisgreat river now being wasted.

MR. REID: Well, I think, Mr.Swing, that you could very well add tothat, and I think we could agree toit, that if any agreement is enteredinto, the objection to any particulardevelopment will be withdrawn uponthe part of Arizona.

MR. SWING: I don't think we wantto ask that.

MR. REID: I think our commtteewould be willing to make that agree-ment by adding that to it.

MR. McGREGOR: I would like toknow if Mr. Swing is asking us to ap-prove the Swing-Johnson Bill, as it isnow?

MR. SWING. I haven't asked anysuch thing; haven't even mentionedit.

MR. MADDOCK: Well, you insist-ed vigorously upon our supportingBoulder Canyon. Supposing that theGovernment should go in at Mohaveor Topock or Needles, whatever youcall it, one place having three names.

MR. SWING: I don't think thatquestion is before us. We are deal-ing with a condition which does notcontemplate such a report, becausethere isn't any.

MR. MADDOCK: Beg your pardon?MR. McGREGOR: I personally have

alwayS assumed that whoever puts upthat money will put it up whereverthey want to, either private capital orgovernment money, or whatever agen-cy puts it up should have the privilegeof selecting the site, as a businessproposition.

MR. SWING: May we confer for amoment? Is this room vacant (indi-cating an ante-room)?

(The California and Nevada delega-tions retire to the ante-room and con-fer for five minutes and return).

MR. SWING: California hasnothing further to add.

MR. SQUIRES: Nevada hasnothing further to add.

MR. REID: So, Mr. Squires, youridea is that our answer in replyingto this question is not definite enough?

MR. SQUIRES: No. Our idea isthat it is not definite; does not accept.the Boulder Canyon project in prin-ciple, and leaves us wth no basis fordiscussion that I can see.

MR. REID: Let us suppose for aminute that we are willing to concedein principle that we were willing tobuild a dam at Boulder Canyon, thenhow would you want the division ofthe profits derived from that darn,either from water or from power?

MR. SQUIRES: I presume thosequestions would be a matter for fur-ther discussion.- MR. REID: If we can agree onthose points, I think we might agreeon Boulder Canyon. I might say formyself personally I think Boulder Can-yon is one of the most feasible sitesupon the river, and perhaps could bequicker developed than any other pro-ject on the river. On the other hand,I would want to know just what wewere going into when we went into it,whether it was Boulder Canyon orsome other damsite. I think you peo-

30


pie are in the same position as we are.If this dam is built up there, you wantto derive some revenue from it.

MR. SQUIRES: We want to derivesome benefits, naturally.

MR. REID: Now you want to de-rive the most benefits possible to getfrom the development that is made?

MR. SQUIRES: All we want iswhat the State is entitled to, and wewant the State to derive that, na-turally.

MR. REID: How is the best wayyou think to get those revenues? Byhaving the Government go in thereand build that dam, and allocating youa certain block of power; or, havingthe State go in there and build thatdam and reserve to itself a certainblock of power and allocate to youa certain block of power? Which isyour thought on that?

MR. SQUIRES: I don't think anyof the states are in a position to go inthere and do that construction.

MR. REID: Well, let us assume fora minute that they could.

MR. SQUIRES: I don't think itwould be a fair assumption at least in-so far as Nevada is concerned.

MR. REID: Then it is your ideathat the government go in there, if thegovernment should go in there andbuild it that you would be allocated a

block of power or allowed to taxthat development a certain amount?

MR. SQUIRES: That, doubtless,

would be a matter for our legislaturesto determine, as to whether theywould tax the development of power

there. It is not for us perhaps to

determine.MR. REID: Then again I will ask

you how would you allocate the

waters which were stored in that res-

ervoir built at Boulder Canyon?MR. SQUIRES: That would be by

such an agreement as might be ar-

rived at by the delegations of the three

states here.MR. REID: Aren't you willing to

go on and thrash out these things in

order to arrive at this agreement?MR. SQUIRES: Not unless the

proposition of the Boulder Canyon

project is generally understood is firstagreed to.

