« PreviousContinue »
Ill. It would be a breach of diplomatic courtesy for me, having acted as California's representative on the Colorado River Commission, to place my ideas in type relating to the refusal of Arizona to ratify that would not go to the proper representatives of all the States concerned, for
2. Any attempt to modify the terms of the compact as touching the allocation of water as between the States of the lower basin would in uo way affect the division of water as between the upper and lower basin States, as provided for in the compact; and to entertain any idea or hope of securing the consent of the upper basin States for the allocation of the use of any larger quantity of water than that agreed upon in the compact would be futile.
3. Any attempt on the part of the States in the lower basin to allocate any power which may be developed, should such power be financed by the Federal Government, would also be stoutly opposed by the upper basin States.
4. The upper States furnish the water, which fact alone is sufficient to base the strongest kind of a claim to a fair portion of any power that may be developed anywhere on the river if such development is financed by Federal moneys.
5. The idea of increasing the area of practicable irrigable areas in Arizona, as suggested by some parties, must in fairness be met with a like suggestion by California and Nevada.
6. In short, I am convinced, as I have always been since the 24th day of November last, the date of signing the compact, that the compact speaks for itself, and when properly analyzed, is the best answer to any attack that may be made upon it.
7. If Article II of Mr. Heard's suggested cooperative plan be substituted for Article I, all of the other suggestions would follow in natural sequence. With kind personal regards, believe me to be, Very sincerely yours,
W. F. MOCLURE,
State Engineer. What I wish to know and what I must ask of each representative of the upper basin States is this: The upper States have insisted upon a compact; they have secured by this compact everything they wish, is indicated by their desire to ratify the compact. They disclaim that power is mentioned therein. They disclaim that power has anything to do with the compact or the compact anything to do with power. Now, here is a letter hinting that the upper basin States may insist that the lower basin States shall not wholly allocate the power generated in the lower basin States.
I want to know now, for the record from the representatives of these upper basin States. Are they going to insist upon any such doctrine?
Senator SHORTRIDGE. Does it appear, Senator Ashurst, upon whose authority the writer of that letter makes that statement ?
Senator ASHURST. No. It is just signed W. F. McClure, State Engineer, and copies of it were sent to Governor Richardson of California and the various other governors.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you answer the question, Mr. Bujac, or do you
desire to do so at this time? Mr. Bujac. I am not prepared to answer the question of New Mexico's attitude toward power. What we are mainly interested in at the present is that no development of any kind be made upon the river until the seven-State pact is ratified or the rights of New Mexico and the other upper basin States fully protected. As to the power question I am not prepared to answer.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ashurst, do you desire to have the record amplified by a statement made after reflection?
Senator ÅSHURST. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have had no opportunity to confer with the witness before propounding the question
to him. Had I had an opportunity to confer with him I would have notified him that I was going to ask such a question so as to give him an opportunity to reflect. I think, however, that the gentleman ought to have such time as he sees fit in which to answer it, but I do want an answer to that question.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Will you, Mr. Bujac, supply for the record an answer to that question, seasonably, so that it may be printed into the record ?
Mr. BUJAC. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. With the chairman's permission: Mr. Bujac, the statement that you just made is, I take it, and very properly so. the statement of the position of your State, New Mexico?
Mr. BUJAC. Yes, sir.
Senator JOHNSON. You do not desire extensive works undertaken in the lower Colorado River Basin until New Mexico shall be protected in her just claim to the waters of the Colorado River? Mr. BUJAC. No, sir.
Senator JOHNSON. If that protection should be accorded, assuming that it is accorded, you have no objection whatever to such works being undertaken as may be deemed essential, have you?
Mr. BUJAC. No, sir; provided there is no doubt that the protection is secure.
Senator JOHNSON. That is the assumption upon which I am basing my question. Upon the assumption that you are protected thoroughly in your rights to the waters of the Colorado River your State has not any objection to the construction of a high dam in the lower basin, has it?
Mr. BUJAC. No, sir.
Senator Johnson. And your State has no objection, assuming that you are fully protected, to a great storage capacity from that high dam, have you?
