The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1951-01-26
SB9 QUESTIONS !yNANSWE'

SbS QUESlIUNS yNANSME :
The speed with which Senate Bill (the Washng ) ter
PowerCabinet Gorge bll) was driven through bot Uses
last Friday Saturday, in the days
legislators question whether such hasy action advisable
Amendments placed on the bill in the senate purporng to
protect possible of Clark Fork irrigation
and domestic purposes the time satisfied the fears of
Since then deeper deving into decisions which have
upheld of beneficial purposes granting
right to such water has raised the question whether there
substance worth in the senate amendments designed
to protect Montana water Tor Montana people, Such prior
rights recognized Montana Research reveals that Idaho
has similar laws The water will be used in Idaho.
Thus many wondering to what extent potential rga-
ton developments in the future for thousands of
the Clark Fork drainage of will be
jeopardized should SD 9 become law
Also, wondering if it would not have been
in the interest the people of Montana had the legislature first
set machinery IN actoh TO estao compact with daho as TO
division of tax from the dam oneha mile in
Idaho, SB would permit nundaton of the Clark Fork
valley up to a distance of 25 miles within Montana)
dahos legislature is in session related bill see box at
right whp through the lower chamber of that legislature
eco as quickly as S went through ours With both egis
laures in session. and with such speedy machinery readily
available could there have been joint examination of both
states interests leading compact? Was the brand of
grease" used in Idaho as here?
Further a dam sites between
line and Kerr Dam Poison Are there possibilities
that development of these sites be jeopardzed? SB
although attempting protect Montanas future rights
for irrigation and domestic makes mention of potential
upstream power development)
ARE THERE OTHER MOTIVES?
passage 9, another important point would
exhaustive investigation has been beatedy brought
light lengthy article in the New York Times of Sunday
January IA Financial column siX) This article
completely up the the result of Washington
Supreme decision This decision upheld the
dy Washington legislative statute empowering two
PUBS pubic utility dstricts) buy out private
utility in that Closely connected with this the article
the information that the American Power Light
dispose Washington Power Company under spula
tons of the "holding company act
Continuing, the TIMES notes that the PUBS interested
buying Washington Water Power, position to fl
nance banking house
is toying with purchasing WWP from American
Power & Light
NO MENTION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
the proposed in Cabinet Gorge mention is
of it's being Immediately needed for the nations defense
put forth in both the Montana Senate House
the principal SB had to be enacted before February
of all this ag-wavng the following quote from
the TIMES provide interesting trains of thought:
"They he financial experts also the construction
the Cabinet Gorge nducement for the Public
Utility Districts hurry and bid the Washington Water and
Power property before the price is hiked'"
attempt paper" property pur-
nothing federal license and the quickly
ed patriotism of Montana legislators?
Or do the implications reach much further? i
Until know the to these and other questions
anyone fairly evauae the effect of this legislation
upon Montana's interests? i
Finay-and possibly the important point of all i
SD becomes law in the future before
nit again be sampeded legislation
all pertaining to development would it
undertake thorough exhaustive nvestga
all possible legal engineering and financial angles?
Another time such haste might find actually giving away
III