Page images
PDF
EPUB

just as earnestly to get protection for the future as they are. But, as I say, our rights are already protected by our laws as they are now upon our statute books, and we are willing to leave it to our laws. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I am obliged to you. Hon. Samuel White.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL WHITE, ATTORNEY AT LAW,

PHOENIX

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Samuel White. My business is that of attorney at law; residence, Phoenix, Ariz.

The CHAIRMAN. You have lived here since you removed from Oregon?

Mr. WHITE. I have lived here since the close of the late unpleasantness or late war. I was a resident of the State of Oregon at the time I entered the service of the United States Army.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Judge.

Mr. WHITE. I assume, this committee being largely composed of lawyers, that they are familiar with the legal situation as applicable to the Colorado River.

I am of the opinion that no development will ever be completed on the Colorado River until the States interested in the development get together in some kind of an arrangement for the settlement and adjustment of their various rights and contentions.

Arizona occupies this position: I assume that you all know this, that when this section of the country was taken over by the United States Government after the close of the Mexican War the Government of the United States took the bed of the Colorado River in trust for the whole people of the United States, or for the people of the State when organized out of that Territory.

The State of Arizona, by virtue of its sovereignty, owns the bed of the Colorado River for the use and benefit of all the people of the State of Arizona. That being true, it seems to me that it is fruitless to undertake to build a dam-whether the Government or anybody--to build a dam in the Colorado River until these differences are harmonized and the States come together in some kind of a compact, an agreement by which they can develop the Colorado River.

But until that is done Arizona, standing on her rights, says to you gentlemen that neither the Government of the United States nor any other power can build a dam in the Colorado River without the consent of the State of Arizona. That being true, why, it seems to me the part of wisdom on the part of some of these States, instead of coming to Arizona with a belligerent attitude, to come with a view of adjusting these conditions in a peaceable and amicable manner.

As far as the right of eminent domain is concerned, that is with the State. The Government of the United States has no power to exercise the right of eminent domain as against the sovereign State of Arizona in the Colorado River, the bed of the Colorado. It is true that the Government of the United States owns the land on both sides of the river, so that the Government of the United States can prevent Arizona from building a dam in the Colorado River.

The CHAIRMAN. You say the Government can prevent it?

Mr. WHITE. As the owner of the land on either side, the Government can prevent the State of Arizona from building a dam in that Colorado River and diverting the waters over Government lands.

As far as the enabling act is concerned, I want to say to you that the enabling act, the Government only reserved lands bordering on the Colorado River which should be selected when the lands were surveyed-legal subdivision of those lands surveyed-and the Secretary of the Interior would make a selection of those lands. Those lands have been selected. They are now held by the Government. They have been withdrawn from sale and are held by the Government of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand. Mr. WHITE. The enabling act never at any time undertook to deal with the bed of the Colorado River---never has undertaken to do som and if it had, if in the enabling act the Government of the United States had undertaken to reserve the bed of the Colorado River, it would have been an unconstitutional act and one that would not be binding upon the State of Arizona.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, illustrating your argument, the Government could not build a dam at Boulder Canyon without the consent of the State of Arizona.

Mr. WHITE. It would have to be built with the joint consent of the Government of the United States and the State of Arizona, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you think Arizona legally occupies a veto on all the development of the Colorado River?

Mr. WHITE. Arizona, sir, does not wish to exercise that veto power.

The CHAIRMAN. It isn't a question of what it wants to do. Has it that legal right, in your opinion?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; they have that legal right.

Senator DILL. I wanted to ask you this question. This is not purely a legal question, but you might be able to give me an answer. Is it your opinion that if Bridge Canyon were decided upon, that the State would not attempt to interpose any legal objection?

Mr. WHITE. That is my understanding of the attitude of the authorities in this State and of the people of this State.

Senator DILL. That is the attitude of the administration of the State!

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; as I understand, that is the attitude of the administration.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Merely a question of law, in your opinion. Do you carry in your mind the language of the enabling act, to which you referred?

Mr. WHITE. I will read it to you.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. If it does not take too much time, will you read that language?

Mr. WHITE. I have it right here. The reservation clause of the enabling act is found in section 28, which reads as follows:

There is hereby reserved to the United States and excepted from the operation of any and all grants made or confirmed by this act to said proposed State all land actually or prospectively valuable for the development of water power or power for hydroelectric use or transmission, and which shall be ascertained and designated by the Secretary of the Interior within five years after the proclamation of the President declaring the admission of the State.

72578—25--PT 3-9

а

The designation by the Secretary of the Interior is all land of the United States which when surveyed will be included within legal subdivisions in certain designated townships. Beds of rivers are never land within the contemplation of the Government in making legal subdivisions.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. That is exactly what I wanted to ask you, whether that language was broad enough to include the bed of a river?

Mr. White. No, sir; it is not.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. That is your contention?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAX. Judge, do you occupy any official position in the State of Arizona ?

Mr. White. I do not, sir. I prepared this brief.

The CHAIRMAX. Are you here purely as a representative of your profession and in an individual way?

Mr. WHITE. I am here, sir, at the request of the executive of this State to explain the legal situation, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Judge. I have a great regard for your legal attainments, and I make the request, as chairman of the committee, that you prepare a brief setting forth the legal situation, supported by such decisions and statutes as you may desire to refer. There is no hurry about it. This record will not be printed until the committee has had time to go over it and after their return to W'ashington. If you will send it directly to me some time between now and the 1st of December, I think we would all appreciate your kind

Mr. WHITE. I thank you, Senator. I would be very glad, indeed, to render that service, sir.

