OCR Text |
Show the Ninth Circuit * a case entitled R» W. Brooks, et al« ,> vs« United State3 of .America and C*. A* Firth, This suit is upon appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona c The appellants in this litigation are the owners of lands and water rights acquired under the laws of New Mexico and wore found guilty of contempt of Court for violation of a consent decree, involving also water users within the State of Arizona* Under this consent decree the priorities of the parties to the suit consent- ing to the decree were determined by the Federal District Court in Arizona and the- defendants;, including the appellants> were enjoined from diverting water from the river except as provided in the decree. The decree also pro- vided that a water commissioner should be appointed to carry out and enforce its provisions with power to cut off water from a ditch used by a person dis"» obeying the order of courto Counsel for the water users in New Mexico have taken the position that the lower Court erred in overruling the appellants* motion to vacate the decree insofar as it affects water rights in Hew Mexico because such decree and order operates directly upon the Gila River and ca- nals in New Mexico. Other assignments of error are made but the broad princi- ple which we note here is that New Mexico is called upon to defend the right of the State to control the distribution among its own water users, subject; only try a determination of equitable apportionment between the states of New Mexico and Arizona in an appropriation proceeding in Court or by compact. As I have heretofore stated* this question of adjusting interstate water rights has become seriously involved because of claims made by the federal government in an effort to supersede^ in many instances* the rights of the states to control the use and distribution of water for all bene- ficial purposes* The members of this association are familiar with the claims made in the petition of the United States to intervene in the case of Nebraska vs« Wyoming* in which Colorado is an impleaded defendant* The fed- eral claim was broadened and becomes more startling than appeared in tho petition to intervene when we consider the statement of the government made at the opening of the introduction of its testimony before the special mas- ter appointed by the Court* May I here read a portion of this statement. It is as followsa "The principal function of the Federal Reclamation Act is to unite, by artificial means9 the two great natural resources* land and water, to the end that man might be given an opportun- ity to make himself more secure by expending his labor in the development and maintenance of a home.. This function could not ¦ be accomplished without the expenditure of sums of money beyond the financial ability of private enterprise* Unqualified control of the water to accomplish this purpose is and was as necessary as the ownership and control of the public lend* "The Reclamation Act of 1902* when considered in its entire- ty* shows that the Congress intended that the Secretary of the Interior should have complete and unrestricted control of the waters of any stream which,the Secretary determined to be nec- essary in the reclamation of semi**arid and arid lands in any project which he found practicable under that Act« Under the Reclamation Act# the primary concern of the United States was |