Page 128

Metadata

Title
Page 128
Source
Colorado River problem
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
KELLY ON THE COLORADO RIVER PROBLEM 433 Service. Table 11 does not purport to be taken from any report of the Bureau of Reclamation. It is quoted from a report by Herman Stabler, M. Am. Soc. C. E., and is a compilation of data made available to him by Mr. Weymouth. Evidently the same data, slightly modified, were compiled in Table 30 by Mr. Weymouth in the report to which he refers. The essential differences between the two tables are explained in the footnotes to Table 11. The text of the footnotes is based on statements in the report made by Mr. Weymouth in February, 1924. In Table 19, the term, "U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Plan", was used in a general sense as referring to a high dam at Boulder Canyon, and the data used in the table were computed by the writer. There should be no misunderstanding on this point because all the figures are based on up-river regulation which Mr. Weymouth and the Reclamation Service have declined up to the present to consider as available. Mr. Weymouth cites the historical development of the investigation conducted under his direction. Conditions have changed materially since this investigation was commenced. Mr. Weymouth's willingness to consider an ultimate plan of development as evinced in February, 1924, together with the general trend of his discussion, might be taken as an indication that if he had continued in charge of the investigation he might have spread it sufficiently to get the broader scope which the writer deems necessary. About the only material difference between his views and those of the writer is in regard to the feasibility of storage elsewhere than at Boulder Canyon. The data available on storage sites may be sufficient to have convinced Mr. Weymouth that up-river regulation is infeasible, but it has failed to convince many others, including the writer. Professor Smith points out the interests of the State of Arizona in the Colorado River. These interests have been fully recognized by all Federal authorities. Unfortunately, there is divided opinion in Arizona as to what should be done with its interests so that much delay in getting started on any project for the Colorado is likely to result. Professor Smith discusses the question of water rights. The writer does not pose as an expert on that subject, but whatever the law may be it is certain that representatives of the upper States have persistently refused to accept anything short of an interstate treaty as protection of their future needs. Professor Smith's suggestion that the matter be settled by the Imperial Valley suing the permittees on Flaming Gorge does not seem to be practicable, because Flaming Gorge cannot in any way infringe on the rights, present or future, of the Imperial Valley, and there is no ground on which to base a suit. Professor Smith's suggestions with respect to up-river storage are sound, but as yet no one has shown a practical way of financing a dam at Dewey in advance of a certain amount of power development below. Professor Smith might with justice point out that the same objection exists against the Mohave site. The Federal Government has considered such projects only in connection with the improvement of navigation or under the terms of the Reclamation Act. It is stretching the point rather far to consider that Boulder Canyon or a substitute comes under either category, and it is doubtful whether Congress will set a new precedent by

Cite this Item

When linking to this object, please use the following URL:

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,1735

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

There are no comments yet. Be the first to comment below!

Comment on this object