Page images
PDF
EPUB

I do not say that there has not been now and then a Government reclamation project that has failed; but if so, it will be found that it is a project that should never have been constructed. The failure is due to error in judgment in its inception. This is also true of many privately owned irrigation projects. The same may be said of many communities, other than irrigation, which have been, settled, and where time and experience have demonstrated the impossibility, because of soil or climate conditions, to produce profitable crops.

A comprehensive system of development of this great river should be planned and carried out in a way that would be most economical in the use of the water and produce the greatest benefit to all the States of the basin. What more logical agency for this great task than the Government, with its trained and experienced executives and engineers, who have as monuments to their constructive genius the Roosevelt Dam in Arizona, the Shoshone and Pathfinder Dams in Wyoming, and many others that I have not seen?

But I am not concerned as to what agency does the work. The only objection I voice is that before it is authorized the upper States shall be protected.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hopkins, I suppose the basis of your statement is the seven-State compact?

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Your statement would apply, in your opinion, if the compact had been signed?

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, I am going upon the theory, of course, that the seven-State compact gives the upper basin States the proper protection.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I assume, too. And your statement does not relate now to any new situation?

Mr. HOPKINS. No.

The CHAIRMAN. It is one that has continued for many years and was more or less protected, in your opinion, when the compact was signed by Wyoming?

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes, sir.

Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Hopkins, reference has been made here several times to delaying action on this development in the lower basin until the States in the lower basin have composed their differences and the waters of the upper basin States had been protected by agreement. That would, I think, appeal to anyone as fair and reasonable, except for the fact that one of these States is not only ready for development at this time and anxious to proceed with such development but has great need of protection from the flood waters. This State, as it happens, has ratified the compact between six States, with reservations.

That brings to my mind the question as to whether or not it is fair to the State that wants to proceed and is willing to meet every requirement within its power of the upper basin States to delay indefinitely this plan of reclamation. What do you think about that?

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, the question is about their reservations or whether Congress

Senator KENDRICK. If I may say so, I have in mind complete ratification so that there would be no doubt of the protection of the upper basin States so far as that State is able to protect them. Mr. HOPKINS. You mean to ask me if I would be satisfied with the six-State compact, ratified without conditions?

Senator KENDRICK. Without reservations.

Mr. HOPKINS. Senator, that is a very large question. Arizona sits there in a position of having perhaps, not so very much land that will be irrigated for many years to come so that the danger from Arizona's prior appropriations for irrigation purposes for at least 50 years will not be so very great. But there are a large number of very practicable power sites and large reservoirs in the State of Arizona.

The question in my mind, Senator, on the six-State compact and the question which arose when the matter was presented to me for the consideration of our legislature was whether if it is held by the courts that the waters belong to the State and are under the State's control Arizona might not grant to some individual or corporation a water permit and the power commission grant a license to construct a reservoir and thereby create a priority in that State to a sufficient amount of the water to absolutely absorb the water of the stream so that the upper States would be foreclosed from future development by that act. It occurs to me that there is that danger in the six-State compact. It is possible, Senator, in view of the Government ownership of the lands that Congress might by act limit the use of that water to the terms of the compact, but I have very grave doubts of it in my own mind.

Senator KENDRICK. I was just about to suggest that it is, I believe, written into the compact that irrigation is to have first consideration in the use of the water.

Mr. HOPKINS. Quite true, Senator; but Arizona, failing to ratify the compact would not be bound by its terms. Consequently her appropriations for power purposes would not be subject to the terms of the compact and would not be subordinate to irrigation.

Senator KENDRICK. Could not that be corrected through the issuance of permits by the Federal Power Commission?

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, that is a very grave question, too, because if the State owns the water what does the power commission have to do with it? They are a governmental agency, and if it should be held as we contend, that the States do own and control the water, would the power commission or any other governmental agency have the right to limit its use? Is it not within the activities of the State?

However, Senator, I think the attorney general of our State will discuss that, and perhaps he can enlighten you more than I can on the question. I am frank to say that I am rather fearful of the effect it would have on us.

However, if Arizona fails and refuses continually to ratify the compact we may be compelled to accept the best protection that we can obtain, which probably would be the six-State compact.

The CHAIRMAN. What length of time do you want to give Arizona to accept the seven-State compact before you would be willing to act under the six-State compact?

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, that is about as difficult to determine as the meaning of "reasonable time" as used in the order of the Federal Power Commission. The question is, on a matter of so much importance, what would be a reasonable time.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just trying to get your best thought. Assuming that Arizona should fail to act this year by coming into the seven-power compact, would you be willing for an appeal to be made to the Congress to assist in the development of that river at the ensuing session of Congress?

Mr. HOPKINS. This coming session of Congress?

The CHAIRMAN. The one following this; the next one.

Mr. HOPKINS. No; I would not.

The CHAIRMAN. That time would be too short?

Mr. HOPKINS. The Legislature of Arizona will not meet, I understand, until a year from this January, and they should at least have another opportunity. But I would not even limit them to one more opportunity. It seems to me they should at least have two sessions of their legislature.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we will say the next five or six years would be a reasonable time in which she might have an opportunity to become a member of the compact?

Mr. HOPKINS. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Mr. Hopkins, I think it is in the record, but it is a fact, is it not, that the upper basin States ratified without reservation the seven-State compact?

Mr. HOPKINS. They did.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. And also ratified without reservation the six-State compact?

Mr. HOPKINS. We did. We thought if we could not get the sevenState compact the six-State compact was the next best thing, and we concluded we would accept that if we could not get anything better.

