OCR Text |
Show COMPACT-STATEMENT BY SLOAN----ARIZONA A65 works situated wholly within this state, for the river runs for its entire distance through the state in the Grand Canyon of Arizona. Again, there are marked differences between the conditions governing the use of the water of the river in the upper and lower basins. Climate and the physical conformation of the lands that may be irrigated limit and restrict such uses in the upper states. The lands there are all situated at high elevations, and the products, therefore, are such as may be grown only in a temperate climate. These lands for the most part are situated in narrow valleys and, while there are few comparatively large projects, the majority are relatively small. Of the water actually diverted a very considerable portion, varying, of course, as the conformation of the country varies, returns to the streams as return water. The duty of water in the upper basin averages about one and five-tenths acre-feet per acre per annum. In the lower basin the lands that may be irrigated from the Colorado river are for the most part situated in large individual units or areas requiring diversion dams and other works of great magnitude and of great cost. The consumption of water per acre is high, due to an extreme aridity of climate and the long growing season. The duty of water in the lower basin is in the neighborhood of four acre-feet per acre per annum. In view of this physical separation and diversity of conditions between the upper and lower basins the question naturally arises, Why should any controversy between the states of the two divisions ever arise? The answer to that question is important because it involves a consideration of the reasons for the creation of the Colorado river commission and for the compact. In general, the answer to the question is that while it is not certain that conflict may arise, there is, nevertheless, in the states of the upper basin, the fear that it will arise should there be any large works constructed on the lower river that shall have either as an incident or as a major purpose the development of power. The compact was not occasioned by the belief that there is an insufficient supply of water in the river if properly conserved for the reasonable needs of the entire basin for agriculture and domestic uses. The compact had its inception in the apprehension of the people of the upper states that great dams and storage works for river control, agriculture, and power might be built somewhere below the Utah line and that thereby priority of right may grow out of these works which will embarrass and curtail their own agricultural development. This fear is based upon the law of prior appropriation in its application to an interstate stream, a doctrine which has recently been recognized and applied by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Wyoming v. Colorado. It is their claim that this law of priority as applied to the water of the Colorado river basin will not only work 77831-48------17 |
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] : |