OCR Text |
Show COMPACT-ANALYSIS BY HERBERT HOOVER A39 but that no provision is made for a revision oj ike terms relating to the flow oj the Colorado River at Lee Ferry, as set forth in paragraph (d)? No such special provision was necessary. All that the present commission has done has been by virtue of its power "to divide and apportion equitably" the waters of the river. By specifying in this compact the powers of the second commission in identical language the same powers are necessarily granted, and that commission may do whatever this one could, subject only to noninterference with individual rights which may have become vested under this agreement. It was therefore not considered necessary to specify powers in detail, since the grant of the general power includes the particular. In this connection it must be remembered that the further compact at the end of 40 years can be entered into only by unanimous agreement of the States. Given such unanimity, anything desired may be done and any existing provisions modified or annulled. Question 17. In your opinion, will the States of the upper division or the States of the lower division benefit most by the terms of paragraph (e) of Article III when the same are in actual operation? This paragraph applies only to an unreasonable or arbitrary withholding or demand. I do not anticipate either arbitrary action or unreasonableness on the part of any of the States concerned. The upper States can gain nothing by withholding water not needed, nor can the lower States gain by demanding water for which they have no use. The paragraph is of value as an expression of the prohibition of such action, but I doubt if it is ever called into practical effect. Question 18. Why is the use of the waters of the Colorado River for navigation made subservient to domestic, agricultural, and power uses, as provided in paragraph (a) of Article IV? This article is an expression of the views of the commission as to the relative importance of the uses to which the waters of the river may be devoted. It is recognized that on many streams navigation is a paramount use, but on this particular river navigation is negligible in fact. As expressed in the language adopted, the river "has ceased to be navigable for commerce." This is a true statement of the existing situation. Below Yuma there is but little water in the river bed. The Laguna Dam, above Yuma, has made navigation between points above and below it physically impossible, and the construction of farther dams in the development of the river will prevent navigation at other points, even if it were now physically possible. Power structures, irrigation dams and navigation cannot conveniently exist together. It was therefore felt that the very great possible use of this water for power and irrigation far outweighed in economic importance |
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] : |