Senator JOHNSON. I understand you want to wait five or six years in the present situation before attempting to do anything at all? Mr. HOPKINS. Well, five or six years in a matter of so much moment is not a very long time, Senator.

Senator JOHNSON. Yes; but there is an imminent danger at the present time.

Mr. HOPKINS. I appreciate that, too, but is not the danger just as imminent to our upper States?

Senator JOHNSON. Oh, no. There is no present danger to the upper States such as threatens the Imperial Valley from the Colorado River.

Mr. HOPKINS. Not any destruction of life, but you really destroy property if you take away the water that we are entitled to.

Senator JOHNSON. But nobody is going to take away the water. In the next five or six years that you are going to wait you are not going to change the situation?

Mr. HOPKINS. What I mean is this, Senator: Suppose the Boulder Canyon Dam is constructed. That will absorb the flow of the stream, the average flow, for a year and a half or more. What opportunity would we have for obtaining priorities?

Senator JOHNSON. You would have the United States Government, first, in the act. You would have the ratification of the six

power compact, secondly, that you deemed at one time a sufficient protection. And you would have an embargo, so far as the public lands are concerned, by the action of the United States Government. I do not know how you could be more fully protected, assuming that those various things were done. I think your protection would be ample.

Mr. HOPKINS. With the six-State compact?

Senator JOHNSON. Why, certainly.

Mr. HOPKINS. Senator, I have just given you an illustration that seems to me to portray the situation. If Arizona grants a water right and they construct a reservoir, of the same capacity that you are proposing to construct, entirely within her borders, and if Congress has not the power to limit the use of that water or to reserve it to the upper basin States, would not that preclude us from any further development?

Senator JOHNSON. No; I do not think they could do anything of that sort, so far as that is concerned. Can you for one instant conceive that if the United States Government were to authorize this construction it would be duplicated by the State of Arizona? Are you not indulging in a fanciful conjecture there that really is of no consequence in the discussion?

Mr. HOPKINS. Well, I do not know as to that.

Senator JOHNSON. It seems to me so far beyond the range of reason I am not quarreling with your opinion at all, Mr. Hopkins, but it strikes me that there can be no reason in the suggestion that if Congress authorizes this construction and surrounds it with every restriction that Congress can put around a transaction of this sort; if Congress utilizes its power and its domination over the public lands of the United States, to say that Arizona will start in and duplicate the structure that Congress is authorizing seems to me scarcely based upon reason. However, I leave that with you.

Mr. HOPKINS. Here is something that occurs to me. Arizona would have an equal interest in the waters of that reservoir and in its power possibilities, would it not?

Senator JOHNSON. Well, it might and it might not.

Mr. HOPKINS. If it does have that interest and if it is not bound by the compact, how would they be barred from asserting their priorities as against the upper basin States?

Senator JOHNSON. But they are not barred from asserting any priorities at the present time, are they?

Mr. HOPKINS. No.

Senator JOHNSON. And you are going to run along for five or six years until they assert their priorities? Is that the theory? Mr. HOPKINS No: what we are asking is that the power commission be directed to suspend operations there until such time as the waters are apportioned.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you not think that the power commission would suspend operations there if the United States Government authorized a work of this sort and if we requested it, and if we took every precaution that could be taken in a measure passed by the Congress and signed by the President? Do you conceive that the power commission immediately would run over to Tucson, Ariz., or to Phoenix or to Yuma, peddling out power permits there to the

State of Arizona or to anybody in that vicinity? I can not conceive that such a thing would be possible, and it strikes me that your objections are entirely fanciful, Mr. Hopkins. With all due deference and respect I say that.

Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Chairman, if I may make the suggestion, my understanding of Mr. Hopkin's attitude was that it was not what the Power Commission would do within the next five or six years, but it would be the permanent demands of Arizona after the Boulder Canyon Dam was a fact.

Senator JOHNSON. But, my dear Senator, the Power Commission exercises its right of restriction now, does it not?

Senator KENDRICK. On this one dam.

Senator JOHNSON. No, no; it exercises it wherever it sees fit. Senator KENDRICK. It does; but anyone listening to the testimony of witnesses throughout the State of Arizona would naturally conclude, I think, that there was at least a possibility of Arizona's claiming some rights and maintaining them, that we have not been led to believe she had.

Senator JOHNSON. Oh, I agree with you, Senator, but I am not going to predicate anything upon some of that testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. We have two other witnesses from Wyoming. The Senate has adjourned over until Monday, which will give us the whole of to-morrow to give to these witnesses.

Senator PHIPPS. If I may be permitted to make the request, Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to have Mr. Boatright, acting attorney general of Colorado, to appear as the next witness, to be followed by Mr. Bannister, for the reason that it may not be possible for me to remain long enough to hear all of the other witnesses much as I should like to.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure we would be very glad to do that. Senator, except that in the case of Mr. Boatright I have promised him that he could have the opportunity to close the argument because of his connection with the State of Colorado and the high position that he occupies as attorney general.

Senator PHIPPS. You are not prepared to proceed next, Mr. Boatright?

Mr. BOATRIGHT. I had made my entire preparation, as I explained to you, Mr. Chairman, with the idea of not making any extended statement but of simply picking up any tag ends. If it is going to inconvenience the Senator in any way I will try to suit his convenience, but that was the purpose of the arrangements which I have heretofore made.

(After informal discussion :)

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit it, we desire a day in rebuttal.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not know that. That will take the hearings into the following week, then.

Senator JOHNSON. If you will permit it we will get through Monday, if you will have a session on Monday.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is agreeable.

(Whereupon, at 4.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet at 10.30 o'clock a. m. to-morrow, Saturday, December 19, 1925.)

« PreviousContinue »