| OCR Text |
Show THE WESTERN WEB 115 there is a great deal of merit to the position of California in this case.* Rep. Donald L. Jackson declared that litigation as proposed by California was "in the best spirit of demo- cratic processes." 121 After Rep. Phillips had introduced the controversial reports of the Departments of Justice and Interior, Ely presented the California legal contentions, and his testi- mony was virtually identical with that he had made before the Senate committeee.121 The hearing had begun at 10 a.m. It was 6 p.m. when Ely concluded. Alfred Merritt Smith, State Engineer of Nevada, stepped forward when Chairman Case reopened the hearings, after a two-day recess, on Thursday, May 2o#i23 The essence of his testimony was that "Until the rights of these three states of the Lower Basin are defi- nitely determined, the water situation is in chaos." Hugh A. Shamberger, assistant state engineer, completed the Nevada presentation.124 Howard offered arguments which attracted the at- tention of Chairman Case: 125 "Under our usual treatment of water uses in the West," Howard said, "we have abandoned the old English common law doctrine of riparian rights. The ordinary system in all western states is a system of prior- ity of appropriation. "In general, it means that first in time is first in right in the use of water." ** * Later, when he was running for the Presidency, Nixon would take a position on Colorado River matters quite detrimental to his own state. ** "First in time, first in right" was a legal doctrine which would play a prominent part in the case of Arizona vs. California when at last it did reach the Supreme Court. |
