« PreviousContinue »
Mr. CARPENTER. Such a provision would doubtless be of some value. It would bind and cover the subject matter over which Congress has jurisdiction. The degree of that jurisdiction, to what extent it would cover the whole subject matter, is a matter involved in doubt. In other words, it is an open question in some respects where the jurisdiction of the United States ends and that of Arizona begins. Arizona has some jurisdiction, doubtless, but so has Cali fornia, and Nevada, and all the other States.
The main objection that we raise to that is, however, this, that even though the act went the full length that Congress could go to protect us as regards a structure authorized by Congress directly, as for example in the proposed bill, we have a grave and serious doubt of the ability of Congress to control the process of enlarging appropriations down below the dam for irrigation or domestic purposes which would be brought about by an equating of the river flow; that is, making it fuller in low periods and lesser in high. We see no way that Congress could limit that development, and the claim for that development would fall upon the source of the river in the upper basin. That is, we must supply the water to fill it.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. I suppose that underlying that question is the question as to who has control over the flow of the waters of that river?
Mr. CARPENTER. Yes, sir; naturally. Senator SHORTRIDGE. And that brings us back to the question you discussed a moment ago, in response to a question by Senator Phipps; namely, whether the Federal Government or the Nation, as such, has dominant control, or the State through which the river runs. Now, what could you say finally as to those respective rights on an interstate river and as to that part of the river which is wholly within one State?
Mr. CARPENTER. If the river be navigable a certain legal status obtains; generally speaking, the State owns the bed and waters, subject to the paramount right of Congress to control navigation or interstate commerce.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. Have not the courts held repeatedly that a given river may be a legally navigable river which in point of fact is not?
Mr. CARPENTER. They have so held, but the tendency of more modern decisions, the latest of which is the Oklahoma-Texas case, is that a river is navigable only when navigable in fact for purposes of trade and commerce.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. The Colorado River is a legally navigable river, is it not?
Mr. CARPENTER. That is an open question. If it is navigable, one principle of law obtains; if it is nonnavigable, another principle of law obtains.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, it is navigable in and about Boulder Canyon
Mr. CARPENTER. Yes.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. I can bear witness to that. Then the Fed. eral Government would have control?
The CHAIRMAN. Have you concluded, Senator Shortridge?
Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Carpenter, can you give me an estimate of what the return flow of the Colorado River would be at low stage from the States above ?
Mr. CARPENTER. Conservatively, from 40 to 50 per cent, probably
Senator JOHNSON. How much of the water of the Colorado River, if you can state approximately, is the State of New Mexico to-day utilizing?
Mr. CARPENTER. At present? Very little; only a limited amount on the little valleys or tributaries of the San Juan and the Gila and some in the vicinity of Farmington.
Senator JOHNSON. Which is a negligible amount?
Senator Johnson. Can you state how much of the Colorado River Utah is to-day utilizing ?
Mr. CARPENTER. I can not, Senator, because I have not made a personal visit to the areas in Utah.
Senator JOHNSON. Can you approximate it?
Johnson. Can you state how much, or approximately, the State of Wyoming is to-day using?
Mr. CARPENTER. I am not prepared to say of my own knowledge, but their uses are not as great as they will ultimately be, of course.
Senator JOHNSON. Perhaps that will not convey very much to us ultimately in the record.
Mr. CĂRPENTER. As I say, I introduced at Phoenix a little table by Mr. Meeker that gives you approximately Arizona's acreage and the acreage of each State. He is far better qualified to speak on that subject than I would be.
Senator JOHNSON. Do you recall them approximately at all ?
Senator Johnson. I assume you can tell me, however, what, approximately, is the amount of water being utilized by Colorado from the Colorado River at the present time?
Mr. CARPENTER. We are irrigating at present between 800,000 and 900,000 acres.
Senator JohnSON. And that takes from the Colorado River about how much water?
Mr. CARPENTER. The theory is that the acreage would be multiplied by 1.3 acre-feet per acre.
Of course, in each diversion, Senator, there are two types of water, so to speak; there is the water that is consumed and the vehicle water that is necessary to take that out. That vehicle water comes back in the form of a return.
Senator Johnson. Have you given approximately the aggregate amount that is taken?
Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. Meeker gives that at 1,100,000 that is now consumed.
Senator JOHNSON. Are the tables there of the waters utilized from the Colorado by the other States?
Mr. CARPENTER. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. Yes; they are found at page 319 of the record. Inasmuch as they are there, I will not trouble you further.
Mr. CARPENTER. Those were the figures, Senator, at the time of the Santa Fe conference. They would be in some degree modified by more recent studies, but generally they are correct.
Senator Johnson. In your testimony did you state on any occasion the maximum flow of the Colorado within any given time?
Mr. CARPENTER. I did not. I have understood that it was upward of 200,000 second-feet.
Senator Johnson. Would you tell me, if you please, for the record what, if any, official position you occupy in reference to the State of Colorado?
Mr. CARPENTER. I am appointed by the governor to negotiate compacts with sister States on five interstate rivers, one of which is the Colorado. I have no title by statute but they call me the interstate rivers compact commission.
Senator Johnson. You speak therefore with authority and officially for the State?
Mr. CARPENTER. To some degree; yes, sir. Senator Johnson. Do you speak with the same authority and officially for the other upper basin States?
Mr. CARPENTER. Not at all.
Senator Johnson. Have the upper basin States' representatives met here in Washington since the beginning of this hearing for the purpose of determining their policy?
Mr. CARPENTER. There has been no caucus. They have gotten together several times in open discussion, but there has been no meeting where a definite program was mapped out.
Senator Johnson. No policy has been determined upon by them? Mr. CARPENTER. No. There is a sort of common understanding.
