Page images
PDF
EPUB

and after such storage had been provided, then such claims as might be raised on the present water rights would vanish.

Mr. LITTLE. Would the building of the Boulder Dam have any effect on the supply in the upper river?

Secretary HOOVER. NO

Mr. LITTLE (interposing). Or upon the irrigation along the upper river?

Secretary HOOVER. No; it would not affect the physical flow in the upper States. It would affect their rights to use the water. The storage of water would not increase the available water above the reservoir, but it would provide more available water for the States below and would thus relieve their claims against the users of water in the upper States.

Mr. RAKER. In this compact is it intended that these seven States under this compact shall control all of the water of the Colorado River?

Secretary HOOVER. Yes; all of the water of the Colorado River and its tributaries that lie within the seven States.

Mr. RAKER. That is what I mean. In other words, up to 1963 it is divided, 7,500,000 acre-feet for the upper basin?

Secretary HoOVER. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. And 7,500,000 acre-feet for the lower basin, with the addition of a million acre-feet?

Secretary HoоVER. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. And then, after 1963, although they claim all the water now, it may not be used; and if there is any there then they will allocate it among themselves, as the judgment of the seven States might determine?

Secretary HOOVER. That is the idea. Of course, the water could never be taken anywhere else; no one else could use it.

Mr. RAKER. But so far as the claim of anyone to any of the waters is concerned the seven States have attempted to agree among themselves that they own it all?

Secretary HOOVER. That is correct, except for the rights of Mexico. Mr. RAKER. Yes; I am leaving that out all the time. And if the Federal Government approves the compact, then it would assent and agree to the fact that the States had the control and use and handling of all the waters of the Colorado River in the seven States, according to the compact?

Secretary HOOVER. Well, you bring up there a very involved question of law.

Mr. RAKER. Well, that has been in my mind for a year and I have been seeeking information from lawyers and others, and no one has been able to explain it to me yet; and I have just been hoping this morning that I would get it from you.

Secretary HOOVER. I sat through these arguments for something over a year, and my recollection of the arguments runs something to this effect:

The Federal Government has laid claim to all of the unappropriated waters in these streams. That claim is sharply opposed by all of the Western States. They do not admit that the Federal Government has per se, as a Federal Government, a right to the unappropriated water. They set up the contention that the original

[ocr errors]

acts on which the States were created transferred the rights to water to them, and various other rights. The question has never been decided in the courts.

Mr. RAKER. Well, if this compact was agreed to by all seven of them and ratified by Congress it would, per se, eliminate any claim of the Federal Government?

Secretary HOOVER. No; there is a question as to that, because in the drafting of the compact we had the advice of counsel contending in both directions, and we attempted to draft the compact so as to leave the question undisturbed. It is purely a theoretical question. This water can never be used in any other area except Mexico. It has no practical importance when everybody has agreed.

Mr. RAKER. I do not see how they have left it undisturbed; and I just want to go on a little further. And it seems to me that they have not only fixed it; but they have nailed it, and then clinched the nails to this effect: That if the Federal Government approves this compact, so far as it is concerned, any claim over it is entirely at an end in other words, its claims are completely abrogated.

Secretary HoOVER. You are dealing here with a practical situation. The Federal Government could not use the water except in these seven States.

Mr. RAKER. That is true.

Secretary HoOVER. And this does take from the Federal Government any power to take water from the lower basin, for instance, and give it to the upper basin; the Federal Government agrees to the division, as a matter of compact. It could not subsequently enter into the situation and disturb that relation. The rights between the States in the upper basin or lower basin are concerned, and those of the Federal Government are none of them disturbed by the compact. Mr RAKER. But now, by this provision, the Federal Govern

ment

Mr. SINNOTT (interposing). Well, Judge Raker, why do you think that is a practical question?

Mr. RAKER. I am going to develop in just a moment why I think it is a practical question, and ask the judgment of Mr. Hoover in considering this matter:

There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River system in perpetuity to the upper basin and to the lower basin, respectively, the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum.

