The silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1909-1925, 1922-07-27

poses should not constitute any
claim against agricultural users. In
the discussion of the Diamond
Creek water right l think it was
agreed by all sides that if and when
granted it should contain a provi-
sion that the dam could not estab-
fish any water right, not even a
right to the continued flow of the
river. In other words, that the per-
son VINO erected the dam took all
/ the risks. | do not think those APP
plicants could have any objections
to it because they know the water
will flow with sufficient certainty
for century or SO.
! Mr. Little. Could any private
individual acquire any better rights
if the government declared it would
take them as a result of this dam.
Secretary Hoover. / would want
to make further inquiry as to the
effect of the recent decision of the
supreme court upon the question.
That is whether in individual be-
low the dam by applying the water
to beneficial use which arose
through storage in the dam,, would
thereby create right as against
later application of the flow of
water above the dam. That ques-
ton would have to be inquired in
the light of the new decision. At
the time this bill was discussed it
was the view of the solicitors for
the department that the Congress
could, by a provision in this act,
remedy the fears of the upper
states.
Mr.. Little. They could fix pri-
vate individual rights?
Secretary Hoover. Yes. This
discussion, however, was before the
recent decision.
Mr.. Little. As | understand you
now, the purpose Of the commission
is that this bill shall contain pro-
visions by which the government is
not obligated to accept any water
rights at all?
Secretary Hoover. No; that it
contains provision that will, to
the satisfaction of the upper states,
protect them as against any prior
water rights created by the con-
struction of the dam itself.
Mr.. Little. By the government?
Secretary Hoover. Yes.
Mr.. Little. But not against the
individual; as to that you have no,
reached final decision?
Secretary Hoover. Yes.
Mr.. Hayden. That no prior
right is to be created by the con-
struction of this dam?
Secretary Hoover. Yes; if it
can be made to apply to that.
Mr.. Little. May | ask whether
it is the idea that the same charac-
ter of legislation shall appear in
he bill with regard to power rights
| too?
Secretary Hoover. No.
Mr.. Little. Certain power will
be developed. Is there any pro-
vision put into this bill as to that?
Secretary Hoover. No; | do moi
think there is any feeling that there
needs to be any provision as to
the distribution of power.
Mr.. Smith. The government has
no power to provide that individuals
would have no right under the law
to make any claim on it. Every
man would have the right to create
this power.
Mr.. Hayden. With references to
the provisions of the first section
of the Swing bill, Mr.. w. S. Nor
viel, member of the Colorado
River Commission, who is also the
| Arizona state water commissioner
has written me a letter in which
he says:
I'm the first section, beginning
| line to the end of the section
the language is objected to for the
reason that it takes out of the con-
troll of the state of Arizona one OF
her largest undeveloped resources
and one to which we have long
looked to be of very great benefit
to our state when developed. II
would appear from the language
that all persons, municipal corpora
lions, private corporations or states
would be prevented from construct
| ing or owning any dams or diver
sion works in the Colorado River
below the mouth of the Green
River. ! personally object to this
presumed reservation on the part
of the United States of the ex.
elusive right to construct, ETC., be.
cause, as | deem it, the United
States has no authority to make
such reservation, nor can such au-
thority be granted by Congress.
l am sure that the committe
would be pleased to have the benefit
of your views as to the necessity
for such legislation as is proposed
in section l of this bill.
Secretary Hoover. 1t seems tC