Page images
PDF
EPUB

SHEEP INDUSTRY IN NORTHERN ARIZONA

The sheep counties are Yavapai, Coconino, Navajo, Apache, and Mohave.

The number of sheep-1,150,000, of which 300,000 are on Indian reservations and under the control of the United States Government.

Average clip per head is about 7 pounds,' making the annual clip 7,000,000 pounds. This, at the present value of wool, totals $3,000,000 per annum.

Arizona wools are of the Merino type, very light-shrinking and clean and very desirable as clothing wools.

Arizona wools are the earliest shorn in the country and arrive first on the market, commanding a very high price. Practically all of the Arizona wool is shipped to Boston.

Arizona ships annually to the large stockyards and to outside farms and feeding lots about 400,000 lambs. At present these lambs will average about $8 per head, making the worth of the lamb production $3,000,000.

Arizona also sells annually about 100,000 old ewes for lambing and fatten. ing. These ewes go to pastures and this year averaged $7 per head, making the returns from this source about $700,000.

Arizona has a considerable number of goats. This year Arizona shipped about 750,000 pounds of mohair, of the value of $375.000.

From the sale of chevon (goat meat), pelts, etc., Arizona received $125,000, making returns from the goat industry $500,000.

The totals are as follows: Wool.-

$3,000,000 Lambs

3, 000, 000 Old ewes..

700, 000 Mohair industry-

500,000

7, 200, 000

Annual value of shipments..
The industries represent investments as follows:
Sheep---
Lands, improvements, reservoirs..
Goat industry--

$10,000, 000 15, 000, 000 1, 500, 000

Totąl.--

26, 500, 000

As all of the wool, mohair, and practically all of the lambs are shipped out of Arizona, very large sums are paid for freight and transportation. The railroad rates are very high and the industry provides a very profitable business for the railroads. The old ewes and the lambs are sent to the northwest and the middlewest for feeding purposes, also provide profitable returns to the farmer as he can use large quantities of surplus food for this purpose. Large acreages of State selected lands are leased to the sheepmen at a good rental, bringing to the State considerable revenue that is used principally for the maintenance of our educational institutions and our county roads and State highways. Sheep are also of benefit to the national forest, not only from the financial return but by keeping the underbrush down and grazing out the rank growth of weeds, thereby greatly reducing the fire hazards. The fertility and prosperity of our ranges can only be fully maintained by the continual grazing of sheep.

The Southwest is peculiarly adapted to the sheep industry. The environment, climate, and general conditions are all suitable and this industry brings greater returns and volume of business to the banker and merchant, to the city and to the State than any other branch of the livestock industry. Summing up the situation as it affects the Sheep industry-with the advent of cheap power, developed from the Colorado River or any other potential force, the introduction of scouring plants and building of mills for woolen and other textile products could be built in the Southwest providing a home market for the raw materials of the great Southwest.

As a result of this Yavapai and Mohave Counties would naturally be greatly benefited due to their accessibility to the source of power, their general excellent living conditions which would naturally prevail, and their climate.

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT,

Oakland, Calif., November 9, 1925. Hon. CHARLES L. McNARY,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: When I appeared before your committee in Los Angeles, I quoted from memory the substance of a letter which had been written to me by Mr. George Otis Smith, Director of the Geological Survey, concerning salt deposits in the margin of Boulder Canyon Reservoir, and at that time offered to undertake to secure a copy of the letter from Doctor Smith. I have received, through the Commissioner of Reclamation, the inclosed letter written to that Bureau by Doctor Smith, which confirms my recollection of its contents.

It will be noted that this examination was made with a view to determining the effect of a reservoir filled to elevation 1,250 feet above sea level. This is about 50 feet higher than it is now proposed to build the dam for this reservoir, and probably some of the salt deposits would be avoided by the dam as now proposed. In any event, according to Doctor Smith, the salt question is negligible.

