Mr. CARPENTER. Oh, no. The result being, of course, that the Supreme Court of the United States in each of the litigated cases has not sanctioned that doctrine, and has twice said it did not apply as between States of the Union, that the rule of equitable apportionment applies, the court seeming to carry with its interpretation of interstate relations a strong regard to intrastate principles of law. The matter having twice been decided, we are now willing to accept the doctrine of equitable apportionment.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. You bow to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States?

Mr. CARPENTER. Yes. I speak of State control of its water supply. We, of course, recognize that any adjoining State, neighbor to a State of origin, has some interest in the stream, and the quantity of water which the upper State may finally apportion to its citizens is that quantity which will remain in the river for that purpose after supplying any allocation made to a lower State either by the United States Supreme Court or by a compact between the States. But as to that water so remaining within the jurisdiction. of the upper State, the State exercises complete control (except for navigation) and administers it from day to day for the purpose of deriving the greatest good to the greatest number of its citizens and thereby promoting its own self-preservation.

In view of this complete machinery which exists in these arid States any desire by a governmental bureau to ultimately, by insiduous or other methods, take over the control and dominion of the streams within the States and to override State authority at once becomes not only abhorrent but gives rise to a feeling of bitter resentment and sounds a call to arms for self-defense.

It was with knowledge of the plans then outlined in the report of the Reclamation Service to which I have referred that the States of the upper basin came to the Salt Lake City conference, called at the behest of the lower river. One point, however, should be brought to the fore, and that is that while the State of Arizona lies in the southern basin it is similar in some respects to the upper States. It, too, is a State of origin of a part of the water that flows across its territory. The Gila River rises in New Mexico. Of the supply of that stream our engineer advises us that about 443,000 acre-feet per annum come from New Mexico. It then flows across Arizona and discharges its water into the Colorado River at the town of Yuma and above the headgate of the Imperial Valley Canal, which diverts this Gila water.

Senator PHIPPS. Would you mind stating the total acre-feet that flow into the Colorado River at Yuma?

Mr. CARPENTER. From the Gila River?

Senator PHIPPS. Yes; from the Gila. You have given 443,000 acre-feet as the flow from New Mexico. Now, how much additional water originates in Arizona is what I am trying to get at. Mr. CARPENTER. Let me look for that among my papers. Senator PHIPPS. You may supply that for the record later if you wish.

Mr. CARPENTER. Very well. If it is agreeable to the committee I will put in some tables covering this water-supply situation, prepared by Mr. Ralph I. Meeker, the engineer who was our adviser at

Santa Fe and is the expert in charge of these matters for the State of Colorado.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you those figures with you?

Mr. CARPENTER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to have them made a part of your statement or follow your statement?

Mr. CARPENTER. I suggest that they follow my statement as an addenda.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; if you will furnish them to the clerk of the committee that will be taken care of.

Mr. CARPENTER. I will do that.

The CHAIRMAN. You may now continue with your statement. Mr. CARPENTER. Nevada likewise is to a very limited degree a State of origin. California can not claim to be the origin of any water of the river; it is wholly a beneficiary State. Arizona is partly a beneficiary State and partly a State of origin.

Senator ASHURST. Under what theory is she a beneficiary State? I have heard nothing in the past month to indicate that Arizona is a beneficiary State in any way. I would like to have you tell me. Mr. CARPENTER. That is to be determined. Arizona is partly a beneficiary State and partly a State of origin. Nevada occupies a similar position. Nevertheless any claim that will be recognized in interstate relations and attaching to the river in the lower States, whether State or origin or beneficiary State, affects the river to its source and might be asserted to be a servitude upon the stream to the snow banks at the extreme point of origin.

So we had in 1918 an unusual situation with respect to this great basin. In the development of its water supply it was almost in a virgin state, and yet upon some occasions of extreme drouth or low flow there had developed some slight indication of contention and strife. The questions involved in this river problem included most of the territory obtained by the United States through the Mexican War and the Gadsden Purchase, a part of the territory obtained in the oregon settlement, and a part of the territory obtained in the Louisiana Purchase. The rights of 7 Commonwealths, each admitted upon an equality with the others and with the original 13, were at stake, and the rights of the United States were involved in the sense of its international relations with the Republic of Mexico and in other minor phases.

