OCR Text |
Show -3- perial Land Company. It was determined by the experts who conducted the investigation that while the river may technically be characterized as navigable, it is not so for ordinary practical and business purposes, such as would come within the broader meaning of the word "navigable," and that to make the river navigable in this latter sense it would require a gigantic, and perhaps futile, financial outlay. After a full consideration of the reports and of the conditions existing along the river generally, the Department of State was informed that as the necessities of navigation were so infinitely less than, and of such insignificant importance as compared with, those of irrigation, and that as the operations of the Imperial Land Company were not materially affecting navigation, it was not deemed advisable to attempt to enjoin it from taking water from the stream. But the proposed legislation is a complete subjection of the river to the cause of irrigation, and there can be no doubt that whatever degree of navigable capacity the stream may now possess, the effect of the passage of this bill would be to encourage the taking of water to such an extent as to place the navigation thereof beyond all possibility. As to the effect of this proposed legislation upon our international relations, the fact that the Colorado river, for about twenty miles, forms a common boundary line between this country and the Republic of Mexico, necessarily draws into question our treaty stipulations with that Republic relative to such boundary line. It may be best to set out in full those provisions of the treaties involved. Article VII, of the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, reads as follows: The river Gila and the part of the Rio Bravo del Norte lying below the southern boundary of New |
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. |