Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1909-02-19

policy would nave been all right mao
the government proceeded AZ once
10 do what It forbade individuals to
10. hut except IN the matter Of a few
great works. now under construction,
carrying of the policy into practical
effect An abundance OF water for
Inc reclamation OF some millions OF
acres is annually going 10 waste, and
the development Of the country is to
be held during all the long years
likely to pass before the government
gets around to the work.
As a territory, we nave no rights
IN this matter. which the federal
government Is bound to respect. but
we may becomc Il state In q little
while, and for that reason we are
Colorado intend TO go into the fed
cral courts to test the right Of the
interior department 10 play the part
OF dog IN tho mangcr." IN regard to
irrigation rights.
The question Of irrigation is Of far
more Importance 10 the people Of
New Mexico. than any other economic
issue before the people, ana hence
we are all interested In the following,
which We take from the Irrigation
Age for the current month:
Certain citizens of Colorado have
announced their purpose TO test in the
federal courts the power Of the sec
t0ry OF the interior to refuse the
grant Of rights OF way over public
lands FOR irrigation canals. on the
ground That to do 70 win interfere
With the plans Of the reclamation
service
The particular contention Is based
upon the following facts alleged. Sur-
Veys and maps were made and filed
with au application as required by
the statutes Of Colorado, for a canal
10 divert water from the Grand river
I'm the western part OF the state. A
small portion Of the right Of way
needed crossed sundry vacant govern
ment lands In the canyon, necossitat-
Ing the approval OF tho secretary OF
the interior as prescribed by the
rules OF the department
after q delay OF nearly a year
this application was rejected on the
grounds, solely. that the plans OF the
reclamation service might be inter
fered with. No opportunity was given
the applicant TO be heard, although
It Is claimed that IN no particular, as
u matter Of fact, does the private pro-
iect effect the other. 1t ls from this
arbitrary decision that steps are tax
Ing 20 appeal to the courts for re-
dress.
Five or ak years previously the
reclamation service ran several pro
limlnnry lines with n view to ulti-
mutely constructing a canal 10 cover
certain lands in that section, one
half stlll vacant and the balance pat
ented, which were at the outset with
drawn from entry. For several years
thereafter the government took no
further steps or apparent Interest In
the project.
Then an irrigation district was
organized. surveys made, and bonds
voted for tho purpose of supplying
practically the same territory. but the
government refused to restore the
public lands and finally openly dis
played It's opposition 10 all local IN
iuativc. Whenever the efforts OF
private cndeavor were renewed agents
OF the reclamation service would re-
appear and by one means or another
harry ana defeat local progress.
when the right of way intended
Tor the usc Of the district territory
was rejected as aforesaid, not Il yard
of earth had been moved, no appiicn-
ton SO the state authorities for right
To- divert water had been filed, nor
tho final location OF the canal line
hccn determined upon by the rcclt-
nation service. This condition OF af-
fairs continues To this day, although
tens Of thousands Of dollars Of the
reclamation fund have been exhausted
la preliminary" INVESTIGATIONS
hut because Il is proposed when
funds are available. admittedly SOME
years hence. such a canal mas be
constructed THO tiihii NA llANAA'
capital meantime 20 develop that sec
ton So defeated by this ruling OF the
secretary of the interior, made re-
pcotedly In other instances. that such
n effort would interfere with the
plans of tho reclamation service'
Invariably this ruling has effectu-
ally blocked local operations because
capital cannot he enlisted for con-
suuction where il must face a test
with the general government over
rights OF way
In addition to tho question
whether the state control OF the
waters Of its public streams can De
defeated IN this way and the right
OF rs citizens guaranteed by the
constitution OF Colorado 10 divert
such waters he denied. It In probable
also that the very cnnstitutionality Of
the reclamation act itself viii be at
tackled in this salt.