We faced three more or less conflicting principles of law, two of them urged by all the power of the Department of Justice of the United States. And I might pause right here to say that, surprising as it may sound, to this hour the Department of Justice is pushing through divers and sundry suits in the Federal courts of the Western States a series of attempts to get the United States judges to announce the doctrine that the United States and not the several States is the owner of unappropriated waters of the streams of the West. And following that doctrine to get those courts to appoint court bailiffs to supersede State authorities in the control of those rivers. No better example than that obtaining on the Truckee River in Nevada may be cited, where the master in chancery has been persuaded to recently approve a decree under that theory, and it is now pending for final decision before the United States district court.

I am advised that a like urging obtained in the American Falls case, recently decided, and we know of other cases in the offing.

I mention this matter simply to show that the idea of conflict between State and Federal jurisdiction is not chimerical, is not a myth. It is an actual, tangible, present existing institution, backed by all the powers of the Federal Government and carelessly ignored by the people of the States even involved, who, perhaps, can not conceive that a Federal Government would go to such extremes in attempting to encroach upon State prerogatives.

At the time a realization of this condition, it had become evident that the Colorado River was a stream bristling with potential controversies, some between two States, but primarily controversies between the upper and lower groups of States, that the development of the lower river would be used to call more and more upon the upper territory for supplies of water, although without cause. But in view of the threats already made, in view of the attitude taken by the Department of the Interior in stopping the Henrylyn Tunnel, near Denver, and other warnings, the people knew that if that condition were allowed to continue there would result a repetition of the Rio Grande and North Platte embargoes, and strife and confusion would obtain.

The whole situation presented a field of potential litigation, of endless strife. I venture to say that none of those experienced in interstate water suits look with favor upon that method of settlement. The matters at issue are presented before judges wholly ignorant of the subject matter. Irrigation is not a theory; it is a hard, practical, living science. The conditions vary so on. each stream, or subtributary even, that the ordinary rules of law are usually a misfit-frequently so, at least. Furthermore, the conditions obtaining in one State will call for the shading of any given rule of law in order to fit the local situation as compared with an application of the same rule in an adjoining State. The whole problem is one of practical operation in the hands of States. It means the lifeblood of communities. Without water a community can not be created, or having been created can not survive. Powerful States can not be subjected to the servitude and dictation of mere private citizens claiming control of the State's most vital resource.

It was at once evident that the whole situation, for example, was much as though each of you around this table were interested by inheritance, purchase, or otherwise in a 40-acre tract of land, toward which a city was rapidly building and where the property, having remained idle for years, was fast becoming desirable for building purposes. And each of you had title of some kind in that tract, although undetermined. Any lawyer would advise a partition of the property and to quiet the title before trouble would begin. In the western States during the past we have allowed the trouble to become so acute that war resulted, because those suits are nothing else than a substitute for interstate war and draw with them many of the disagreeable attributes-hatreds, prejudice, bitterness-that go with strife by force of arms. And on this river the task of quieting titles among the seven claimants was one which, to even the casual observer, called more for statesmanship than the activity of an engineer or decision of a judge.

I will pass over the recitals in the governor's address, already in the record, which gives a historical sketch of the various proceedings which occurred between the Salt Lake City meeting and the Denver meeting. At the conclusion of many discussions, participated in by all the interested States, and pressed constantly by the representatives of the United States, clamoring as they were for a chance to build an immense, flood-control works on the lower river, which could lead to no other than a claim of absolute dominion over the river under the theory of prior appropriation-pressed as these claims were at each of those meetings, all of those States joined in accepting a suggestion, made at the Denver meeting, that the legal phases of the river, the underlying titles, the entanglement and conflict of interest should be cleared by interstate compact before construction of works.

