page 60

Metadata

Title
page 60
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
60mentioned they are guaranteed the rights between nations to come into Mexico, the country just below the international boundary line, and to become citizens, to buy and own land there in large or small tracts, and to forever cultivate it with the waters of our river, and sell their products in our markets in competition with our producers, thereby absolutely nullifying every principle that we have ever depended upon in justifying before the people of the United States the action of California and the action of Arizona in limiting the rights of aliens of Asiatic extraction to cultivate, own, or lease land within those States.Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If I understand your position correctly, you deny that any of the water of the Colorado River should be allocated to Mexico for the reason that it originates wholly within the United States.Mr. MAXWELL. I do not know that I should want to answer that question with either yes or no. The question as to where the water originates hardly enters into the Mexican question on the Colorado River, because none of the water originates in Mexico. .Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You are planning for a development of the river that will put to a beneficial use all the waters of the Colorado River within the continental limits of the United States.Mr. MAXWELL. Yes; but I recognize that there is a claim under the comity of nations to the continued use of water up to a certain point.Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Would you be willing to concede the same position to Mexico with reference to waters that originated wholly within Mexican territory?Mr. MAXWELL. I foresaw the drift of your inquiry. That is a question that it is difficult to answer "yes" or "no." I will explain my position. My theory of the condition between the upper basin and the lower basin on the Colorado River is a little different from that of some who believe that there will be in the future a material diminution of the flow at the north line of the State of Arizona. I am not a scientist. I do not claim to be a scientific expert, but I do know, after 35 years' experience in studying these questions, particularly the question of return seepage, something about this matter. I have had to deal with it as a lawyer. My view of it has been formed as a result of ail the knowledge I have gathered in 30 years of painstaking investigation and study. I believe that if we could wait 50 years we would find that instead of the intervening use of water in your country between now and 50 years hence diminishing the flow at north line of Arizona, that it would have operated to regulate it without diminishing it, unless the waters were taken out of the basin or to lands remote from the river. No conflict between the upper and lower basins could exist except upon a misapprehension of facts so far as any necessity for limiting the use is concerned.But I want to go just a step farther. The compact contains a provision with reference to 10-year periods of use in the upper basin.I will state at this time, although my time is getting very short,that if we were assured that the Glen Canyon dam would be builtso that there would be a reassembling reservoir between the upperand lower basins--I do not state this with authority but state it asmy personal opinion-----

Cite this Item

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

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,2350

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

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

Comment on this object