- page 77
- Is Part Of
- Full text
- 77There is another thing about this tri-State agreement: We think that no matter whether this bill is amended and reported out, or not, or whether it is made into law, or not, there will be an inducement to Arizona, California, and Nevada to get together on an apportionment of the water just the same; because there still remains in controversy between those States the question of whether or not Arizona owns the bed of the Colorado River upon the ground that it is navigable. The question is whether, or not, it is navigable, and that question is one that is wrapped in uncertainty. Neither State can be sure about the result. Then, even if it should be held that the stream is navigable, there remains the question of whether Arizona, or whether, by reason of the reservation of power sites made by the Federal Government, the Federal Government can apply the water to these power sites by making use of the bed of the river. As I understand it, neither State can be arbitrary with the other. There is something there that must be solved as between them, and, therefore, I feel that they will come to an agreement.Mr. HAYDEN. I can state positively that the moment an attempt is made to commence the construction of the Boulder or Black Canyon Dam in that part of the bed of the Colorado River, which is in the State of Arizona, and which we believe we own, because it is navigable-the moment that effort is made, the question will be taken to the Supreme Court for determination. Regarding the right of the United States to make an appropriation of water without the consent of the State of Arizona, when the water is to be impounded is within the limits of that State, it seems to me that you ought to elaborate upon the nature of an amendment that would preserve State sovereignty in that case.Mr. BANNISTER. The amendment which purports to confine use of the water to ratifying or approving States. You are assuming that Arizona does not ratify? Mr. HAYDEN. Yes.Mr. BANNISTER. Let me state further, that any amendment which confines the waters in the way I have spoken of, would be so worded that the State law within the States using the water would remain unaffected. If Arizona remained out, the waters will be used in other States. If Arizona remains out, then the power plant, of necessity, will be built in Nevada, and, although the dam would cross from Nevada into Arizona, yet the point at which the water would be withdrawn from the dam or reservoir would be on Nevada territory. Not only would the use be within a ratifying State, but even the point of diversion would be within the borders of a ratifying State. Therefore, the law that would have to be invoked for permission to make use of the water would be only the law of the State in which the water was used, and it would not be necessary to get the consent of Arizona.Now, there would still remain the question, to be dealt with in respect to Arizona, of the construction of the dam. It would not be a question of the use of the water, but it would be a question of use of land whether or not the Federal Government could build the dam in the bed of the Colorado River. If the State owns the bed of the river by reason of the stream being navigable, then the
Cite this Item
When linking to this object, please use the following URL:
CommentsSubscribe to recent comments
There are no comments yet. Be the first to comment below!