Mr. BUJAC. No, sir.
Senator JOHNSON. You have no objection, in case you would be fully protected, to the protection of 60,000 Americans in the Imperial Valley and at Yuma, Ariz., from the floods of the Colorado River?
Mr. BUJAC. No. sir.
Senator JOHNSON. You have no objection, if you be protected, to water from the great storage system and the construction of a high dam being used for irrigation and reclamation in the lower basin ?
Mr. BUJAC. No, sir.
Senator Johnson. You have no objection to the use of waters for domestic purposes by the coastal cities of California, provided you are protected in the allocation of your just rights in the Colorado River waters?
Mr. BUJAC. No, sir.
. Senator King. Before the gentleman leaves, I desire to ask a question. By any answer which you have just now made to Senator Johnson, do you mean to commit yourself or your State to the proposition that the Federal Government must build these reservoirs and dams to which Senator Johnson has referred?
Mr. BUJAC. No, sir.
Senator JOHNSON. I may say I was not asking any questions about committing your State to the proposition that the Federal Government must build. Neither you nor I nor anybody else could commit the Federal Government under those circumstances.
Mr. BUJAC. No, sir.
Senator JOHNSON. So I am asking if your State, under the circumstances I have detailed, would object to the development that I have suggested ?
Mr. BUJAC. That is the way I understand it. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bujac. The committee is greatly honored this morning by the presence of Governor Dern, of Utah, who will give the committee Utah's position on this question of the development of the Colorado River.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE H. DERN, GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Governor.
Governor DERN. Mr. Chairman, I desire to preface what I shall have to say by indorsing the statement of Mr. Carpenter in its entirety. Mr. Carpenter is a resident of Greeley, Colo., and was a member of the Colorado River Commission. Nobody has given this whole subject so much time and careful study as he has, and on account of his immediate and authoritative knowledge of every detail of the subject and of the whole situation the four upper basin States-Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah-agreed to let him make the opening statement to this committee, and requested him to cover the ground in as comprehensive a fashion as the convenience of this committee would permit. Although Mr. Carpenter is here nominally as representing Colorado, I am happy to accept his presentation on behalf of Utah, and I am very grateful to him for the able and convincing manner in which he has stated our case. I dare say the members of this committee have been impressed not only with his mastery of the subject but also with his fairness and freedom from rancor or bitterness of any kind.
We are not here in any contentious spirit nor with any feeling of unfriendliness toward any State or any individual.
Mr. Carpenter has stated the case from the viewpoint of the entire upper basin. I have felt that some amplification of certain phases as they pertain to Utah might be helpful.
I am in Washington for the second time in two months in my official capacity as Governor of Utah on the same mission, namely, to endeavor to protect the interest of our State in the waters of the Colorado River. In October I appeared before the Federal Power Commission to resist the issuance of a permit to build a dam on the Colorado River at Diamond Creek for power purposes. To-day. I am here to oppose the enactment of any legislation that has for its purpose the building of a dam on the Colorado River at Boulder Canyon or elsewhere for any purpose whatsoever, whether it be for power, irrigation, flood control, silt storage, or municipal water supply. Utah opposes both of these projects at this time for identically
the same reason, which is that either of them would jeopardize our right to a fair proportion of the waters of the Colorado River and might deprive us of water that fairly, justly, and honestly belongs
The basis of our fear is well understood by this committee. If the waters of the Colorado River are impounded in a reservoir on the low r river, far below our own boundaries, when that stored water is released it will promptly be put to beneficial use not by nor in Utah but by and in other States. We are afraid that the theory of prior appropriation may apply, so that first in use will be first in right. We do not know whether that theory would apply, but there is danger that it might, and we do not want to take the risk. And we do not think the Congress of the United States has any moral right or justification for forcing us to take such a risk.
