| OCR Text |
Show 116 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER Case asked Howard: "Do these rights attach to the land of the person who uses the water, or to the indi- vidual, or to what?" "They are ordinarily appurtenant to the land but may be transferred independently of the land," said Howard. "Is continued use necessary for continued right?" in- quired the chairman. "If an appropriated right is left unused for three years," Howard replied, "it is deemed to be forfeited." Senator Malone, a visitor to the hearing, asked Howard: 126 "There is no question in your mind that the Supreme Court has full authority to make such an adjudication?" Howard thought that was correct, and discussed again the main issues of the controversy. He was sup- ported by Shaw,127 who then spoke on the question of whether a real threat to California existed. ". . . as to what constitutes a threat of injury," Shaw said, "perhaps the simplest threat of injury is for one man to say to another, 'I will shoot you if I can, or any time I can.' Arizona now says to California, 'I will take your water any time I can.' ". . . the State of Arizona caused bills to be introduced in Congress, sends counsel and witnesses to hearings, its chief executive puts out statements and letters and this congressional delegation exerts its every possible effort for a year to get the bills recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and adopted In the process, the state of Arizona appropriates $200,000 to aid the Secretary [of the Interior] in making an engineering report and plans and cost estimates. It also appropriates other large sums of money to carry on this contest be- fore the Congress. |
