OCR Text |
Show [20] of these Indians on the money that we are expending for this irrigation system. The courts might construe that the word "completion" meant that we do not claim any additional appropriation of water from this river after this money is expended, thus bringing on complications. This word will not do any good in there, and if you leave it out it might protect the rights of the Indians in the future. Mr. Burke. I expect, Mr. Hayden, that we are constructing this plant under act of Congress of April 4, 1910, and I think you will find that that provides how much may be expended, and this appropriation is to complete it in accordance with that provision. Mr. Hayden. That act of April 4, 1910, said, "to secure an appropriation of water for approximately 150,000 acres of Indian lands." Mr. Burke. The statute reads, United States Statutes at Large, Sixty-first Congress, page 273: For the construction of a pumping plant to be used for irrigation purposes on the Colorado River Reservation, together with the necessary canals and laterals for the utilization of the water in connection therewith, for the purpose of securing an appropriation of water for the irrigation of approximately 150,000 acres of land, $50,000, to be reimbursed from the sale of the surplus lands of the reservation. Now, that is looking to the completion of that project. Mr. Hayden. It is obviously impossible to complete a project to irrigate 150,000 acres of land with this sum of money. Under the water laws of California and Arizona you give notice that you intend ultimately to irrigate 150,000 acres, and then you start the construction of a small plant which you intend to enlarge gradually to cover your entire project. If you are doing this in good faith and proceeding with due diligence, the courts will hold that the first work done fixes the date of the |
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. |