Senator Johnson. The common understanding being that they would insist upon the ratification of the seven-State pact?
Mr. CARPENTER. Yes. Senator JOHNSON. Was that your suggestion? Mr. CARPENTER. No. Senator JohnSON. Whose ? Mr. CARPENTER. It meets with my, approval. I do not know at whose suggestion it was made.
Senator JOHNSON. Well, was not it your suggestion, Mr. Carpenter?
Mr. CARPENTER. I do not recall having suggested it. I certainly would have done so if the occasion had arisen.
Senator JOHNSON. Do you know whose suggestion it was?
Mr. CARPENTER. No; I do not recall. That is the common feeling in the upper basin country.
Senator JOHNSON. I realize that, and I realize it from the testimony that has been given here. Did you say something about the length of time that would elapse before the water they apportioned to the upper basin States would be utilized by them?
Mr. CARPENTER. I said that the length of time that would elapse would be, of course, a matter of conjecture, but it would be quite a remote period before that country would be developed.
Senator JOHNSON. A century, or a century and a half?
Mr. CARPENTER. A century or a century and a half-from 50 to 100 years, anyhow.
Senator Johnson. At the very minimum from 50 to 100 years, and it might be two centuries?
Mr. CARPENTER. Depending upon the press of population and the improvement of transportation.
Senator Johnson. You were present with the committee in Imperial Valley, were you not?
Mr. CARPENTER. I was—I was not there all the time, but I was there in town. I did not attend the hearings.
Senator Johnson. You realize that it is a pressing problem that those people have, do you not? Mr. CARPENTER. I do.
Senator JOHNSON. And that there is extreme peril to them, do you not, from the Colorado?
Mr. CARPENTER. I am fully aware of it?
Senator JOHNSON. And that there are some 50,000 or 60,000 American citizens there whom it is necessary to protect if we can legitimately do so?
Mr. CARPENTER. There is quite a population.
Senator Johnson. And action is essential for their protection, is it not?
Mr. CARPENTER. Undoubtedly, in the form of levees or reservoirs.
Senator JOHNSON. Well, are you familiar with the levee situation down there?
Mr. CARPENTER. I am; that is, I have viewed those levees.
Senator JOHNSON. And you know that they are built practically to the height of safety?
Mr. CARPENTER. I have heard it said that that is true. I am not familiar with the records.
Senator Johnson. And the only place they can turn for relief is to the Congress of the l'nited States, is it not?
Mr. CARPENTER. Certainly, and we are willing to join when they protect us.
Senator Johnson. Then I take it from what you have said that you are quite as anxious as we are for their protection--anxious, I mean, for the protection as well of the State that you represent in the allocation of the water of the Colorado?
Mr. CARPENTER. Every principle of humanity would impel one to be anxious for their safety.
Senator Johnson. So that you have here a principle of humanity that demands action by the Congress of the United States if it be possible, have you not?
Mr. CARPENTER. You have, provided that by so doing the Congress does not put other matters into a state of chaos.
Senator JOHNSON. Exactly. But if it be within the realm of possibility Congress should act for the protection of these Americans who have builded an empire in the Imperial Valley and those at Yuma, too, should it not?
Mr. CARPENTER. In due course; yes.
Senator Johnson. Of course, it will be in due course, and if the peril is to be lessened, it will be at once. That is all.
Senator GOODING. Mr. Carpenter, would there be any difficulty now in signing up the six-State compact if California withdraws its reservations?
Mr. CARPENTER. None at all. The statutes approving that plan stand unrepealed on the books of the five States that is, all the upper basin States and also the State of Nevada.
Senator Johnson. And would you then favor this project and assist us in obtaining it?
Mr. CARPENTER. What do you mean by “you”?
Mr. CARPENTER. As far as I am concerned, you would have my assistance, and as far as my influence would go I would be glad to aid.
Senator JOHNSON. But you are aware of the fact, are you not, that the upper basin States require as a condition precedent the ratification of the seven-State compact ?
Mr. CARPENTER. I am thoroughly aware of that fact. Senator Johnson. But you personally, I understand, have the view that if we should have a six-State compact you would aid in the endeavor that we are making here?
Mr. CARPENTER. As a personal matter, I would say this: That another series of efforts should be made to conclude a seven-State compact. That failing, then it would be better to proceed on the sixState plan rather than indefinitely postpone this matter.
Senator GOODING. Mr. Carpenter, I may say that Idaho is vitally interested in this question. We are not interested in the waters, we do not share them in any way, but we are very much interested in the development of southern California, because it is our market. So we are very anxious that this matter should be brought to a settlement. California in a very short time, calling its legislature together, can settle this question so that we can proceed with this legislation. Is not that correct?
Mr. CARPENTER. That is true.
Mr. CARPENTER. Without it it can not be done—in this sense, that we feel the matter is involved in so much doubt that we do not care to proceed with the present plan.
Senator Gooding. Do you feel it safe to say that if California withdraws its reservations this legislation can go on?
Mr. CARPENTER. That is my belief.
Senator KENDRICK. Provided, of course, that Congress ratifies the six-State compact?
Mr. CARPENTER. Provided, of course, that Congress ratifies the compact as effective among the six and makes it binding and effective upon the Government property on the river.
Senator ASHURST. Mr. Chairman, in view of certain statements made by the able Senator from California (Mr. Shortridge) and the papers which he has read, I must ask for a moment to discuss the same.
The Senator read from the enabling act, that is to say, the act of Congress authorizing the people of Arizona to adopt a constitution and to erect the territory into a State. The enabling act laid certain restrictions. We were required to adopt certain ordinances. A discussion of the question as to how Arizona could be admitted