« PreviousContinue »
a particularly unusual dry season, there was shipped in to feed the livestock in that neighborhood, to one station in the Green River Valley, as I recall the figures, $180,000 worth of feed to save the herds and flocks that he has mentioned in his statement.
Mr. EMERSON. That is true, Governor.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any member of the committee desire to ask Mr. Emerson a question?
Mr. EMERSON. I would like to add a little.
Mr. EMERSON. We have heard something about negotiations between the individual States in the two basins of the Colorado River; we are having a negotiation between States in the upper division now. We are not letting that stand in the way of the ratification of the Colorado River compact under statutory enactment made by the 1923 legislature. We have reciprocity between the States of Wyoming and Utah in regard to the use and administration of water between those two States and we are making real progress in this negotiation, but we are not using that or any part of it as a reason why we should not ratify the compact. We heard mention of the situation in regard to the Glen Canyon Reservoir wherein the dam is located in the State of Arizona and most of the reservoir in Utah has a similar situation in regard to Flaming Forge, where the dam is in Utah and most of the reservoir is in Wyoming. We will have no trouble between Wyoming and Utah about that. We are willing to take chances on negotiating any question that may arise. I think from our experience on the North Platte, our experience of the futility of litigation in settling interstate water problems, and our desire to avoid them, and our wish to be permitted to develop without restriction, we are justified in our position that the compact should be ratified before development in a large way is allowed on the lower river. I think that is all.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Emerson.
Senator Ashurst. You think all development should stop in the upper basin. Are you willing to apply to yourselves the same ruling that you want to apply to others?
Mr. EMERSON. In a large way; yes.
Mr. EMERSON. I can say yes to that, Senator, I am not able to see your argument in regard to the Gila River-I think it is as much a part of the Colorado River system as our Green River. .
Senator ASHURST. Do you think that any of the waters of the Gila River are liable to get up into the State of Colorado or the State of Wyoming ?
Mr. EMERSON. No, sir; but I think the waters of the Gila will be available for the All-American Canal, and
Senator ASHURST (interposing). Very well.
Mr. EMERSON (continuing). Because if storage is made it will be available for use in California.
Senator CAMERON. I might state that if from the All-American Canal it is taken out, as presumably it will be, on the California side, that will be some 16 or 17 miles away from the mouth of the Gila River.
Mr. EMERSON. Yes, sir; and
Senator CAMERON (continuing). So that under those conditions it could not have any connection with the Colorado River Valley.
Mr. EMERSON. When and if the change that you suggest is made that would be true. It would still be possible to divert the waters below the mouth of the Gila River for uses in irrigation below.
Senator CAMERON. Where would you use it, in Old Mexico!
Mr. EMERSON. You could use it in Old Mexico by international treaty
Senator CAMERON. I think that part of it is pretty far-fetched, because I do not think there is any connection with the Gila River and the Colorado River in this controversy.
Mr. EMERSON. I shall have to insist that the Gila River is just as much a tributary of the Colorado as some of the smaller streams, as, for instance, the smallest stream in Wyoming.
Senator CAMERON. That is a difference of opinion.
Senator Ashurst. Mr. Emerson, you have disclosed that you have a wide grasp of these affairs, and I want to see how far your sense of justice operates on this proposition: New Mexico, according to Mr. Meeker, with whom I do not agree, furnishes to Gila River about 443,000 acre-feet annually.
Mr. EMERSON. Yes, sir.
Senator ASHURST. Arizona furnishes about seven-eighths of the Gila waters. Do you object to Arizona using those waters which wholly rise within Arizona and which never could reach the Upper Basin? I mean assuming that California does not object and if Congress agrees to it, would you object ?
Mr. EMERSON. No; I have no particular objection to your using the water of the Gila River.
Senator ASHURST. Because such thereof as we do not use would go on to California anyhow.
Mr. EMERSON. I should not want you to ask our support of any legislation that would permit you to establish large projects on the Gila River.
Senator ASHURST. You would not oppose the construction of projects for the use of water that rises only in the State of Arizona, would you?
Mr. EMERSON. I should oppose your asking us to consent to the use of any water of the Colorado River and its tributaries until you are willing to give us protection upon our Colorado River tributaries. That I think is our due.
Senator ASHURST. Show me how we hurt you by our use of the Gila River.
Mr. EMERSON. You could ratify the compact and solve any problem that affects the upper States. That is a document that has stood the acid test and that your State had a part in negotiating. And, in our opinion, and I admit that it is a matter of opinion, it is fair to every State in the river basin for them to enter into.
Senator ASHURST. It is unjust to Arizona.
Mr. Emerson. My position, personally speaking, would be one of opposition to any project which proposed the use of the water until the use of it in Wyoming is protected.
Senator ASHURST. I regret to see so well informed a man as yourself go into the domain of speculation and imagination and think that we are going to injure Colorado by using the waters of the Gila River or injure Wyoming by using the waters of the Gila River. The only State that could possibly be interested in our use of the waters of the Gila River would be California, and I am happy to say for the record, that the entire California delegation, in both Houses of Congress, have stood with us upon the doctrine that we have the right to use such of the waters of the Gila River as 'origi. nate in Arizona.
Mr. EMERSON. As a witness here before your committee, I shall have to assert again that the Gila River is just as much a tributary of the Colorado River as are the various other small tributaries thereof.
Senator ASHURST. You have made a remarkable effort here, one that if successful would startle scientists of the world-you are trying to demonstrate that water can run up hill.
Mr. EMERSON. Senator, no engineer will say that water will run up hill, as that term is understood.
Senator JOHNSON. As I understand you, Mr. Emerson, you oppose any development, of any sort, at any time, or at any place, under any circumstances, until the seven-State compact shall have been ratified.