MR. MADDOCK: Mr. Squires, is itthe desire of the Nevada Committeeto negotiate with reference to BoulderCanyon between the two states involv-ed without regard to the rights of theremaining states in the Colorado ba-sin?

MR. SQUIRES: Not at all.MR. SWING: What do you mean

by "remaining states"; all seven?MR. MADDOCK: Yes sir.MR. SQUIRES: So far as this con-

ference is concerned it has to do, Itake it, with the division of benefitsaccruing to the states of the lowerbasin. I don't think—

MR. REID: (interposing) Well, ifwe can agree on the benefits I thinkwe might very well agree on yourdamsite.

MR. SQUIRES: Well, if we canagree on that damsite tentatively, thenwe are in a position to go ahead andnegotiate and see what further we canagree on in the matter of details.

MR. REID: I will say this, Ithink this committee, gentlemen,this Arizona Committee, is absolu'e-ly open-minded in this thing and wedon't want to be technical on any oneparticular point. On the other hand, Idon't think that either one of yougentlemen representing your commit-tees from California or Nevada wantto say that you, pertinent to this in-cident, that you have to build a damat Parker first. You would not wantto go into that kind of an agreement,would you

MR. SQUIRES: I didn't get thatquestion.

MR. REID: I say you would Lot,as representing the Nevada delega-tion, you would not want—supposingyou were to take the position thatyou wanted to build a dam at Parker?rather than Boulder Canyon? Wouldit not be just as tenable for Cali-fornia to take the position or forArizona to take the position thatyou have to build a dam down therefirst?

MR. SWING: I don't believe weare getting any place, and I can't


31

avoid the conclusion that we ar-rived at this morning with the state-ment here issued by the governorand printed and passed around to uscorrectly expresses the sentiment ofArizona. It might not express thesentiment of the individual membersof the committee, yet one ,, ery perti-nent remark which at least seems toexpress the opinion of the chief execu-tive of this state—

MR. MADT2,OCK: (biterposing)Is this the remark about Boulder?I want you to find me the oneabout Boulder.

MR. SWING: I want to completethis. We have a right to assumethis correctly expresses his views,and being a committee appointed ùyhim we must assume to some ex-tent it expresses the views of thecommittee.

MR. REID: You underestimatethis committee, sir.

MR. SWING: Well, you are torepresent the governor.

MR. MADDOCK: We are represent-ing the State of Arizona, sir.

MR. SWING: Well, through thegovernor. When he says: 'we."

MR. FINNEY: What page is that?MR. SWING: "We are satisfied

to permit the Colorado River to re-main a potential asset until wewere ready to utilize the same."That appears to be his attitude andI don't see where we are gettinganywhere with this discussion.

MR. McCLUSKEY: He speaks inthe past tense.

MR SWING: He don't suggestanything else.

MR. McCLUSKEY: He says: "Wewere," which is the past tense.

MR. REID: The object and pur-pose of this committee meeting withthe representatives here was to tryto work out something.

MR. SWING: I know, but the veryfirst question that comes up simplyprolongs the discussion with ar)par-ently no intention to accede to thisrequest, and I don't see where weare getting anywhere, and speakingfor the California Committee, as faras it is concerned, I don't see that

there is any use of us attemptingto proceed any further.

MR. REID: Then it is your idea,even though you came over here totry to work out something, you re-fuse to go into it, to work outa satisfactory agreement?

Mr. SWING: No, we came everhere with open minds, with the intent and with the purpose of at-tempting to arrive at something. Wecame here and we were confrontedthe very first thing with the state-ment of your governor which makesit impossible for us to ever arriveat any place where we can agree onanything, and I think that it is awaste of time to attempt to negotiateany further.

MR. McGREGOR: You want usto sign on the dotted line, do you?

MR. SWING: No, I don't want youto sign anything.

MR. MADDOCK: Is it possiblethat we might make one between twostates; is that possible ?

MR. SWING: I don't believe so.MR. MADDOCK: Does Nevada

feel the same way; if it is notpossible for the three of us to gettogether, do you think it is possibleat this time for us to at least dis-cuss some method between two ofthe states that control possibly thebest water darn sites in the entireriver, as we are all here?

