page 80

Metadata

Title
page 80
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
80land. Personally, I think that when Congress provided that, it did something that it had no business to do. I think that is within the domain of the law of the State. I mention that to show, as an illustration that, although the Federal reclamation act lays down the general principle which we want to see, yet Congress has in a few instances departed from that principle.Mr. HAYDEN. But those departures were not in conflict with State laws.Mr. BANNISTER. But in respect to this particular project, I say that the principle is being adhered to. No State law is being overturned, because the provision is that the law of the State in which the uses are made shall dominate. The uses are not made in a non-ratifying State, and, as you suggest, Arizona would, for the purposes of the discussion, be considered as a nonratifying State. Now, if the point of diversion is over in Nevada, that leaves only one thing for which consent must be obtained from Arizona. Her consent would have to be obtained by the Federal Government to occupy the bed of the river with this structure, provided Arizona owns the bed of the river, but not a consent to withdraw water in Nevada.Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Let us assume that authority was given to construct the works proposed by this bill now before the committee, under the reclamation law as it now stands. What steps would be necessary under the law for the Government to take before it began the construction?Mr. BANNISTER. If the waters are to be used in all three States--Arizona, Nevada, and California--I should say that the Government must comply with the laws of those three States; but if the waters are to be used in only two of those States, and if the point of diversion is to be in one of the two, then it would be necessary to proceed only in compliance with the laws of the States in which the waters are to be diverted and used.Mr. HAYDEN. Do you think that the point of diversion is more important than the impounding of the water ?Mr. BANNISTER. I would say that as an element in making an appropriation, the most important step would be the application to use.Mr. HAYDEN. Is not the impounding as a first step just as essential ?Mr. BANNISTER. Wherever the physical diversion and impounding of the waters are necessary to the use, they are essential steps in the process.Mr. HAYDEN. The United States would be impounding running water in the State of Arizona, causing it to cease to flow and to become still in a lake, where it could be drawn off. In impounding it, lands within the State would be flooded. Can that be done without the consent of the State?Mr. BANNISTER. For instance, if the diversion works are on the Nevada side, and more water is taken out by Nevada than she is entitled to under interstate law, as against Arizona, then water is being taken away that belongs to Arizona, I would say that the consent of Arizona would have to be obtained, even though the diversion and the use take place in other States, but if the quantity withdrawn as against Arizona does not exceed the quantity she is

Cite this Item

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

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,2370

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

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

Comment on this object