I wish to thank you for the courtesies received at your hands in my recent appearance before your committee. Very respectfully,

ARTHUR P. DAVIS.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

Washington, September 17, 1921. Mr. MORRIS BIEN,

Acting Director United States Reclamation Service.
MY DEAR MR. BIEN : In reply to your letter of September 10 :

I inclose a copy of that part of Doctor Noble's letter of August 30 that relates to the occurrence of rock salt in the Virgin Valley.

Mr. H. S. Gale, formerly of the United States Geological Survey and Dr. C. H. Longwell, of Yale University, both of whom have done geologic work in the region about St. Thomas, have been consulted and both have promised to get together from their notes additional information relating to the salt deposits. It is the opinion of Mr. Gale and also of Doctor Longwell, in which I concur, that, although the salt deposits will be submerged if the reservoir is filled to the 1,250 contour, nevertheless the quantity of salt that will go into solution will be negligible in so large a body of water. Moreover, as the exposed parts of the beds dissolve, the overlying clayey beds will in time slump down and cover the salt and so prevent further solution. Yours very truly,

GEO. OTIS SMITH, Director.

SUMMARY OF ARIZONA'S POSITION ON COLORADO RIVER

Arizona is a new and sovereign State, entirely covered by, and dependent on, its only river, the Colorado. Ninety per cent of the power and nearly one-half of the irrigation and drainage area of the entire Colorado River system is within Arizona.

The law of prior appropriation and beneficial use solely rules and requires filing and due diligence. This is Arizona's safety and base for her sovereignty, regardless of who has jurisdiction over the river bed and adjoining lands.

Arizona is using her rights under this law by filing on the unappropriated waters for irrigation and power on many projects, including the Glenn Canyon flood control, irrigation, and power dam, the Bridge Canyon flood control, irrigation, power, and diversion dam, and the Arizona high-line canal, diverting water by gravity to irrigate 3,500,000 acres of land in Arizona and develop power that would more than pay for all projects.

Under the law of prior beneficial use Arizona can continue with this development. The United States Government or any State or States can not prevent it.

Any plan that does not recognize and provide for the above development would ruin Arizona as well, as the maximum development of the river, and would result in the compact.

Arizona should appropriate millions of dollars to keep up priority and continued diligence in this plan. Arizona can cooperate with California and Nevada only on the above high-line plan, which fully and quickly provides for Yuma and Imperial Valley flood control and provides gravity water for Los Angeles through the Bridge Canyon Diversion Dam and the Arizona high-line canal (if Arizona permits the water to go out of the basin), and provides for a California all-American canal, and provides for the quickest, maximum development of the entire river.

Arizona is ruined and trapped into the compact if she enters into an agreement with California and Nevada to divide the water or to build any dam at or near Boulder or to build any dam that does not combine power with the maximum irrigation possible for the future.

The courts and water commissioners are the only sources equipped and authorized to equitably and quickly divide water. Even they do not attempt the impossibility of dividing unappropriated water.

Any power or flood-control dam, whether built by Arizona or the Government, that does not combine the power with irrigation through an all-gravity Arizona high-line canal would ruin Arizona and the maximum development of the river, and the water and priority would go to Mexico and the power interests, endangering our peace and industries.

No agreement with California or Nevada to build any kind of á dam at Boulder or near Boulder could be made to protect Arizona's rights, because they have no authority to act for Mexico and the power trusts.

The other and older Colorado River basin States have enjoyed their legally protected growth and have become wealthy by the long use of the law of prior appropriation, and they have applied it for a hundred years in the future.

Therefore Arizona, to protect her life and growth future, is compelled to notify and require California and all basin States, Mexico and landowners in Mexico, and power interests to recognize Arizona's aforesaid rights in this law of prior beneficial use.

Arizona would endanger all her legal and aforesaid rights if she were to be misled into being compensated through royalty tax on power or by power to relinquish her rights in the law of prior appropriation and beneficial use. • Under the law of prior beneficial economical use, which encourages development and economy, there would be plenty of water in the river for future use; but if we entered a compact to divide water, it would leave a great shortage of water and destroy development, growth, and economy. Faithfully yours,

FRED T. COLTER, President Arizona Highline Reclamation Association.