MR. BORDEN: It is very diffi-cult for any two states to settletheir own rights without knowingwhat the rights of the third stateare. We are all too close knit forthat, and it isn't hardly a questionfor two states, any two sL4. tes couldsettle.

MR. MADDOCK: Well, if we havenow come to the parting of theways—

MR. BORDEN: Just before yougo ahead I wish to finish that state-ment. Our plan was we would meeton a common ground for the threesotes, and a common ground for thethree states, literally speaking, isthe Boulder Canyon Dam that wementioned.

MR. REID: We haven't denied


that.MR. FINNEY: You haven't ad-

mitted it.MR. REID: We haven't denied it

providing the details were workedout.

MR. FINNEY: You haven't admit-ted it at all. You have admitted itwith the condition if something elsehappened.

MR. MADDOCK: We admitBoulder Canyon Dam providing itdoes not hurt our own development,providing the government engineerswould approve it and providing anarrangement is made to take careof and utilize power and water whichis developed by it.

MR. FINNEY: May I ask youa question?

MR. REID: Certainly. I wish youwould stay here and ask us a lot ofquestions.

MR. FINNEY: Do you think wewould have a right to divide thepower generated at the Boulder Dambetween these states without con-sultation with the other states?

MR. MADDOCK: I think the up-per basin states can divide the waterin the upper states, and I think thosethings that are wholly within ourstates we can handle, and that thethree states can parley.

MR. FINNEY: You think we candivide the power generated at Bould-er Canyon without consulting any-body else except the government?

MR. MADDOCK: Under the Con-stitution of the United States itprovides that states can executetreaties bewteen themselves, and Ithink if we can agree on somethinghere and get the approVal of theFederal Government that we can ig-nore the upper basin states on thingsthat are entirely within our ownstates.

I want to say this, I want to say itbecause we have got quite a lot ofdifferences of opinions and becausewe are apparently not getting thisironed out. I want to start off withthis: I do not belong to the samepolitical party that the governor ofthis state does; I have never sup-ported him. I make that statement

so that you will probably see that Iam speaking as a citizen and not forany political party. We wanted toget together with you; we wantedto bind you with inseparable bondsof mutual interest; perhaps againstMexico; perhaps against some out-side interest. We wanted the pro-tection that you people are willing togive the upper basin and that is anopportunity for their slow develop-ment. We wanted your help to getthe assent of the federal governMentto the construction in here. We wantyour help in order to get capital to de-velop here our natural resources. Weneed your help. We need your help

_because you people will have to usemore of our resources if they are de-veloped, and we would like to gettogether with you.

Now, I am going to tell you some-thing frankly along political lines.When this compact came up—and thisis only my opinion—the State of Ari-zona would have accepted it by a tento one vote. The opinion changed inthis state and it changed so muchthat in the last political campaignthere wasn't a man running for theoffice of governor that was willing torun on a straight acceptance-of-thepact platform, despite the fact thatsome of them had advocated it forsome time before then. And therewere some men who were out openfor the compact that didn't run be-cause the best advice they could getwas that they could not make it.Another thing, it was proposed in thisstate that they would put over thepact by initiative. The people thatbelieved in it after looking over thisstate became of the opinion that theycould not do it and they ceaed intheir efforts. Now the opinion in thisstate has changed. In my honestopinion the majority of the people idthis state today are against the com-pact unless it is changed to protectArizona. Everything that is beingdone is anticipating that position. Hadyou gentlemen come over here twoyears ago we probably could have set-tled this thing easy, but since thelast two years has elapsed more landhas been farmed; three times as muchland presumably in Arizona than when