The CHAIRMAX. I shall now call Mr. Zander. Mr. Zander, your full name and address.

Mr. ZANDER. C. M. Zander.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you do?

Mír. ZANDER. I live at Phoenix, Ariz. I am executive member and secretary of the board of directors of State institutions, State of Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, in making up this list I have been purposely left to this late hour so that I could request that I be allowed to present my statement in writing to the secretary of the commission tomorrow without taking up any time this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Before we leave the city?
Mr. ZANDER. Before you leave the city.

The CHAIRMAX. You may have that privilege. We will be glad to receive it. Thank you.

Hon. J. H. Whyte.

ness,

STATEMENT OF J. H. WHYTE, EDITOR OF THE ARIZONA GAZETTE,

PHOENIX

Mr. WHYTE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like just briefly to make a statement of my idea of how this Colorado River development problem might be quickly and easily settled. I believe that you have heard, and I am impressed with the fact, that Bridge Canyon would be satisfactory to Arizona, and the

i eason is that it would be high enough up the river to give us gravity water.

I believe that California, and particularly Los Angeles, which must soon have an aqueduct that will cost, according to the money provided, $400,000,000, can get, as La Rue says in his report, gravity water from Bridge Canyon. That would be exactly in line with our idea of irrigating the largest amount of land in southern Arizona by a canal from Bridge Canyon. Both of those canals, the one for the aqueduct to Los Angeles and the one to southern Arizona, would come from Bridge Canyon down to Topock-about 100 miles—and the two States would be interested in financing that proposition, which is the most expensive part of the entire proposition.

Much has been said about 70 miles of tunnels on the Arizona side. I think if you will examine into the Los Angeles aqueduct plan that fully that many miles have been provided on the California side for the aqueduct. Now, I believe that California and Arizona eventually—and why not sooner--may get together on that one plan.

The CHAIRAX. Do you think that the use of water for domestic purposes by a large city is comparable with the use of water for irrigation !

Mr. WHYTE. No; I think that if the matter were taken into the courts

The CHAIRMAX. I am not speaking of the legal proposition at all.

Mr. WHYTE. I think that Los Angeles has no right to water in this basin, because it is not in this basin, if we could use it here now.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you finish your statement ?

Mr. WHYTE. Yes, sir, I have finished the statement. I wanted to make it brief. That is all there is to it.

Senator Dill. Mr. Whyte, I asked Mr. Mulholland in Los Angeles whether Bridge Canyon would serve their purposes by letting the water simply flow down the river.

Mr. WHYTE. Yes, sir.

Senator Dill. He ridiculed the gravity system, and I asked him if they could not let the water flow down the river and take it out now as they intended by their aqueduct which would be below Boulder Canyon, and he complained that the river would silt the water badly at certain times of the year.

Mr. W'HYTE. The La Rue report-and I think La Rue would probably have as good a standing among engineers at large as Mul. holland-takes the opposite view. So far as that is concerned, when you look over your testimony you will find that California does not want this water to drink. It is to take the place of irrigation water there, to release water that they may drink out of this present water arranagement that they have.

The CHAIRMAX. Do you think California would have two resources, one for domestic use and one for the purpose of irrigation ?

Mr. WHYTE. They would use this water from the Colorado River to irrigate with, and that would release water that they are now drinking, that they get out of their present system.

The CHAIRMAX. It would necessarily have to be a common pot of water. You would not keep one in one can for drinking purposes and the other in another can for the garden?

Mr. WHYTE. They would use this water from the river altogether for irrigation, we understand.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would think it was a very impracticable scheme.

Mr. WHYTE. That would release the water that they are now using for irrigation.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, may I venture to say that the gentleman is somewhat in error in regard to that. They want the water for domestic and industrial purposes there.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is the understanding that the committee gleaned at the hearings at Los Angeles and San Diego.

You don't want them to have that water?

Mr. WHYTE. I think that we want them as a State to have the water. But as a matter of law, I am told by attorneys who are well versed on the matter, that if we could use all the water in the basin, within the basin, then the city of Los Angeles would not be entitled to take water out of the basin because it is not in the basin. That same thing would apply to Denver in Colorado.

The CHAIRMAN. But if there is a surplus of water you would just as soon they have it as not?

Mr' WHYTE. If there is a surplus of water the courts would hold whatever the law is in that regard.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The next is Mr. F. A. Reid. Mr. Reid, you appeared briefly before the committee in Los Angeles ?

Mr. REID. Yes, sir. I want to be brief this time, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; I think the limitation placed upon you is 10 minutes. I want to apprise you of that fact.

STATEMENT OF F. A. REID, PRESIDENT SALT RIVER VALLEY

WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, PHOENIX, ARIZ.

Mr. REID. I appeared before the committee in Los Angeles, Mr. Chairman and Senators, and made a brief statement over there, and I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statements that have been made, both there and here, with reference to this Colorado River development. I assume that the thing that this committee would like to do would be to work out some plan which they could recommend to Congress for the development of this river which would satisfy all parties concerned. I think that would be a happy solution of this.

We in Arizona have been exercised about this development, for the reason we did not feel that our rights had been protected under the compact. For that reason Arizona has refused to sign it. We do not feel to-day that our interests are protected under the Swing-Johnson bill. We do feel that there is a possibility of writing into any bill before Congress-the Swing-Johnson bill or any other measure which is likely to become a law-a provision which would protect us.

It is my opinion that this committee could not do any greater favor to the seven States interested in this development than to make a recommendation that they get together and solve their own problems first before coming to Congress.

It seems to me that the only logical solution of this many-sided and complicated proposition is for the people who are familiar with

« PreviousContinue »