page 17

Metadata

Title
page 17
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
17 could resume its rights as a riparian landowner and take charge of the remaining unappropriated waters.Mr. LEAVITT. Who represented the Department of Justice in that case?Mr. HAYDEN. There were two briefs filed in Wyoming v. Colorado, one by John W. Davis as Solicitor General, and another by his successor, James M. Beck. In each instance the same contention was made.Mr. LEATHERWOOD. IS it not true that the United States Supreme Court in both the Colorado v. Kansas case and in the Wyoming v. Colorado case, while not directly passing upon the question which you have raised, did decide both cases by accepting the doctrine of appropriation as existing at that time?Mr. HAYDEN. That is true. The court in each instance disregarded the representations made by the Department of Justice and left undetermined the question as to what jurisdiction Congress has over unappropriated waters. I can assure you that that is an issue which will have to be determined if the Secretary of the Interior attempts to proceed in accordance with the terms of this bill.I speak as one who has consistently advocated the settlement of all disputes over the waters of the Colorado River by friendly agreements rather than by appeals either to the courts or to Congress. I have done so from the conviction that the best way to avoid the nationalization of the river was to proceed by compacts which acknowledge and confirm to the States their rights over appropriations of water. I have long insisted and still contend that the Colorado River Compact should be adopted as the best available means of promoting development and preventing litigation between the seven States having an interest in that stream. I have urged its approval many times as an agreement under which the people of Arizona could live and prosper.My position has always been that whenever the Colorado River compact is approved by my State Arizona should insist that there be no development on that river in the lower basin until a supplemental compact had been agreed to by the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The compact contemplates and provides a means for the negotiation of just such agreements. Arizona stands in even greater need for protection against prior appropriations in California than do the States of the upper basin and has the same reasons for blocking development until her future is provided for and protected.The negotiation of such a tristate agreement is now under way. Commissions have been appointed to arrange for an equitable apportionment of the waters of the Colorado River among the States of the lower basin. Meetings have been held and proposals have been submitted which are now under consideration. Certainly it is better to try to do justice by mutual accord than to await the long delays which are always incident to interstate lawsuits.There are those whose impatience prompts them to seek a short cut to accomplish the ends they seek, but where the future welfare of entire Commonwealths are involved we must allow time for the people concerned to understand the plan proposed and to reach a sane and sensible decision which will be fair to themselves and to their neighbors. It will be impossible to gain any time by waiving

Cite this Item

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

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,2307

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

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

Comment on this object