they met and made the Santa FeCompact. And another big thing,there is less water now according tothe best engineering advisesthere was at the time of the Santa FeCompact. That means that this ques-tion is getting increasingly hard toanswer. Hatred is being engenderedand we are getting further and fur-ther apart. Now, I want to say this,looking at this frankly, the governorof this state, whether or not you likehis message will be the governor ofthis state for a year and a half. Hehas a constitutional right to call ornot to call our legislature. Thatmeans that if you gentlemen do notagree to negotiate that you are proba-bly up against a year and a half ofdelay. Now, the last legislature thathad this question up voted in thesenate fifteen to four and in, thehouse 31 to 16. This compact or anycompact is a higher law than thelaws passed by the legislature, be-cause it takes on the same force as atreaty. It is absolutely subordinateto the veto of the governor and to theright of the people of this state toimpose a referendum against it, anda referendum might be invoked evenin the event the legislature couldpass something that might satisfy you.And unless something is done andthis matter is settled, you will un-doubtedly find in the State of Arizonaenough people that will inaugurate areferendum. That would mean underour law that you would have to waitanother two years with bitterness anddelay going on, with development go-ing on in the upper basin and theColorado River Compact only inau-gurated because they wanted theirslow development protected and ourinactivity is protecting their slow de-velopment because it is all going onright now. It only takes seven sena-tors according to our constitution toblock any compact or any arrange-ment with you. I am just looking atthis thing practically from your stand-point, trying to get this over in theState of Arizona. Seven senators canblock it; sixteen members of theHouse can block it. If the next gov-ernor of this state happens to be of

the same mind it only takes five sen-ators and twelve members of theHouse to block it. Everything heremeans delay. The whole thing ispointing to delay. The first sugges-tion was one of unit rule and we ac-quiesced in it. We haven't had anysecret caucuses but that is all right.

Now, here is one point, I want tosay to you, we believe we can giveyou everything that you want or needin both California and Nevada, butwe are not willing to do this: We arenot willing to let the sheep of floodprotection cover up the wolf of powerand water greed. (Applause.) We willnot allow you to get away with ourresources just simply because youneed protection. We want to give youthat protection. We would be glad to.We would be glad to help you in anyway to get the Imperial Valley awayfrom the menace of the Mexican con-trol. We are glad to help you thatway and if the people of this statefeel that way I will tell you that ourrepresentatives and senators will bethat way or we will change them.(Applause.) Now then, I want to sayone thing and just this in closing, ifthis delay that I prophesy does occur,and if finally you do start something,but the engineering estimate is fromten to twenty years, you run upagainst the inevitable breaking of theColorado River back into the ImperialValley. If this two or three years'delay, added to the construction per-iod, so delays that you get a big floodthere and forever drowns out yourvalley, I say to you gentlemen thatthe blood of that valley is upon yourown heads. (Applause.)

MR. SWING: I take it from theapplause and so forth—

MR. SWING: It would not hardlybe proper for us to make any politicalspeeches today, but I want to saythis: We did come here with thehope of accomplishing something. Wehave realized for some time past thatArizona has been the blocking stonein the development of the ColoradoRiver. We feel that the developmentof the State of Arizona is of as muchimportance in the state of Californiaas to the people of Arizona them-


selves, and that is one of the reasonswhy we were willing to leave ourhomes and our business to come hereat our own expense to meet and at-tempt to accomplish something. Wedid know in advance that your gov-ernor was not in favor—that is weknew it by past acts. We were toldhowever by the press reports and bya letter through Governor Richardsonas I recall it that the governor hadkept entirely out, that he had appoint-ed a disinterested committee to meetwith us to try and solve these prob-lems, and yet when we arrive herethe first thing we are confronted withis what appears to be an ultimatumby the only authority in the statethat has any authority to act in thismatter. It is true you gentlemen sayyou are not bound by the governornor by his statements, but how canyou say that in view of the fact thatyou. turn right around and in the nextbreath say that he is the only onethat can negotiate in behalf of thisstate. I don't know; I don't see howyour two positions are consistent. Ifyou are right in that the governor isthe only one that can negotiate onbehalf of the state, then it must bethat your governor has the right tostate the conditions under which hewill negotiate, and when he statesthose conditions certainly the com-mittee which he appoints must atleast give them consideration and tosome extent be bound by them. Thefirst question that came up was onepropounded by Nevada and it seemedto us that it was only a fair question,that if we did arrive at a con-clusion and agree on the developmentand distribution of the waters andthe rights of the various people thenthat the opposition, if any, you have,—I don't know that you have any—butany opposition that you may havewould be withdrawn to the immediatedevelopment, because this immediatedevelopment is what we are concern-ed in. You know, of course you know,because it is common knowledge, thatthe thing, one of the principle thingsthat has prevented the governmentfrom taking action is the fact that thecompact has not been ratified by Ah-

