The Thirteenth Annual report of the Upper Colorado River Commission

page 029

intent can not be drawn from the mere creation of the reservation. After statehood the United States loses all right of control of the waters of navigable streams except those conferred by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 2. Power to reserve the water of navigable streams for Federal purposes resides in Congress, not in the Executive Department, and the Executive Department can not make a reservation of the same except on "explicit authority conferred by an act of Congress." Arizona also excepted to the United States' claims on the main stream for recreation and wildlife refuges for the same reasons that it objected to the Indian claims. Arizona further objected to the Master's findings and conclusions with respect to United States' tributary claims for the Gila National Forest. So far as the Master's recommended decree was concerned, Arizona excepted to those portions covering the exceptions outlined above. In addition, Arizona attacked the following provisions of the proposed decree: 1. Article II (B) (8) of the decree because it would allow a release of water without a contract, and because it speaks of the consumption of water, thus preventing the diversion of water for "off-stream or under ground storage by a state of the water apportioned to it." Arizona proposed that the decree allow the Secretary of the Interior to permit the diversion of that unused part of one State's water by another State provided there is a contract by the using State and the amount diverted does not exceed the limitations of the Boulder Canyon Project Act or the California Limitation Act and the Secretary's contracts. Also the allowance of this additional water is not to become a permanent right. 2. Article III (B), (C) and (D). These provisions enjoin Arizona officials from interfering with water controlled by the United States or permitting the diversion or use of such water. Arizona claims that this amounts to a transfer of the Secretary's duties to Arizona, and, that also there is a serious question as to whether Arizona has the authority to prevent the interference, diversions and uses. 3. Arizona objected to the failure of the Master to provide in the decree that water ordered by a contractor to be 29