Now, if the Federal Government concedes that, then, so far as its use or handling of that amount of water is concerned, it would, it seems to me, be eliminated. And I am asking that question for this purpose: Before the Government would proceed to construct a dam at any place on the Colorado River, it would necessarily proceed to acquire, under the limit-whatever it might be the right to water for that dam. Is that not the fact?

Secretary HOOVER. There you have raised the primary contention of the upper States. The upper States contend that, if the Federal Government did construct a dam in the lower river, they would thereby acquire a beneficial use, which might be used in priority to the upper States.

Mr. LITTLE. The Government would?

Secretary HOOVER. Yes; and in such a fashion as would prejudice the rights of the upper States.

Mr. LITTLE. May I ask you a question, Mr. Secretary? As I understand it, they can not store any water by this dam that has not run by all six of them; so how is it going to hurt them?

Secretary HOOVER. The person who has established a beneficial use may contend under some interpretations of the court decisions for the continued flow of the river. If that claim could be established it might be used to estop its consumption on territory above the dam. I am getting out of my depth; because I am not a lawyer. Interstate western water law is a matter far from any definite solution. The establishment of a beneficial use, say, by the construction of the Boulder Dam would, according to the contention of the upper States, give the Federal Government the right to require the continued flow of an amount of water which could be served from that dam; and might thereby in certain contingencies prevent the irrigation development of the upper States.

Mr. RAKER. Now, that has to be proved, if the Federal Government has the right to build and maintain a dam and utilize those waters, and if it is true and the Federal Government yields its right to the States-I am asking you now if the question was gone into, as to what right the United States would have to go into Colorado or Nevada and construct this dam without the States imposing conditions on it, if it wanted to do so? In other words, will not this compact, if it is approved by the Federal Government, give Arizona or Nevada the opportunity to go in and say, "Now, this is all our water. You have got the line of the stream here; but before you can build a dam we want a royalty from you each year." That has not been settled by these States yet; and I am just wondering whether that was brought up in the commission, so that we may know, if we authorize this construction, whether any of these States may put in a claim for royalty for all time on the ground that that water is theirs.

Mr. LITTLE. Does the gentleman mean royalty on the water that flows into Mexico?

Mr. RAKER. I mean exactly what my question says.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a royalty on the water; not on the dam.

Mr. LITTLE. There is water running into Mexico all the time from this river basin. Does the gentleman think they want a royalty on that?

Mr. RAKER. There is no oil in this case; it is water. And now I will put another question.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Water might be as dangerous as oil sometimes. Mr. RAKER. Well, I am asking this question for information. We are trying to give our best judgment. If the water is all given to the States, and the Government yields its right that it now has to the water, can it go in and build a dam and maintain a prior right as an individual or association can do? In other words, if the Government yields its rights would the States be in a position to ask a royalty for permitting the construction of the dam there by the Government?

Secretary HOOVER. I would like to take your question and submit it to the legal advisers.

Mr. RAKER. That is all right.

Secretary HOOVER. And I will get a reply from them.

Mr. RAKER. Now, that is very satisfactory, and I thank you very much for it.

Mr. SINNOTT. Is the stream navigable right there where the dam is going to be built?

Secretary HOOVER. No. But that has to be qualified. There was a period 30 or 40 years ago when a small steamer ran above the site of the dam. But there has been no navigation for many years; and there is now a dam on the lower river which would prevent navigation.

Mr. SINNOTT. Well, is it navigable now in fact, whether used or not?

Secretary HOOVER. Yes; you can go up and down on a launch; but there is no commercial value for navigation.

Mr. RICHARDS. What do you mean by the "site of the dam"? Secretary HOOVER. The site at either Boulder Canyon or Black Canyon. Navigation at one time reached a point above these sitesit was most precarious.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. At the time the commission drew the compact for submission to the several States, was it the view of the commission that the future development of the river by the Federal Government should follow the ratification of the compact both by the several States and by the Federal Government?