zona. We don't ask you to ratify thecompact. That is not what we aredoing. We are not asking you to tieto any particular plan; but there wasone thing that Nevada insisted upon—and that we could not agree upon.So as long as that is true, we just aswell quit good friends, without get-ting into a further discussion whicamight, perhaps, the longer we discumbthese things, sometimes like theweather they don't cool off any; andwhile the weather is still at leastpleasant, I think it is a good time toterminate further negotiations.

MR. McCLUSKEY: What I wantto say, what I wanted to do was toask you three or four simple ques-tions.

MR. SWING: Do you want to askthem now?

MR. McCLUSKEY: I don't want to.interrupt your speech.

MR. SWING: I wasn't making aspeech. I knew better after Mr. Mad-dock getting all the applause he did.When I make a speech I like to havesome appause too. (Applause.)

MR. SWING: It is with sincereregret, I want you all to know it, itis with sincere regret that we feelconfronted with this proposition; buthonest, fellows, I don't see where, inview of the situation, as it now con-fronts us, I don't see where a further -

discussion of the other matters thatare involved would get us any place.

MR. McCLUSKEY: Mr. Swing,you say you want "immediate devel-opment." Indirectly what you wantfrom that immediate development isfirst flood control? Is that right?

MR. SWING: Well, one follows theother. What we want, what we areafter is this: to utilize this now wast-ed energy, whatever way you area mind to put it, we want to utilizeit and not allow it to go to waste.

MR. McCLIJSKEY: We are agreedon that. What you want first is floodcontrol.

MR. SWING: What do you mean,"first?"

MR. McCLUSKEY: The four ques-tions I have in mind.

MR. SWING: I can't answer mataffirmatively, if that is what you want


35

me to do.MR. McCLUSKEY: A.ssume that

the order in which the questions areasked having no bearing as to theirrelative importance.

MR. SWING: We wish flood con-trol.

MR. McCLUSKEY: You wish regu-lated flow of the water for irrigation?

MR. SWING: That follows, yes.MR. McCLUSKEY: You wish

power.MR. SWING: We wish storage.MR. McCLUSKEY: You wish stor-

age to insure the regulated flow ofthe water for Irrigation. You wishpower?

MR. SWING: Power is an incidentthat this committee, speaking for Cal-ifornia, has not any authority to actupon. I think that is purely govern-mental. .

MR. McCLUSKEY: Assuming agreat many arguments placed on therecord in the Swing-Johnson bill hèar-ings from California are correct, thatLos Angeles says she is in the marketfor power, and needs power urgentlyat the present time, and needed itparticularly last year.

MR. SWING: Perhaps, but we arenot representing Los Angeles. Weare representing the state of Cali-fornia.

MR. McCLUSKEY: A portion ofCalifornia needs power, and wantspower from the Colorado river.

MR. SWING: I presume they couldutilize it.

MR. McCLUSKEY: Assuming Cali-fornia wants flood protection, regula-tion of the flow of the river for irri-gation, and for bringing in more lands;for taking water over into the Coastalplanes, and that power for Los An-geles—if the State of Arizona is will-ing to negotiate and give you all thatyou are asking for on that basis, whatparticular concern is it of Californigwhether or not the dam and the damsthat give them are to be located atany given point?

MR. SWING: That is not particular—your question there involves thingsthat—a condition that don't exist. Youbase it on a hypothesis that does notexist because the minute you do that

you ignore your Governor's statement.Necessarily you do, because it is im-possible to negotiate on the basis setont in the Governor's statement, aridthat is what we have to look at.

MR. McCLUSKEY: That is an eva-sion.

MR. SWING: It has never beenwithdrawn.

MR. McCLUSKEY: I cited you ahypothetical question.

