OCR Text |
Show -3- acquired under this bill, as I interpret it, it must be acquired under the appropriation laws of the State in which the water benefits are to be used, I do not see where there is any violation of the No. 3 point that you have now made. Mr. Winsor. Yes; the right of the State to control the appropriation, use, and distribution of water within the State, coupled with the other rights that the States have as to the ownership of the lands over which navigable waters flow, undoubtedly would be violated. Mr. Swing. The water rights that are already in existence are created under and by virtue of the water laws of the States in which the water is being used, and that will still be true under this bill as to any future water rights hereafter acquired. The water right itself can only come into existence by reason and under and by virtue of the laws of the State in which the water is put to beneficial use. Mr. Winsor. It is your theory, then, that if the Secretary of the Interior, under the provisions of this law, should store all of the waters that are allocated by the compact to the lower-basin States, that then, without any violation of the rights of the State, California under California law could appropriate all of that water so stored and made available to the lower-basin States? Is that your theory? Mr. Swing. My theory is this: That the water after it is stored by the Secretary of the Interior is equally available on identical terms for use by the citizens in any State, whether it is Arizona, Nevada, or California, and that their water rights from this reservoir or from the stream after the water is let out of the reservoir is acquired solely and only by virtue of the water laws in the State where it has to be put to use. |
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. |