- page 78
- Is Part Of
- Full text
- 78Federal Government could not build the dam there without the consent of Arizona, but the consent that it would be necessary to obtain from Arizona would simply be consent to put the structure upon the land, and not consent as to how the water should be diverted from the stream or used in the State that ratified.That is true of what we call the "Colorado doctrine" of water rights is sound, or if the "California doctrine" is sound. In other words, if the Federal Government diverts waters in the West for any use in violation of the law of the State, that is one question; but if the "Colorado doctrine" is a sound one, then the consent of Arizona would not be necessary in this case, except in respect of the right to occupy her land with the dam, which is a very different question from that of getting consent in order to divert the water for use. That is true, because the diversion of the water would be in Nevada, and its use would be in Nevada.Mr. HAYDEN. Do you mean to say that, in your anxiety to secure for the city of Denver a supply of water, to the extent of 100,000 acre-feet, you would, by approving this bill, establish a new precedent, by doing something that Congress has never done before-that is, to permit the Federal Government to enter a State and make an appropriation of water, and do what it pleased with it, regardless of the State law? Do you think that the needs of the city of Denver are so great that you would be willing to consent to the establishment of a precedent of that kind, which might arise to haunt you on the next stream in Colorado that the Government desired to nationalize?Mr. BANNISTER. I do not believe in the nationalization of the waters of the West, and I think that this bill can be so drawn that it would not mean their nationalization. We can limit the use of the water to the States that do ratify, and preserve all the autonomy of those States. We are not establishing the precedent.Mr. TAYLOR. I would like to say on behalf of the State of Colorado, which I represent as a Member of the House, that I would like to see this committee not only have Mr. Bannister to sit with you when you come to consider these amendments, but I feel that you should also have the commissioners from those States present, and that you should allow them to sit here with you in considering this bill. In that way you would avoid a lot of questions, possibly, and that would be the orderly, systematic, intelligent, and, it seems to me, the helpful way in which to consider this legislation. I think these amendments ought to be presented in an orderly way by those who support them. In other words, the committee should take this matter up in a way that will be businesslike and that will be helpful all around.Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Taylor was a member of this committee when I first came to Congress. He afterwards became its chairman. During that time many bills of various kinds were reported to the House, but during all the years that he had any connection with this committee, there was never any bill considered relating to the appropriation and use of water when Mr. Taylor did not insist that there be incorporated in it the provision which is a part of the reclamation act, that nothing in such act should affect the law
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!