The desire to enter into this compact was no mere passing fancy. It was the deliberate undertaking of seven Commonwealths of the United States to coolly and dispassionately settle title to the waters of this great river before further building proceeded, before further activities took place, from which later claims or excuses for claims of adverse title would arise.

The meeting at which this policy was adopted was presided over by the Governor of Arizona. It was participated in by the governors of the Commonwealths and by specially appointed representatives. The resolutions embodied the deliberate, well thought but plan, later put into force by the deliberate action of the legislature of each and all of these States.

And then, after these States had legislated and the case was brought to the attention of the Congress, by the aid of those interested and among them some of the Senators sitting about this table the States were given consent to proceed with their deliberations.

If I might illustrate: If you were, all of you, interested in the 40-acre tract I mentioned a while ago, prudence and common sense would dictate that you stay with the task of clearing that title until it was complete, before anybody was allowed to step in and establish interests that would destroy the whole enterprise.

This river is in the same situation. The Colorado River compact is before you. The record of the deliberations that led to its adoption has never been published, but the rights of all peoples were considered, not so much as mere rights of private citizens subject at all times to the control of the local government, but in the broader view of the rights of the States, including not only present citizens, present inhabitants, but the millions of people yet to be, with full knowledge that the areas involved are yet to become the source of life to millions of people yet unborn. All phases of the river controversy were brought to the fore and thoroughly considered.

I again call attention to the Meeker map as illustrative of the thought expressed. The Meeker map shows both the areas now irrigated and the areas valuable for future irrigation in the Colorado River drainage in Colorado. The scale of the map is small, and therefore it is hard to portray those areas with exactness. they are not put on this map by conjecture or guess; they are checked, in most cases first by the engineer and his party in the

But

field, and secondly by surveys made by competent engineers, and portrayed on filings made in the State and various other avenues of correct information. At the conclusion of 18 months of steady work by Mr. Meeker and his party, he made this map and a report to the officials of the State of Colorado.

There had been a pioneer, however, in this investigation of potentialities of this river in the investigations made by Wyoming at the suggestion of Governor Kendrick, then the chief magistrate of the Commonwealth, which had preceded those made in Colorado and in which the State of Wyoming cooperated with representatives of the United States and determined the potentialities of the Green River section of that State.

Like investigations were made in other States, except that the investigations were not as complete in some as in others. For example, in Arizona, which leads me to an item I will later explain. At the conclusion of a careful consideration of all these questions it became very apparent that for the upper States to attempt to intermeddle with the local affairs of the lower States would result in confusion and disagreement; that for the lower States to come up and intermeddle in the local affairs of the upper States would lead to hard feeling, confusion, and failure. It became at once evident that the two areas, separated by the middle section canyon, were so different in their people, in their methods and their potentialities even, to say nothing of the present crops and development, that they constituted areas that should settle their own affairs inter sese. We had, for example, a controversy, ready for litigation, between Colorado and New Mexico-engineered, everything prepared to the point of drawing the pleadings with which to go into court, with thousands of dollars spent upon it. The controversy was over the La Plata River, a little stream flowing out of Colorado south into New Mexico and joining the San Juan River near Farmington-a case where the waters of the stream were hopelessly inadequate to serve the acreage involved. That was a local controversy. It was none of the business of Nevada and California, for example; and to show the spirit which underlay this whole undertaking, the States of Colorado and New Mexico passed bills at the same time we passed the Colorado bill for this little local difference, to be handled by a separate commission. It was so handled. It presented problems bristling with difficulties and potentialities of strife.

A compact was signed three days after the signing of the main compact. It was presented to our States and adopted by unanimous vote in both States, and passed the Congress of the United States at the last session. This little compact got ahead of the main compact because there was no delay to its passage. We hope that matter is settled forever. That is illustrative of other local differences that are bound to obtain in either of these great basins, the upper or the lower.

We followed the natural plan in drawing the Colorado River compact.

There is one matter that is of grave importance to your committee. It came to our knowledge that the levees along the Lower Colorado River would have to be maintained even if a large dam