To the honorable members of the United States Senate Committee on Irrigation

and Reclamation:

My name is Le Roy V. Root, resident of Kingman, Mohave County, Ariz., and by occupation prospector and mine operator.

Together with State Senator Keane St. Charles and Anson H. Smith, I was a representative of the people, delegated by the Mohave County board of supervisors and the Mohave County Chamber of Commerce to attend the session of your honorable committee at Phoenix, Ariz., November 2, 1925. I listened to the matters there discussed. It was evident that the forces opposed to the Colorado River compact were assembled. Anson H. Smith, of Kingman, appeared before the committee, the only supporter of the compact. Senator St. Charles and myself did not appear. There was a disposition shown by all present to join in some action toward flood control at the expense of the United States Government. When there was a mention of a dam in the Colorado River that would conserve its waters for reclamation or power purposes to which there might accrue a profit, there were decided objections that such development of the wasting waters of the Colorado River should be made until the State of Arizona had been protected in her “God-given rights" to the end that they become lawful possessions of the State, with absolute control by the State, and all waters from the Colorado River must be bargained from the State and all power hydrogenerated pay royalties to the State át such rates and under such conditions as the present administration of the State might hereafter determine. These arguments were ridiculous, even in their possible

72578—25-PT 5- -11

sincerity. They were egotistical of the present State administration policies. They were selfishly the product of unseen forces.

The high-line canal is impractical, if not impossible, because of the physical and financial conditions attending. If the taxable property of the State could be bonded for double or treble its present value and the bonds sold for cash, there would be insufficient money obtained to construct it. Should it be constructed, the cost of the water at the land would prohibit its use. The engineering feat of driving a large multiple bore tunnel for a distance of 70 miles through a granitic schistose gniesoid rock formation, meeting with faults and intrusions susceptible to movements, is impracticable, if not impossible, of a successive conclusion. Future maintenance of such a tunnel, if completed, would be a most uncertain hazard.

I have been an observer of the varied moods of the Colorado River for 28 years. I am intimately acquainted with the river and its environments in the lower basin. I know the country through which the proposed high-line canal would run. As a prospector and mine operator I have learned something of the rocks of the country and am impressed with the utter falaciousness of the proposed canal and its 70-mile tunnel. The building of a large open canal for hundreds of miles, hanging on rugged and precipitous mountain sides of various rock formation and on the talus slopes of eroding hills, is a foolish financial gamble.

It is not my province to name a dam site on the Colorado River. That is a matter for the engineers. They are the court in that question. Engineers of unquestioned ability and integrity have given their testimony after long years of study and contact of and with the physical conditions of the Colorado River and its environments. Credence should be given such testimony and stress laid upon its importance, for it is in the sound and logical wisdom of such men that the great benefactions resulting from the harnessing of the water and power and dangers of the Colorado River will be consummated. My intimate knowledge of the vagaries of the Colorado River at all seasons of the year and for a period of over a quarter of a century, together with my experience with rocks, strengthen my faith in the ability and sincerity of those engineers who have selected the vicini of Boulder Canyon as site in the lower basin for the one great dam adequate for all present demands for safety, storage, and power. Later demands for further power can be easily met in a score of places without interference with any of the economical or efficient factors of the Boulder Canyon dam and reservoir.

The territory ceded by Mexico, the grants of the Louisiana Purchase, and the Gadsden Purchase cover all the drainage basin of the Colorado River embraced within the United States. These grants conveyed everything within their areas; all things belonging to the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms; the solids, liquids, and gases. It was complete and final.

At the times of the forming of the States of New Mexico and Arizona the United States possessed all these rights of every kind and nature and could have conveyed them. However, paragraph 7, section 20, of the enabling act and made applicable to the State of Arizona reads as follows:

“That there shall be and are reserved to the United States with full acquiescence of the State, all rights and powers for the carrying out of the provisions by the United States of the act of Congress entitled 'An act appropriating the receipts from the sale and disposal of public lands in certain States and Territories to the construction of irrigation works for the reclamation of arid lands,' approved June 27, 1902, and acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, to the same extent as if the said State had remained a Territory."