MR. MADDOCK: We are not thegovernor. I tried to be.

MR. 3/1cCLUSKEY: I cited you anhypothetical condition: if we are ableto negotiate an agreement with thepeople of California that the peopleof Arizona will accept,— why shouldyou make the basis of us giving youthat precendent to giving it to youfrom a certain designated point.

MR. SWING: That came from Ne-vada.

MR. McCLUSKEY: I am talking toCalifornia now.

MR. SWING: We joined in witnNevada because that is the mostpractical place for development ofthe Colorado river.

MR. McCLUSKEY: Assuming forthe sake of this discussion we mightbe able to get together with Nevada—

MR. SWING: Let us get back to theprior question. It was put to you ina very few words and you understoodit because you had it typewritten, andyou came back and evaded the ques-tion. The only efect that can Mireis a political effect, and we don't careto be a party to your politicaltroublés out here, and I am not goingto become involved in them.

MR. McCLUSKEY: This is notpolitical in any way whatever; it isjust an attempt to try to get in con-tact with your minds, and see whatyou are after, to see what you arethinking. What I am trying to get atis what line of march you are travel-ing on.

MR. SWING: We are not travelingalong the lines outlined by the Gov-ernor.

MR. McCLUSKEY: We want to seewherein you differ with him.

MR. SWING: I am satisfied thereis no use of it, Mr. McCluskey; and I


think you are too. I think you realizeyourself, as we realized the minutewe heard that speech that our cakewas dough.

MR. MADDOCK: I am still of tneopinion that if that invitation of Mr.Reid's was adopted and we had goneout and seen our development andgiven you a picture of what we havedone, we would have gotten betteracquainted and we would have hadless fencing.

MR. SWING: Perhaps we made amistake in not taking that ride.

MR. REID: I will renew that invita-tion and give you an opportunity tostill have that ride. We will be gladto have you.

MR. MADDOCK: And without obli-gating you to any further negotiation.

MR. FINNEY: (Addressing Mr.McCluskey) Do you have a site on theColorado river?

MR. McCLUSKEY: I have no par-ticular site on the Colorado river. Idon't know. I want to leave that tothe engineers.

MR. FINNEY: They have beenstudying it for twenty-five or fiftyyears.

MR. MADDOCK: And they don'tagree on it yet.

MR. McCLI7SKEY: Some of the en-gineers.

MR. SWING: There is quite a num-ber of us that would like to take thattrip.

MR. REID: I will say this: that wewill renew that Invitation and be gladto have all of you gentlemen go WI,Lilus, and take the trip, and adjournthis meeting until we get back, andthen break—and then if you want tobreak it up in a row, all right.

MR. SWING: We don't want tobreak it up in a row. There isn't anyway you can get any row with Cali-fornia.

MR. REID: As I say it looks to melike if you people are open-minded inthis matter, and you want to be op'en-minded in this matter, that we havesome common grounds to get togetheron and work out an agreement. Ofcourse, if you people don't wb.nt toand refuse to enter into negotiations,as I stated before, we are very sorry.I just want to say one more thingbefore you gentlemen leave. I see someof you going—and that is this that ifyou care to accept that invitation, wewould be very glad indeed, and I saythis without any reservations, to takeyou over this trip and show you ourdevelopment here, and as I say, ifyou care to, we would be glad to ad-journ this meeting until you get back;and if you want to come in again, andendeavor to work out some amicableagreement of this thing, or some set-tlement of this thing, we would beglad to stay in here as long as yougentlemen want us to. All of themembers of this Committee are verybusy men. I am myself, but we arewilling to give our time, and whatability we have in order to try towork out this problem. The only thingwe ask is that we get the co-operationof California and Nevada, and if wecan get that we can work it out. Ifwe cannot get it we can't go very fartowards working it out.

MR. FINNEY: Some of our commit-tee cannot accept, and some can ac-cept your invitation.

MR. REID: We would be glad toknow the number who can accept andwould like to make the trip.

4v tt - uair.library.arizona.eduuair.library.arizona.edu/system/files/usain/... · th tt n th bn th...

Documents