AZ vs. CA:24 California Exhibits, Vol. XXIV; Miscellaneous

page A41

COMPACT-ANALYSIS BY HERBERT HOOVER A41 flow of the water. But it can not be pretended that the upper basin is to be denied the right to the use of the water for agricultural purposes because of power demands in the lower basin. Such a pretension would not be supported in any of the courts, and if set up in the lower basin would mean that the basin will not be developed so long as the upper States can exert any legislative influence whatever. As a matter of fact, the power possibilities of the river are in no way diminished by the compact, unless it is to be assumed that there is not to be an equitable division of water. (d) The compact provides that no water is to be withheld above that can not be used for purposes of agriculture. The lower basin will therefore receive the entire flow of the river, less only the amount consumptively used in the upper States for agricultural purposes. (e) The contention that the Colorado River is to continue to flow undiminished in volume across the northern boundary line of Arizona is a contention that the upper States shall have no rights to irrigation. It is a direct negation of both equity and human rights. Question 21. Paragraph (c) of Article IV states that that article shall not interfere with the control by any State over the appropriation, use, and distribution of water within its own boundaries. Does this imply that the remainder of the compact may inteifere with such intrastate control? This article seems the only one of the compact which might affect the relations of citizens of one State with each other, and it was therefore considered advisable to add the clause to which your question refers. I do not believe, however, that its insertion in this article would, by implication or otherwise, preclude the complete control by each State of its own internal affairs. Question 22. Does the Colorado River compact apportion any water to the State of Arizona? No, nor to any other State individually. The apportionment is to the groups. Question 23. In case of disagreements between the States of Arizona, California or Nevada as to a division among them of the waters of the Colorado River system apportioned by the compact to the lower basin, what procedure will be followed and what rules will govern the settlement of such differences? This situation would be covered by Article VI. If its provisions are not sufficient or not satisfactory, then the dispute would be settled in the same way as other interstate conflicts now are, either by negotiation or agreement or by litigation.