Page images
PDF
EPUB

I can not understand how anyone can fail to see that the Santa Fe compact in protecting the upper basin against the danger of the quick development in California increased and transferred this danger to Arizona. Arizona is for development and improvement. Nature has given this State neither in agriculture or mining small units of natural resources easily developed. Our problems are large, and I think you will find our viewpoint large accordingly. I think you will find no one in Arizona opposing the All-American Canal, unless you try to make Arizona's resources instead of the National Treasury pay for it.

We are opposed to the Santa Fe compact and the Swing-Johnson bill because they hurt Arizona, just as the other States are against certain actions in the Colorado River which they feel would be harmful to them. Santa Fe is not Sinai. The compact is nothing but a contract between interested parties. It is not devine. No other State has shown any altruism in this transaction, but Arizona alone has not posed as being benevolent. We admit that this is a business proposition; that each State is fighting for its future. We have been anxious for two years to arbitrate and do not want you to disarm us until the treaty of peace is signed. Part of the fight is over. The upper basin won at Santa Fe all of the water she can ever use. Naturally they would like to close the deal. They are politically strong enough to keep what they have won. They may even ask for a new conference to fix a few matters they overlooked in the last one.

Personally I do not begrudge them the use of their own water on their own soil. They are entitled to an opportunity to grow. Distribution of wealth and population among all the States will make a far better country than concentration in a few districts. If Congress should make Los Angeles the only port of entry for foreign commerce on our Pacific coast, the resultant boom would put buildings on every one of the extensive subdivided lots of that city; but would it be fair to the other coast cities? Is it logical for Congress to inaugurate a program that will pump Colorado water 1,500 feet to irrigate land outside of the Colorado Basin in the vicinity of Los Angeles, while there are nearly 1,000,000 acres of land in Arizona that can be irrigated with one-sixth of that water pumping lift?

There is no question there or here of drinking water for a thirsty people. Testimony at the congressional hearings showed there was enough water in the Owens and Mono Valleys to supply 100 gallons per day to 10,000,000 people in Los Angeles. They are now asking for 2,000 second-feet out of the Colorado. This amount would provide a daily supply for 13,000,000 more people. If you are going to begin now to plan for drinking water for Los Angeles after population becomes 23,000,000, would it not be advisable for some one to worry about getting water onto Arizona land in order to raise food for this population ?

Southern California can get everything that she needs from Arizona in exchange for a definite allotment of water to us. There will be two or two and one-half million acres of land irrigated in the lower basin in the United States. Approximately half of this is in California. Once reservoirs are constructed most of this California land can be irrigated cheaper than the bulk of the land in Arizona, and it can be more readily financed, as California has the advantage of population and wealth in her favor. We want the opportunity to develop the second million acres in this State. We have the land and know we can irrigate it. Should we fail, a succeeding generation in Arizona can relinquish our right to the unused water. No State controlled by American people will ever hold what it can not use against the needs of a sister Commonwealth. If you pass the Swing-Johnson bill before the water is divided, you compel our power resources to pay for California irrigation, and when our own irrigation projects come they must pay their own way. Should they be pumping projects and use electrical power, part of the Arizona farmers' power bill must go to subsidize the California farmers' irrigation project.

We have heard that the Federal Government is desirous of getting rid of their merchant marine and of the Muscle Shoal power project; that they wish the States to assume more of the responsibilities of government; that you would like for us to build our own roads; build our own reclamation projects; drain our own swamps; collect our own inheritance tax; and even enforce prohibition. Why should the Government go into the power business in the Southwest, after failing in the Southeast, by making an appropriation of money that we do not need? Are the taxpayers now satisfied, or do they want the Federal Government in the Colorado to follow its course in the Tennessee? The Southwest can finance its own Colorado River development, just as Congress can, by bonds to be repaid by Southwest power consumers. We do not need the Federal Government for a collection agency.

If you will definitely kill the Swing-Johnson bill early in December, the lower basin States can quickly get together on a supplemental agreement to the Santa Fe compact. There is no individual or group in Arizona to blame for the failure of the last conference between the lower basin States.

