New-York tribune., 1922-09-10
Dam and Canal Will Cost Mil
lions, but Will Be
Worth While

problem is TO find out what is the
available volume Of water in the
basin with which to meet these va
rious requirements and whether faciM
ties for water storage are indispens-
able. The third problem is to And a
way for composing the legal differences
involved. Upon the solution Of these
three problems the eonmiss.on
engaged. each problem being a1s
hands OF subcommittee.
The commission approaxsea -
whole subject with the assasaasiop,
that enough water in the basin can 5s
made available to supply all the legiti-
mate needs of the states, If it is prop
erly conserved by means of adequata
storage. The construction of these stoT-
age facilities, however, and their utili-
cation for purposes Of irrigation ard
power generation are an engineering
task that would take years 20 complete.
and require an expenditure Of several
hundred millions Of dollars. The aues-
tion is, who is going to undertake this
vast project?
Private interests are anxious to be
chartered for the development Of some
Of its phases. Municipal comFaun}t IS
ask to be permitted to ufdersa1e
others. There are others bes'des Spq
would like to have some of The v.ors
allotted to them The alternative u
this piece-meal development is lhs p#-
dertaking of the whole project by the
Federal governm Gnt.
BY whomever undertaken and cars
ried out, the development of the Coio~
rado Basin must be free from. legal
entanglements, which will be inevit-
able as a result of interstate differ
ences and claims, as we'll as the con-
tentions of various private interests.
And here very important point OF law
is virtually involved
There is no uniformity in the United
States. as among the various states, on
the principle of water rights. Gener-
ally speaking, the eastern states of the
country recognize the old common law
doctrine of riparian rights, in accord
ance with (which the owner of land
bordering on any part Of stream has
full rights to the use and natural flow
of the water within his boundaries up
to midstream. On the other hand, in
the western states, the doctrine OF
| prior appropriation is prevalently
recognized In accordance with this
i doctrine, rights to the use of water
are recognized in accordance with pri-
! GRITTY OF useful application. This means
/ that if Jones owns property on or near
the banks of river and begins to use
the water within his boundaries he may
! find that Brown, who owns property
downstream Immediately below his. has
been using the water for some Tina.
And if Brown claims and proves that
the use of any part of the water By
Jones interferes with the useful appfi"
cation of water that he, Brown, has
been making, then Jones can be en'
Joined by the courts to stop using the
water within his boundaries.
Problem of Water Rights
Another Factor In Project
The same principle applies to inter-
state relations. In the consideration Of
the method of procedure in tie de-"
velopment of the Colorado Basin, the
I northern states are afraid that unless
! .,.s-.:.; o.,,.. ,ro ,,,,da ~ +aLe caro
of the situation the development OF
the southern part of the basin may
prevent them from the use of suf-
! fcient volume of water. The only NAM
ner in which this difficulty can be
4 obviated is by an agreement among
4 the states as to how large volume
of water each of them can divert 70
use within its boundaries. Once such
an agreement is reached the fear af
legal entangiements on the basis es
prior appropriation will be minimized
and possibly disappear. Then each of
the states of each group of states can
proceed with its own development
wherever it is ready.
The need for such an agreement was
rendered even more acute in thg la5G
few weeks when the United si;as -
Supreme Court, in the case of the ssss
of Wyoming VS.. the State of Csiora 5o,
handed down decision On June 8,
1922, in which the doctrine of prior
appropriation was fully sustained as
applicable to two states, each of which
recognizes the doctrine within It's own
4 boundaries.
! Such are some of the problems faced
by the Colorado River Commission. In
4 opening the Washington sessions OF
the commission Secretary Hoover said:
The problems before the commis-
sion ares not to be solved in a day.
/ There are many interests to be con-
sidered and there is much to be heard
from different factions. of the com.
munity whose welfare is at stake.
These problems have been under in
tense study by both state and national
authorities for many years. There
seems to be almost unanimity that the
river should be considered as a whole.
that its resources should be developed
so as to give the greatest benefits to
the nation"
I What these benefits would he may