Section 28 of the enabling act, in part, reads as follows:

“ There is hereby reserved to the United States and excepted from the operation of any and all grants made or confirmed by this act to said proposed State, all lands actually or prospectively valuable for the development of water power, or power for hydroelectric use or transmission, and which shall be ascertained and designated by the Secretary of the Interior within five years after the proclamation of the President declaring the admission of the State; and no land so reserved and excepted shall be subject to any disposition whatsoever of said State, and any conveyance or transfer of such land by said State, or any officer thereof, shall be absolutely null and void within the period above named

Article X, section 5, of the constitution of the State of Arizona reads as follows:

“No lands shall be sold for less than $3 per acre and no lands which are or shall be susceptible of irrigation under any projects now or hereafter completed or adopted by the United States under legislation for the reclamation of lands shall be sold at less than $25 per acre: Provided, That the State at the request of the Secretary of the Interior shall from time to time relinquish such of its lands to the United States as at any time are needed for irrigation works in connection with any Government project, and other lands lieu thereof shall be selected."

Artiele X, section 6, of the constitution of the State of Arizona reads as follows:

“No lands reserved and excepted of the lands granted to the State by the United States actually or prospectively valuable for the development of water power or power for hydroelectric use or transmission which shall be ascertained and designated by the Secretary of the Interior within five years after the proclamation of the President declaring the admission of the State, and no land so reserved and excepted shall be subject to any disposition whatsoever of said State, or by any officer of the State, and any conveyance or transfer of such lands made within said five years shall be null and void."

The enabling act empowers and makes it the duty of the Attorney General of the United States, in the name of the United States and in its courts, to prosecute such proceedings at law or equity as may be necessary and appropriate to enforce such provisions.

It appears, therefore, that the United States for the period of five years from and after the date of the proclamation of the President declaring the admission of the State of Arizona did have certain rights in the relinquishments of lands from the State, which lands are or shall be susceptible of irrigation under any project now or hereafter completed or adopted by the United States under legislation for the reclamation of lands, or of lands actually or prospectively valuable for the development of water power or power for hydroelectric use or transmission.

It appears further that the Secretary of the Interior within the stated period of five years did make reservations of land in the State of Arizona along and adjacent to the Colorado River in accordance with requirements as stipulated in the enabling act and as further recognized in the State constitution.

The enabling act of Arizona or the State constitution thereof makes no reference to the waters of the Colorado River. As a corporeal hereditament of the lands relinquished by the State at the request of the Secretary of the Interior such waters are now subject to appropriation only under the Federal statutes and the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Board.

Arizona is blessed that a large portion of this great national asset is within the State and upon its boundaries. If permitted of development, Arizona would profit greatly. Further than this, Arizona's rights are based only on a justifiable allocation of the waters of the stream and of power, electrical and other, generated from such waters as are warranted by present and future demands coincident to a like and equal consideration of the rights and demands of the other States of the basin as provided in the Colorado River compact.

The preponderance of argument at the Phoenix meeting supported the highline canal, the Bridge Canyon Dam, etc. It opposed Boulder or Black Canyon projects and the Swing-Johnson bill. This does not mean that all the people of the State of Arizona, or even a majority of them, are opposed to the development of the Colorado River at Boulder Canyon or of the All-American Canal. It means that they have listened solely to the talk and publicity of those factions who for reasons known to themselves and guessed by others have been and are persistently eloquent upon the theme of saving for Arizona that belongs to all the people.

I believe that the great majority of the people of the State of Arizona have faith in the United States Government and would trust it to protect its rights as citizens. This is a situation, however, that has not been presented to them for consideration. They have seen everything from the viewpoint and in the light of the anticompact factions. Had there been powerful influences to present the other view to the people of Arizona, the compact would have been ratified on its first presentation to the State legislature. Very respectfully submitted.

LE Roy V. Root.

« PreviousContinue »