page 73

Metadata

Title
page 73
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
73ment may have its consumers, and it would have the right to make choice of its consumers, and it would have the right to determine the area in which the water would be used, just for instance as now Congress has the right in the reclamation law to say whether it will water lands in Idaho or in Nebraska, so here the government in the management of its project under this bill may choose the areas to be watered.Mr. HAYDEN. If the flow of the Colorado River be regulated and the water is passing by a body of land in Arizona, and certain people in Arizona take water out and apply it to beneficial use, before other people do, how are you going to prevent them from acquiring a prior right?Mr. BANNISTER. If they do it after the water right connected with this project is initiated, they will be subject to this project right as the prior right, and therefore subject to all of the consumers under this project. And just as I believe-I know it is the law in your State that the prior appropriator gets water as against the junior-so the Government and its beneficiaries under this project may project their right as against the Arizona junior.Mr. HAYDEN. Then all that you seek to do by your amendments is to prevent any water being applied to a beneficial use in the non-ratifying State, either for power or for irrigation? All the other benefits that are to come from the project you are willing to concede to Arizona? You simply want to deny to that State the irrigation of any additional land or the establishment of a power plant within its boundaries ?Mr. BANNISTER. Yes. And let me explain that denial, Congressman Hayden. It is not based on the slightest trace of ill will; it is purely self-defensive, because citizens of your State no sooner would have their water uses than they would turn around and claim that they constitute priorities against us above, and if only they would give us some assurance that their claims would be attached only to a certain quantity of water, as they do give or would give under the Colorado River compact, we should make no objection, but it is because your citizens will be claiming that their water claims constitute a priority against any and every portion of the water of the system not put to use, and therefore against us, that we in our defensive desperation are obliged to resist. Your own water users become, under their contentions, aggressors against us, and we have to raise the shield of self-defense.Mr. HAYDEN. You speak for the city of Denver only?Mr. BANNISTER. Yes.Mr. HAYDEN. The interest of the city of Denver in this bill is confined to the water that may be diverted out of the Colorado River basin over to the eastern slope for its use?Mr. BANNISTER. Well, that is the most direct interest, but it has a very indirect interest in wanting to grow as a city in a great fertile region, the same legitimate interest that is possessed by any of the other municipalities of the basin.Mr. HAYDEN. The Moffatt Tunnel, which I saw last summer, was originally estimated to cost what amount?

Cite this Item

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

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,2363

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

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

Comment on this object