Mr. EMERSON. I have said nothing of the kind, Senator, if you will permit me. I do not recall that I have said anything of that kind, Senator Johnson.
Senator JOHNSON. Then that is not your view?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Emerson, accepting your view that further development should not proceed along any of the rivers of the Colorado, including the Gila, until the seven-power compact is consummated by the basin States, have you in mind the development of the San Carlos project?
Mr. EMERSON. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, if you will pardon me, I have not asserted that all development should stop before the seven-State compact is made. While I have said that until the .compact is ratified I would be against development upon the lower river
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That is what I understood.
Mr. EMERSON (continuing). I, perhaps, should have modified that statement with certain exceptions, because I concur in what the representatives of other States have said in regard to the sixState compact as a whole, but
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Yes, I understood that.
Mr. EMERSON (continuing). But as a last resort it will be acceptable, especially in view of certain relief in the lower valley. And I wish to state in support of that proposition that I was for the six-State compact; that when the thing was killed in the house of the Legislature of Wyoming, the last night of the session, I had my part in bringing that bill back to life, and holding the legislature there for many hours in order that its approval might be secured. As to the great need of flood protection for the Imperial Valley, I am in sympathy with that, and with much of the development down there, if we are protected in a situation which has been a serious drawback heretofore.
Senator JOHNSON. I am very glad that you have answered my question so that I might understand your view.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Emerson, the committee wishes to thank you. The next witness, Senator Kendrick?
Senator KENDRICK. The next witness will be Mr. David J. Howell, attorney general of Wyoming.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Howell will please take a seat at the other end of the table. What is your name and who do you represent?
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID J. HOWELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, CHEYENNE, WYO.
Mr. HOWELL. It is my purpose to read into the record a very brief statement at this time because most of the points have been covered by others of the delegation from the State of Wyoming and other States. I will make it as brief as possible.
It is not my intention to review the many problems relating to the upper basin States of the Colorado River. Most of these have already been presented to your attention. It does, however, seem necessary that the different positions of the several States on these questions be given to this committee.
The seven States of the Colorado River may by concerted effort adopt one of two methods of settling their differences: one is by compact; the other, the ordinary processes of the courts.
The six-State compact, so called, appears to me to be a combination of these two methods and possessing the advantages of neither.
The States of Wyoming and Colorado many years ago entered into litigation involving the Laramie River, a comparatively small stream and with few established rights. The cost to both of these States in such litigation was enormous. From the inception of the case to the final decree, a period of 11 years elapsed. I think I am correct in saying that long before that decree was entered, both States were thoroughly disheartened over the situation, and at its conclusion neither State was satisfied with the decision.
Is it, then, strange that Wyoming and Colorado insist that the Colorado River compact be ratified prior to any further develop. ment on the river? We have already had our day in court.
The suggestion and request for a Colorado River compact originally came from the upper States, for the purpose of putting in legal form the many assurances by the lower States. It has been drafted and signed and the upper States insist upon a completed program. The only reason why the six-State compact was ever considered was out of a desire to aid flood control, and was expressly for the benefit of the lower States.
The fact is that the Wyoming representatives are here to-day because Arizona and California have not ratified this pact. The lower States are insisting that power development shall precede the compact, whereas in all equity it should follow. The lower States protest that they have no objection to this compact, yet they have refused to ratify it, but seek to have it made effective in a way that, to say the least, is open to grave doubts. They seek to determine the method and degree by which the upper States shall receive protection. Do we not have the right to say what shall be done to give the upper States their just share in the waters of the Colorado and to determine for ourselves the efficacy of those methods of protection. There is grave doubt as to whether or not the conditional ratification of the California Legislature upon the six-State compact has any validity. The governor of that State did not sign the resolution. The attorney general of California holds that it is not necessary. Certainly every term of the California ratification must be met by the proposed act of Congress, or the resolution is inoperative.
There are several other legal reasons why this ratification may be found to be impractical.
Another reason impels opposition to any large power site on the river at this time, and one which should weigh very heavily with Arizona herself. It is often suggested and has been mentioned at this hearing that Arizona intends to exact a royalty or some consideration on power produced at sites in that State. It is not improbable that some difficulty may arise in regard to this with the Government, which would necessitate the application by Arizona for an injunction to restrain any work until a settlement was had. This would squarely raise the question of the right of the United States to complete control of the unappropriated waters of the western States, a principle which has long been urged by certain departments of the Federal Government. While we have no doubt of the ultimate conclusion of this issue if presented in a proper case we think it unwise to have that question raised in such a manner and under conditions so extremely unfavorable to all of the States.
Therefore, the representatives of Wyoming desire to be emphatically understood as opposing all major development upon the Colorado River until its rights are established in a way which will without doubt safeguard to the people our share of the waters of that river in perpetuity. We have taken every essential step necessary to assist Arizona and California.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, any questions of the attorney general?
Senator JOHNSON. You insist upon a ratification of the sevenState compact, do you not?
Mr. HOWELL. That is the position of the upper States. Like some of the other representatives, I am willing to say that, as a last resort, considerable protection could be afforded to other States by the sixState compact.
Senator Ashurst. General, I listened with interest to your lawyerlike paper. The Congress of the United States under the Constitution authorized those seven States to enter into a compact for an equitable division of the waters among those seven States, No engineer or lawyer can take that compact and say what water Wyoming gets, or what specified water Arizona gets.
Mr. HOWELL. Of course, Senator Ashurst, you realize
Senator ASHURST (continuing). May I ask you if that does not state the truth of the situation?
Mr. HOWELL. That as far as four States are concerned