Had California's representatives been sincere in their statement that there was no hope in the attitude of our governor, then they could have readily conferred with a waiting Arizona legislative committee and put up so fair a proposition that they could have appealed to our people over the head of our chief executive. The fact that a senatorial committee was due here early in November precluded a tri-State agreement in August. California would be foolish to trade with Arizona if she can get what she wants from Congress for nothing. She knows that if the States agree on a construction program that a Federal appropriation is not necessary. We are both playing a game, with the future on the stakes. Arizona is risking some slight possible damage in the vicinity of Yuma, but California is gambling that a flood like that of 1884 will not drown out her whole Imperial Valley before flood protection is finally secured. The levee systems may take care of the water and silt for 15 years if the floods are limited to 200,000 second-feet, but what will they do with a 350,000 or 400,000 second-fleet flood ?

We are approaching a wet portion of our cycle in rainfall. Two years have been wasted already in talk. It is possible that a quickly built dam at Topoc is the only thing that can save the Imperial Valley from the next big flood.

72578—25—PT 3– -8

а

I am opposed to a high dam at Boulder because it is poor engineering to spend $2 for what you can get for $1, and to waste good material in doing so, such as 260,000 horsepower and 680,000 acre-feet of water per annum. A series of dams built after the completion of one at Glen Canyon would need approximately one-third of the spillway capacity that they would require if built from Boulder Canyon up the river

Cutting off the silt above will tend to deepen the river channel and thus reduce the depth to rock foundation. Control of the floods above will greatly reduce the cost of taking care of the river while lower dams are being built. These items will much more than offset the additional cost of immediate interest necessary to pay on the additional cost of a dam at Glen Canyon, and the longer transmission lines to where the power is to be used. I think that it is poor engineering to experiment on so vital a matter as a dam to be two or three times as high as any existing structures when it is possible to proceed with a program that conforms to standard practice. But mainly I am opposed to the Swing-Johnson Boulder Canyon Dam because it constitutes an indirect and unfair division of the Colorado River as between Arizona and California. Even if we are protected by a treaty with Mexico, Arizona would be hurt by the Boulder Canyon Dam or any dam built before a division of the water is made. I am not only opposed to the Boulder Canyon Dam, but I am opposed to even throwing a pebble in the stream if it is going to hold back that stream and permit Mexico to get the water.

Any flood-control dam will result in the quick irrigation of approximately 1,000,000 acres in California as against some 260,000 acres in Arizona, of which some 110,000 acres would be economically outside of Arizona, in an Indian reservation. A flood-control dam would therefore constitute an immediate division of the Colorado waters in which California would secure seven times as much as Arizona. The increased wealth and population going to California with this new land would increase our difficulty of competing with that State for the remainder of the water.

I have no responsibilities of office and not a great deal of timidity, for I am going to suggest a possible solution, in view of the fact that several Senators have suggested that Arizona's position was merely negative.

À fair division is possible. No man can guarantee what a State will do, but I feel sure Arizona would accept the following agreement with California and Nevada :

1. Notify Mexico that the United States will use all of the water of the Colorado River developed by the storage within the United States. This would not prohibit the treaty making branch of our Government negotiating a treaty with Mexico which will give that nation out of the normal flow of the river the water to which she is morally entitled.

2. Reserve the tributaries of the Colorado River located in Arizona, California, and Nevada to these respective States. Then there is more land than water to irrigate the valley's tributaries in the lower basin. They are therefore entitled to it. They should not be exposed to litigation or anything which will hinder the sale of bonds and thus add expense to these local projects.

3. Allot Nevada whatever reasonable amount of the water of the main Colorado River that she can use. Divide the remainder, received at Lees Ferry, equally between Arizona and California, permitting each State to decide the location of its water diversion. This would merely recognize that the water which arrives at Lees Ferry is surplus which can not be used in the valleys of the upper basin in which it originates. If this excess water is thus equally divided, California would get all she can use immediately and Arizona's future would be secure.

4. Reserve to Arizona the right to control and secure revenue from hydroelectric development located entirely within Arizona, and to possess an equal authority in such matters with other States where the river forms the boundary. This would only give to Arizona the right now possessed by every other State in the Union, and I would like to call your attention to the fact that New York is exporting power now; and just the other day the State of Maine repealed a constitutional amendment that prohibited their exporting of power and it has enabled them to develop the Bay of Fundy project.

