OCR Text |
Show 12 BOULDER CANYON PROJECT opportunities. All uses can be coordinated and the fullest benefits realized only by their centralized control. (Hearings on S. Res. 320, 69th Cong., 1st sess., p. 868.) A similar view was voiced by the President in a telegram to C C. Teague, of date October 7, 1924, in which he said: The major purposes of the works to be constructed * * * involve two fundamental questions which must always remain in public control-that is, flood control and the provision of immense water storage necessary to hold the seasonal and annual flow so as to provide for the large reclamation possibilities in both California and Arizona. These considerations seem to me to dominate all others and to point logically to the Federal Government as the agency to undertake the construction of a great dam at Boulder Canyon or some other suitable locality * * * (Hearings on S. 727, 68th Cong., 2d sess., p. 13.) This thought was also clearly expressed by the late President Harding in the manuscript of an address which he expected to deliver at San Diego. He was prevented from delivering this address by death. He said: Such a gigantic operation may not be accomplished within the resources of the local communities. It is ray view, and I believe the accepted view of a large part of our people, that the initial capital for the installation of these engineering works must be provided by the American people as a whole, and truly the American people as a whole benefit from such an investment. The addition to our national assets of so productive a unit benefits, not alone the local community created by it, but also, directly and indirectly, our entire national life. * * * I should indeed be proud if, during my administration, I could participate in the inauguration of this great project by affixing my signature to the proper legislation by Congress through which it might be launched. I should feel that I had some small part in the many thousands of fine American homes that would spring forth from the desert during the course of my lifetime as the result of such an act and in the extension of these fine foundations of our American people. (Hearings on H. R. 2903, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1S84, 1885.) The views of the advisory committee to the Secretary of the Interior on this subject are as follows: Mr. Garfield: The jurisdiction of a single State is not broad enough to deal with all the problems that necessarily arise in the construction and development of such a project as that under consideration. The United States alone has the power properly to safeguard the interest and rights of all those who may be affected by such a major development and is, furthermore, the only political agency that can deal with and settle the international questions arising with Mexico. The United States Government is not only the political sovereign whose jurisdiction is broad enough to deal with all the phases of the problem but it is likewise the largest land owner along the bed of the Colorado. Hence, whatever theory of the use of water is adopted in any particular State, the use of the public domain in that State can onty be obtained under congressional act, and Congress may impose in such act whatever conditions it deems wise. Governor Emerson: The construction and operation of the described project is a logical and, in gome phases, even a necessary undertaking of the Federal Government, for the following reasons: (a) The international situation applying to the river. (b) Flood control as a national problem. (c) Reclamation of land as an accepted Government activity. (d) Magnitude of project and of various interests involved. Governor Scrugham: With all of the above factors in mind, it appears entirely proper and practicable for the Federal Government to undertake the first step in river development, which is the construction of an adequate dam and reservoir for flood and |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |