OCR Text |
Show able for industry. Planning for over-all water re- sources development in the lower basin therefore is seriously handicapped by these conflicting views. The Department of Interior "* * * has con- sistently taken the view that it cannot authorita- tively resolve the pronounced differences of opinion that exist between Arizona and California as to their respective rights in the waters available for use in the lower basin under the Colorado River Com- pact." 7 Senate bill 75 (81st Cong., 2d sess.), at the time of this writing passed by the United States Senate and pending in the House of Representatives, is declared by its proponents to provide the means by which the issues providing the basis of conflict over water entitlements in the Colorado River Basin may come before the Supreme Court for decision. This apparently is the only means of resolution in prospect. The lone undiscussed areas of jurisdiction in the basin, Indian reservations, are not now sources of conflict on water. The present recognition of Indian water rights is based on the Winters decision, which in effect rules that by the creation of an Indian reservation there is impliedly reserved a sufficient quantity of water to supply the reasonable needs of the Indians.8 The Walker River Irriga- tion District decision established the right of Indians to water usable on their reservation beyond the amount that was necessary for irrigation at the time the reservation was established.9 The Federal Government has a special responsi- bility in protecting Indian water rights since Indians are not prepared or equipped to develop their own water rights. (See problem C-6.) Questions aris- ing out of conflicts between non-Indian upstream and downstream interests in the basin are of great concern to the Indians and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but only where they may threaten Indian water rights. Conclusions The basic approach to division of benefits and responsibilities among the States within which the Colorado Basin lies rests upon Federal legislation of broad national policy and specific acts of Congress in ratification of interstate and international com- 7 U. S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, op. cit., p. 188. 8 Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564 (1908). * United States v. Walker River Irrigation District, 104 F. 2d334, 336 (C. A. 9, 1939). pacts. These include recognition of States' rights and powers in regulation of distribution and use of water within their boundaries. Direct Federal re- sponsibility for the protection of Indian rights is based on legislation and treaties. There is need which should be met as soon as possible for more basic data-physical, economic, and social-so as to permit more complete State- Federal cooperation in the comprehensive planning for basic development and use; and further clarifi- cation and interpretation of the compact, so as to arrive at an interstate division of the water which will permit integrated use. 2. Applicability of the 160-Acre Limitation to Irrigated Lands The Problem Applicability of the 160-acre limitation to irri- gated lands of Federal projects in the basin. The Situation A basic policy of reclamation law has been the promotion of family-size farms. In that spirit, the policy expressed in the 1902 Reclamation Act10 limits irrigable land holdings on projects to 160 acres for any one landowner. This has been con- strued to permit 320 irrigable acres to be held jointly by man and wife. The law also does not preclude cooperative farming endeavor by any number of owners, members of a family or other- wise, so long as each owns no more than the acreage limit for any one owner. In effect, therefore, farms considerably larger than 160 irrigated acres may be operated as units under reclamation law. However, a family-size farm does not necessarily have to be as large as 160 acres. The acreage limitation provision of reclamation law is considered to be in the public interest because (a) it is desirable that benefits which flow from Federal expenditures for facilities required to de- liver water to lands for irrigation should be made available to the largest feasible number of settlers; (b) it contributes to the economic, social, and polit- ical stability of the country; and (c) it discourages speculation of land purchases in areas to be included for irrigation under the provisions of the reclama- tion law. 10 Act of June 17, 1902, § 3, § 4, § 5, 32 Stat. 388 as amended, 43 U. S. C. 391 et seq. 393 |