OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of water annually. So the real nub of the controversy is, Does half of the million acre-feet of water mentioned in article III (b) of the compact rightfully and legally belong to California, or does all of it rightfully and legally belong by reason of California's Limitation Act to Arizona? The California witnesses say that only a judicial decision, or a tri-State compact can determine that question and that nothing new must be done until it is determined. Arizona witnesses contend that it has already been determined by what is, in effect, a tri-State compact through the combined effects of three enactments, namely, the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, the California Act of Limitation of 1929, and the Arizona water contract and a statute of 1944, under the terms of which there can be no legal question but that the million acre-feet of III (b) water belongs entirely to Arizona and to no one else. The Arizona witnesses further declare that not only is a tri-State compact of the lower basin States now unnecessary, by virtue of the above-mentioned enactments, but that earnest attempts have been made unsuccessfully through a quarter century to effect such an agreement and there is no prospect of better success now than during the years since 1922. It was further pointed out that the Supreme Court of the United States had previously refused to consider such a case and probably would not do so now; therefore a settlement by court decision seems very doubtful. AS THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL SEES IT As one of the authors of this legislation, H. R. 5434,1 feel that the opposition expressed to it is unwarranted, that the demand for delay on the part of the opposition witnesses until agreement is formally reached between all States concerned in a new interstate compact, or until judicial process can be had, would merely mean indefinite postponement of all water development on the Colorado River in both the lower basin and in the upper basin. Such delay would mean a continuation of the status quo, which might be highly desirable by those who are now being supplied water from the Colorado River, but highly detrimental, if not disastrous, to those States and communities starving for the waters of that river and having as good a right, based on human justice, and, in my judgment, as good a right based on human law, as have the present users. The Congress initiated legislation looking toward the development of the Colorado River Basin by authorizing the States of that Basin to enter into a compact. Such a compact was drawn at Santa Pe, N. Mex., in 1922 and ultimately ratified by all the basin States. In conformity with the Santa Fe Compact the Congress passed the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 as a further step in the proper development of the basin. Numerous other acts of Congress have subsequently been enacted to continue Colorado River Basin development in conformity to the Santa Fe Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Therefore, I regard some such measure as H. R. 5434 a proper, logical further step by Congress to continue this vital development in Arizona along the lines marked out for it in the beginning. MAIN OPPOSING ARGUMENTS ARE UNSOUND In general the contention of the opponents of H. R. 5434 that there was not enough water in the Colorado River system during the recent drought years to meet all of the firm commitments and the legal requirements may seem at first glance to have some basis of fact, it is really fallacious reasoning. It is admittedly true that the records of the last 16 years show a reduced run-off of the Colorado River watershed and thereby a reduced average flow at Lee's Ferry, to which opponents of H. R. 5434 point with a degree of concern. Particularly do they point with alarm to the much-reduced flow during the years of the decade from 1931 to 1940 inclusive, which is 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] : |