OCR Text |
Show isting uses and acquired the users' interest by purchase or condemnation in navigable or non-navigable streams could not be made in the time available for preparation of this memorandum. Upon the receipt of Mr. Boyd's request, Regional Counsel for the seven regions were requested to advise by teletype of all instances in their knowledge in which water rights have been acquired by purchase or pursuant to State law on legally navigable streams or in which rights for existing or authorized projects have not been so acquired on such streams. A resume of their responses follows: Region 1 (which includes the States of Washington, Idaho, the northern half of Oregon, and the western part of Montana) The Regional Counsel made a review, in the limited time available, of practices with respect to making filings under section 8, 1902 Act, and in connection with acquisitions under section 7 of that Act. In the following tabulation the area is indicated by projects, the streams involved, and probable situation as to their navigability, the latter being indicated by this code-1, navigable; 2, navigability not established with finality but facts appear to support conclusion of being legally navigable; and 3, probably non-navigable: Idaho Boise Project, Boise River, 2 Boise Project, Payette Division, Payette River, 2 Minidoka Project, Snake River, 2 Palisades Project, Snake River, 2 Rathdrum Prairie, Post Falls Unit, Spokane River, 2 Upper Snake River Storage, Henry's Fork, 3 |
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. |