- page 79
- Is Part Of
- Full text
- 79of any State with regard to the appropriation, use, and distribution of water. I would like to ask whether he now feels, as heretofore, that that principle should continue to be recognized?Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; I do, and I have put it into many acts. I feel that way now, and I do not think we ought to surrender any rights.Mr. HAYDEN. Then, you are opposed to the nationalization of rivers in the Western States?Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I want to ask a question along a line that has been suggested here: Suppose a State has a right in a given volume of water, or in the flow of a river, do I understand that it is your contention that the Government can come in and construct impounding works and impound particularly that flow which the State itself contributes? Do you hold that the Federal Government can do that without any permit from the State, and then distribute it under restrictive features so that the people of the State can not participate in its use?Mr. BANNISTER. The Government, no more than a private individual, can go into a State and make an appropriation of water.Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Then, let me ask this question: The Little Colorado River comes into the Colorado River above the proposed point of construction, does it not?Mr. HAYDEN. Yes.Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The waters of the Little Colorado are waters of Arizona and New Mexico, are they not?Mr. HAYDEN. Yes.Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The flow of that stream might be called a contribution to the entire volume of the river. Now, could the Federal Government, without any permit under the reclamation law, impound the waters of the Colorado River lower down and exclude the State of Arizona, or the citizens of the State of Arizona, from their use in the way you have suggested? I would like to have that question discussed.Mr. BANNISTER. I can not quite get your physical situation, but, perhaps, I can answer in terms of principle. In respect to interstate streams, a State would get a certain quantity of water. It would get that quantity of water as a result of the application of the principle of equitable division, or in accordance with the principle of priority, regardless of law. When it gets that quantity of water, whatever it may be, it parcels it out among the water users of the State, and if the Federal Government is in there as a proprietor, it takes its place just as any other appropriation would, and is ruled by the law of the State. It must have the consent of the State to make the appropriation in the same way as other users, and it uses it in the same way. Now, Congressman Hayden has suggested that in Federal legislation we have recognized that principle, and so we did in the Federal reclamation act of 1902; but it is also true that there have been some violations of it. For instance, the Federal reclamation act itself and the desert land acts contain certain violations of that. They say that the beneficial use shall be the measure and the extent of the right to the water. One of them says that the water right shall always remain appurtenant to 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!