Page images
PDF
EPUB

I recollect, he does not reach the specific question involved in the Rio Grande matter. The water law of Mexico is identical in principle with our doctrine of prior appropriation. In both the continued right to the use of water for irrigation becomes attached to the land and becomes an inherent vested property right in the realty, which is protected by our treaties with France and Spain and Mexico. That right held by many ranches on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande Judge Harmon's opinion, as I recollect, did not touch. It was ignored by the executive department of our Government, and in its place a treaty was made which provided for turning down 60,000 second-feet of water for the use of those lands. It was a case in which the controlling principle in Wyoming v. Colorado ought to have been applied. Now as to the Colorado River: If the landowners in Mexico had diverted the waters of the Colorado in Mexico and made beneficial use of them upon their lands they would be entitled to a continuous flow of the river, in accordance with the rules of priority. But under the law of neither Mexico nor the United States can they predicate that priority upon a diversion made by other people in the United States who, by coercion and bulldozing tactics, have been compelled to share with them the waters so diverted.

As I see the situation, there is no substance, or validity, or reason to any of the objections to ratification of the compact by Arizona unless it be found in the ambiguous language of paragraph (d) of Article III, as follows:

"The States of the upper division will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of 10 consecutive years reckoned in continuing progressive series beginning with the 1st day of October next succeeding the ratification of this compact.” Its writer probably had in mind to protect the upper States against a conjectural situation in case the axis of the earth should shift, as northern Alaska and Siberia was once changed from a torrid to a frigid region between two days, or there should come a revolutionary change in the rules of nature so that snow would not melt at 450° Fahrenheit, or some such metamorphose. But he ought to have known better. On its face it is like a marriage, normally for better or worse, but in which all the advantages accrue to one of the parties, and all the burdens are assessed against the other. Fair play demands that Arizona and Colorado shall bear the vicissitudes of nature equally, Probably any court would consider paragraph (d) pure surplusage on the ground that an uncertain and ambiguous clause can not be used to negative the cleancut and positive provision of paragraph (a). But it is possible that some judge would hold that paragraph (d) should be interpreted as an overruling qualification of paragraph (a), and that the rule should control that if possible, every clause in a document should be given some interpretation. Personally, I would be willing to assume the risks, because I am of the confirmed opinion that there is not one chance in a million that the upper States will ever even pretend to have an opportunity to apply paragraph (d), and from other considerations; but surely the upper States can not complain if, because of their own folly, Arizona declines to subject herself to such a hazard.

V. Thus far I have dealt with facts, for legal principles of general application are facts of the most fundamental character. It is 99 per cent certain that the situation will work out as I have prognosticated. My only chance of error exists in the possibility that some President of low mentality shall appoint, or the people elect to the Supreme Court of the United States sufficient brainless and reckless judges to shovel into the fiery furnace the fundamental precedents upon which our country has been builded. Now, I am going to submit to you a matter of opinion, which comes far short of that degree of certainty. In my judgment, whether Arizona ever ratifies the Sante Fe compact or whether it does not, an agreement between Nevada, California, and Arizona as to the use and distribution of water and power is an absolute prerequisite to any large utilization of the river by anybody, including in that term the United States Government. My judgment is based upon the proposition that Arizona controls absolutely the water beds and banks of the Colorado River wholly within her borders; that where the river forms the boundary, that control is shared equally with Nevada and California, respectively; and that the absence of such an agreement will prove an insurmountable bar to the success of any financial effort to raise the money for any large development. The existence of the doctrine of prior appropriation can not in any way aid Arizona in the independent utilization of the river. The fact that nothing can be done by anybody, with ratification or without ratification, from Glen Canyon to Yuma, without the approval of the State of Arizona, is an absolute safeguard.

YAVAPAI COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (INC.),
Prescott, Ariz., December 2, 1925.

Hon. CHARLES L. MCNARY,

United States Senator from Oregon,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SIR: During your visit to Prescott (the town where your first snow fell) I promised to submit to you a short statement relative to the attitude of this section of Arizona in so far as the development of the Colorado River would affect it.

Several of the men, those I was particularly interested in obtaining statements from relative to mining, stock raising, and power, are in other States and will not return for some little time.

The inclosed statement may prove of some service, and for that reason is submitted for your consideration.

Wishing you the compliments of the season, I am,
Respectfully,

GRACE M. SPARKES,

Secretary Immigration Commissioner.

Miss GRACE M. SPARKES,

PRESCOTT, ARIZ., November 6, 1925.

Secretary the Yavapai County Chamber of Commerce, Prescott, Ariz. DEAR MISS SPARKES: Referring to our former conversation of a few days ago regarding the mining industry of northern Arizona, more particularly Yavapai and Mohave Counties, will say that from my experience of at least 35 years in this section of the country I find that there is an abundance of low-grade ores which can not be commercially mined on account of the high cost of production. The many undeveloped and promising properties in this section of Arizona could be placed upon a commercial basis had we the cheap power such as the hydroelectric power which we would derive from the Colorado River as proposed at the present time. This power would reduce the cost of production at least 40 per cent. Very truly yours,

MARK BRADLEY.

Yavapai County has produced over $400,000,000 in mineral wealth of record since 1888, figures compiled from the reports of the United States Geological Survey.

Yavapai County has an estimated acreage of 400,000 that could be put into cultivation by means of wells, providing cheap power could be obtained.

L. L. Bates, builder of the Yavapai County Experiment Station of the University of Arizona, president of the Yavapai County Bureau, and chairman of the committee on agriculture of the Yavapai County Chamber of Commerce, states that Yavapai County is the largest cattle producing county in the Southwest, records compiled by the Arizona Industrial Congress and Government figures bearing out his statement. Yavapai County cattlemen of necessity are under the handicap of shipping feed to their home places for the purpose of taking care of their saddle horses and also shipping cottonseed meal in for range cattle to keep them alive for winter months. With cheap power,

in his opinion, there is not a cattleman in Yavapai County to-day who could not raise sufficient feed on his own ranges, providing the power were available to develop water; he also points out that the pumping of water to take care of livestock would be another big factor in the development of the cattle industry in this section of Arizona-or at least bringing it to the same standard as is done now by intensive farming in other sections of the United States. He cites as one instance Chino Valley, near Prescott, where thousands of acres could be farmed, if there was some cheap method of getting water pumped. The opportunities for tanneries and factories of all kinds were cited by Mr. Bates, who called attention to the highly enjoyable, year-round climate which obtains in Yavapai County, being mild to cold in winter and always cool and invigorating in the summer.

A. A. Johns, president of the Arizona Wool Growers' Association and vice president of the National Wool Growers' Association, with headquarters in Prescott, submitted the following article:

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 fattening. 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.

[blocks in formation]

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 excel-· lent living conditions which would naturally prevail, and their climate.

Hon. CHARLES L. MCNARY,

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT,
Oakland, Calif., November 9, 1925.

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,

Mr. MORRIS BIEN,

ARTHUR P. DAVIS.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
Washington, September 17, 1921.

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 a 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 at 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

« PreviousContinue »