5. Encourage every private or public development at any site on the Colorado River that will not interfere with some more important location.

Now, gentlemen, you are the judges and you are seeking advice. There are 6,000,000 acres now irrigated in California. Arizona does not possess one-tenth that amount. Eventually California will be able to put from twelve to eighteen million acres under irrigation. Arizona will never be able to possess one-fifth this many. The water in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers alone in California's great central valley amount to twice that of the Colorado River. The maximum power development of California will some day be 9,000,000 horsepower.

You gentlemen are not seeking to divide that with any other State. Arizona's maximum amount, including the Colorado, will never be over two-thirds this amount. Should Arizona agree to equally divide the water of the Colorado with California, under these circumstances what more can be asked ? Should Congress, by passing the Swing-Johnson bill, nationalize the Colorado and give our great resource to California, you will not have settled this question. Lincoln said, “No question is settled until settled right," and it is not for any State to be forced to surrender its present resources or future opportunities. If Arizona does not consent to such action, some day when a larger and more powerfully political State is involved their resistance will be successful and Arizona will secure restitution on the precedent established by that large and politically powerful State. In the meantime, however, Congress will be a governing body that followed the old, unfair injunction, "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."

The CHAIRMAN. For the record, Mr. Maddock, will you give your full name and address?

Mr. MADDOCK. Thomas Maddock, engineer, Phoenix. The CHAIRMAN. What experience have you had? Mr. MADDOCK. About 25 years, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Are you connected with the State of Arizona in an official capacity!

Mr. MADDOCK. No, sir. I have been. I am not now.

Senator PITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the record, Mr. Maddock in his most interesting paper made one error. He stated that the committee was authorized by the Senate to investigate the Swing-Johnson bill. The committee has power to investigate all of the propositions embraced in the Swing-Johnson bill, and many of those propositions have been presented during the trip, and some were presented to-day by Mr. Maddock. But the authority of the committee was to come out here and make a complete study of the Colorado River Basin, and the problems affecting the basin, with relation to the Colorado River development.

Mr. MADDOCK. I am glad to hear that, Senator, because all we want is a complete investigation. But I didn't know what the authority from Congress was. I didn't know that I was basing

. my information upon what I saw in the Los Angeles papers, which indicated that the Swing-Johnson bill was the subject of investigation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fred P. Colter. Now, Mr. Colter, you are allowed five minutes under the program.

STATEMENT OF FRED T. COLTER, STOCKMAN, SPRINGERVILLE,

APACHE COUNTY, ARIZ.

Mr. COLTER. Mr. Chairman and United States Senators, I would like to impress upon you that there is a group of patriotic, selfsacrificing citizens in the State of Arizona, especially for the last three years, that have been donating their time and money in an endeavor to try and solve this Colorado River situation. Naturally, the compact came as a surprise, due to the fact that it upset all of the tested reclamation laws that had been going through almost centuries of legal procedure, winding up with the WyomingColorado decision that provided an easy and a quick course, to divide the waters of any stream, and the most equitable course. With two or three hundred thousand filings on the Colorado River, in the Colorado River system; with vested rights, if you please, used rights, if you please, how could any committee, any legislature, any body of men, dare to pass upon the division of water with all those conditions existing? The courts are the only avenues created under our Constitution that could possibly mete out even-handed justice to vested rights and to used rights. And that is undebatable. Then, when it comes to a question of future rights, God only knows who can divide future rights. A court would not attempt such a thing. Courts will sit in little communities for as long as 15 years sometimes in order to obtain facts enough by sworn testimony to enable them to equitably divide not future rights but present rightspresent rights, if you please, and vested rights. And how could a legislature or any committee divide the water of this mighty Colorado River, with all of these vested rights attached to it, when courts are compelled to sit as long as they do in order to determine what is a just and equitable division.

So, when this compact came up, which disturbed those natural laws, and very satisfactory laws-the most satisfactory laws that were ever put on a statute book—these men were greatly alarmed. Not only that, but when they looked into this little compact, no

« PreviousContinue »