Mohave County miner and our mineral wealth., 1922-07-07

,'tn view of the letter of Director A.
 P. Davis, of the U. S. Reclamation
 service, refuting the bald statements
 of one A. G. McGregor regarding the
 possibilities of the Boulder Canyon
 and Glen Canyon damsites, it is rath-
 CT "enlightening", to say the least to
 read the Cocomno Sun long deserta-
 tion on the same subject from the pen
 of James B. Grand. Mir. Grand takes
 the position that with the building of
 Boulder Canyon dam not one acre of
 new land would be brought under ir-
 rigation unless a diversion dam was
 put in at some point below Boulder
 and above the lands to be reclaimed.
 Now wouldn't that get your goat.
 MT. Grand takes the position that a
 dam at Boulder without dam at
 Glen Canyon would be a calamity, but
 in what way the calamity could be
 avoided in the building the Glen Can
 yon dam is not set out.
 MT. Grand, it is true, has had some
 knowledge of Colorado river condi-
 tions, gained at Diamond Canyon, but
 so far as his knowledge of either
 Boulder Canyon or Glen Canyon is concerned, we have our doubts. The same is true of MT. McGregor. But on the other hand the knowledge of
 Director Davis is full and complete. He goes into the subject fully, refut- ing every claim put forward by the Glen Canyon advocates and shows by actual figures the possibilities of water impoundment at each of the proposed sites. For power there is
 no question of the superiority of Boulder Canyon, because of its near ness to the power market, and for water impoundment it has it all over that of Glen Canyon. It has 50,000 square miles of watershed more than Glen Canyon; it/is the more access sable; it has greater possibilities for water diversion onto the lands of Ari- zona direct from the dam, and is in fact the only possible place whence diversion could be accomplished. For Glen Canyon there is not one reason able point put forward in its advo- cacy, except that it would impound a large amount of water that could be let down as needed into the Boulder basin. |" .."
 The Glen Canyon project was taken up by the Southern California Edison company to divert the minds of the people from the greater project at Boulder, and create suspicion in the minds of the people as to the advisa- bility of building either project.
 The funny thing about the Grand article is that he labops under the seeming delusior sfiat if the Glen Canyon project is built Arizona will come into the use and ownership of the greater part of the water supply and that all the other countries will have to get down on their benders and say "by your leave" when they want more of the rivers waters. This is the purest kind of bunk. If Arizona was to build a dozen dams in the Colo, rado river it would give her not one iota of right to drop of the water of that great stream. None but the general government may say to what uses the flow of the river may be turned. It is just as absurd to say that single states shall build dam across the Mississippi and divert the waters to their own use as that the waters of the Colorado be diverted to the use of Arizona without the con- sent of the government. The Colo rado river is and has always been what is termed navigable stream, and further, having an international characteristic, which puts it out of the category of streams coming under the purvlew of the decision in the Colo rado case. None of the states can claim rights on international streams, which absolutely puts out of consid- eration a dam or diversion without the absolute consent of the federal 
 MI. HlIdHu hSdih CoiilcS IOIWdtu with the statement that practically all the silt of the Colorado comes in from the San Juan, and that Glen Canyon would impound this silt, and r then asks: If perchance the reser- voir (Boulder) should fill, we must begin immediately to discharge the contents of the upper 100 feet in or der to conform to the directors GA. P. Davis) recommendation that the top five million acre feet be reserved for flood control. This must be turn ed out regardless of the necessity for it's use on the lands below" Then MT. Grand attempts to explain that, while the same thing might be true of Glen Canyon that when the water was turned loose it would develop a won- derful amount of electric energy. Ap- the water surplus from Boul- der would be turned loose in hurry, but when the same thing was required \ of Glen dam it would be turned out in