OCR Text |
Show 14 BOULDER CANYON PROJECT It was again urged by the department in a communication to the House committee on March 17, 1924. (Hearings on H. R. 2903, 68th Cong., 1st sess., p. 818.) The project was favorably reported on by engineers of the Reclamation Service in February, 1924, in a voluminous report which has been before this committee and considered by it, but which has not been published. This report contains a wealth of technical data on irrigable areas, various plans of development of the river, cost estimates, and similar data. On January 12, 1926r the Interior Department again recommended the project in a report to which reference is herein frequently made. (Hearings on S. Res. 320, 69th Cong., 1st sess., p. 867.) The President recommended the development in his message of December 6, 1927. The Secretary of the Interior in his report of January 21, 1928, on this bill recommended the development and approved the plan contained in the bill. His report in full is attached hereto. The financial plan contained in the bill has been approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. (Report to House committee.) This summary, by no means complete, of the various reports and recommendations upon this project, indicates the great care and long study which it has received from various Government departments and agencies and from congressional committees. It is as a result of all these that the project has taken its present form. COLORADO RIVER COMPACT About the time the Interior Department reported to Congress pursuant to the Kinkaid Act, there was launched a plan to settle water rights on the Colorado River by interstate agreement. The efforts made to consummate such an agreement and the differences and disputes growing out of it have played an important part in the consideration of the project by Congress. Much of the testimony presented before the various committees have had to do with this. Briefly, a seven-State agreement was signed by representatives of the interested States at Santa Fe, N. Mex., on November 24, 1922. All the States except Arizona promptly ratified this compact. Arizona, however, has thus far refused to ratify and no assurances have been forthcoming that it will ratify in the immediate future. In 1925 a six-State ratification of the compact was suggested by States in the upper basin for the purpose of making the compact effective without Arizona. With Arizona out of the compact, however, it followed that California's approval on this new basis effectively made her the guarantor of the obligation of the whole lower basin. Under this plan any encroachment by Arizona upon the water allotted to the upper basin States would have to be made up by California. With Arizona refusing to agree to any limitations upon her use of the water of the river, California was forced to take the position that she could not safely assume this new and additional obligation for the benefit of the upper States without assurance of large storage and that her assent to the compact should therefore become effective only upon this assurance of large storage by Congress. With this storage, there will be water for all and upon its authorization by Congress, California's ratification becomes effective upon a six-State |
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. |