Secretary HOOVER. That I think, was the view of every member of the commission. We believed the compact was right, just, and practical, that it was the only solution. That it met every legitimate question. We believed it would be quickly ratified. This was the case in six States and it is opposed by the majority of the people in the seventh. As to actual construction it was generally the feeling that the major storage dams should be built by the Federal Govern

ment.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And that it was important, I take it, that the States also join in the ratification of the compact, in order to determine these conflicting rights which we have been discussing? Secretary HOOVER. Certainly; the States considered it impracticable to secure legislation from Congress, as a matter of just a practical fact, unless these water rights had been apportioned and the conflicts ended. The States of the upper basin are likely to oppose any legislation that does not recognize their rights; and they are opposed to the establishment of any priority for beneficial use in the Federal Government or anyone else, until their equitable rights have been protected.

Mr. SINNOTT. Is not the effect of that last Supreme Court decision, in the Colorado-Wyoming case, to obliterate State lines? Secretary HOOVER. You have raised another legal question. It is a decision that is capable of different construction. The last decision of the Supreme Court leans to prior rights as against equitable apportionment. On the other hand, the Supreme Court makes certain reservations in that decision that have not left it entirely clear. We have had various views expressed on that subject-this compact developed an infinite amount of legal argument on every one of these points.

Mr. RAKER. On that point, under the statutes at the present time, if the Federal Power Commission authorized the location and building of a dam at any place on the Colorado River, at any point

from the mouth up toward its head, and the party so authorized proceeded under the law and diligently prosecuted its work, it would get a prior right to anyone who might subsequently attempt to appropriate the water to domestic agricultural or hydroelectric purposes; that is practically the situation now, is it not?

Secretary HOOVER. I assume that would be the case and the upper States have opposed every such proposed permit.

Mr. RAKER. And under the law, the reclamation act, and this decision of the Supreme Court in Wyoming . Colorado, decided June 5, 1922, if the Federal Government proceeded under the law as it now stands, in all of those States, under the Supreme Court decision, it would obtain a like right to the prior use of the water for irrigation below, as well as the use for hydroelectric energy, if it became necessary?

Secretary HoOVER. I assume that is the case if you start with certain interpretations of the decisions.

Mr. RAKER. Now, under this compact, it provides that it shall be used for agricultural and domestic purposes, to the extent, say, of 15,000,000 acre-feet. Suppose the compact is ratified, and the Federal Government proceeds to build its dam; and one of the very purposes, outside of the prevention of floods and destruction of property below, is to generate enough electrical energy to pay for its construction in the future; and there came about low water for a couple of months during the year, is it the contention of those States that they can hold the water back from the Federal Governmen and not let it have enough to keep its plant running according to the construction planned, when it may have been 10 or 15 years that it was running before they attempted to divert the water for agricultural purposes?

Mr. RAKER. Now, did I make my question clear?

Secretary HoOVER. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. And I ask it for this purpose. That we may have, after all, a sound basis upon which to base a Federal appropriation that will be perpetual, and that we will not be deprived of it by any State or individual, under this compact or otherwise.

Secretary HooVER. Before I give you a direct answer to your question, I would like to make this statement. We are dealing here with a very practical situation, as distinguished from the theoretical legal possibilities that might grow out of a given conception or construction.

Now, as a direct answer to your question, the commission considered-and I think it was the universal view, and at all of the hearings held, I believe that there was only one individual dissent to the principle-that agricultural development must take priority over power; that the real economic and social foundations of those States lay in agriculture, rather than in power.

Now, as to the practical side of the answer to your question: In any construction by the Federal Government at Boulder Canyon site, or at some site in the neighborhood, the volume of water is so ample that there would be no danger in this initial construction of any impairment of the power flow and every further development of the river for power would further reinforce the power situ ation at this original development.

« PreviousContinue »