I appreciate the fact that in taking this attitude we are opposing a project that is dear to the hearts of our friends in California, a project that they consider vital to their welfare, and I am afraid they will think we are hard-hearted and “hard-boiled." However, we must in the most emphatic terms disclaim any such feelings or any such intent. It is a matter of deep and sincere regret to us that we are unable at this moment to cooperate with southern California. We should be much happier if we could work with her instead of working against her. We have a keen appreciation of her necessities, and we know that this proposed development is highly important to her continued growth and expansion. This is no pharisaical profession on our part. Indeed, our good will toward California is largely based upon our own self-interest. Utah and California are very closely related. California people are becoming heavily interested in Utah. For example, they are developing our iron-ore resources through the Columbia Steel Co., and we are going to be heavily indebted to California for helping to make Utah the Pennsylvania of the West, as she is destined to be.
Furthermore, California is Utah's best market. The products of our farms and ranges are going more and more to the Pacific coast rather than to the East. As California grows our market grows. We therefore have a selfish interest in wanting the population of Los Angeles to increase, because the more people she has the more of our products she will buy and consume. In a sense, therefore, we are injuring ourselves when we ask that this development bé delayed.
Nor are we in any sense unfriendly to Arizona. Utah and Arizona have many points in common, Both are parts of the great basin which stretches from the Rocky Mountains to the Sierras, and which is substantially an economic unit. In both of them agriculture is dependent upon irrigation. Both are great mining States. The problems of Arizona are, therefore, generally the problems of Utah. Large numbers of former Utah people have emigrated to Arizona, and Utah capital is interested in Arizona mines. From the standpoint of blood relationship, contiguity, and community of interest, therefore, Arizona and Utah ought to be united on every question.
It is strange that they are not united on the Colorado River question. Arizona is a State of slow development. So is Utah. By this I mean that neither is ready at this time to develop her potentialities, and such development may not be reached for a long time to come. Arizona has excellent dam sites in the Colorado River. So has Utah. Arizona has land that she wants to reclaim with water from the Colorado. So has Utah. Arizona wants her rights in the river protected. So does Utah. In view of all these points of common interest, it seems to us anomalous that the two States are not now in agreement on the problem of the Colorado River. As a matter of fact, the logic of the situation seems to drive the two States into the same camp. At the hearing on the Diamond Creek application before the Federal Power Commission both States opposed the issuance of a license. They gave different reasons but they wanted the same thing. On this proposed legislation we again find ourselves in agreement. Does not this speak louder than any vocal protestations of opposition?
At the hearing of your committee in the Southwest, Mr. Coulter, as the representative of Governor Hunt, said Arizona is perfectly satisfied with the doctrine of prior appropriation, that it is fair and just, and that it ought to apply on the Colorado River. I have been doing my best to get Arizona's point of view, but I can not understand how Arizona can afford to take any such chances. Of course, if she can stop all development on the lower river permanently, so that no dams will ever be built, she is absolutely protected by the natural conditions of the river. But as soon as dams are built it seems to me Arizona will be exposed to the same dangers as Utah, and hence our situation is identical in this respect. When I consider these cold, hard facts I can not escape the conclusion that the logic of events will draw Utah and Arizona into complete accord sooner or later.
Mr. Maddock, a citizen of Arizona, said to your committee at Phoenix, “ The upper basin is opposing any construction in the Colorado until they are protected. Arizona should take an identical position.” I can not see how Arizona can do anything else. Meanwhile, I am not here to criticize her or her State officers. Arizona is a sovereign State and has a right to make her own decisions in her own way, and neither the Federal Power Commission nor Congress has any business to try the rush act on her; nor on us either, for that matter.
Utah, as well as the other upper States, is opposed to any development on the river before the waters of the river have been equitably divided and allocated to the different States. In taking that stand we are holding up a big development in our own State. The Utah Power & Light Co. is ready, willing, and anxious to build a great dam at Flaming Gorge. We want that sort of development. It means plenty of electrical power for all our present needs, and it will develop a remote section of our State and increase our taxable wealth. And yet we are opposed to that development until we are assured that the water impounded at Flaming Gorge and released through the waterwheels of the proposed power plant can not be permanently annexed by somebody on the lower river.
We are extremely reluctant, therefore, to be forced into our present position. But we have been forced into it—it is not of our own choosing. It is our earnest wish that we shall not be obliged to