Arizona republican., 1922-03-17

raised as between the several states
and as between the United States and
! the several states may be stated as
! follows:
| First: Does a state by virtune of
it's sovereignty, possess the sole right
| to the control of the waters OF an in
| terstate stream flowing within its
| boundaries?
! Second: If it possesses such right
| may it exercise such control without
| limitation as respects the effect OF
| such control upon the flow of the
river within the boundaries of an
other state?
| Third: Assuming that state may
not exercise it's right of control of
| the waters of an inter- state stream
| flowing within its boundaries with
out limitation as respects the effect
| of such control upon the flow of the
stream within the boundaries of an
other state, as between the citizens of
| the one state and against the citizens
| of the other states, does priority OF
use create priority of right?
Fourth: If priority of use of the
waters of any such stream as be-
! tween the citizens of one state and
the citizens of another state creates
/ priority of right, by what rule is such
right to be measured both as to the
nature of use and the quantity of
use?
Fifth: Assuming that legal wrong
may be committed by one state as
against another state in its use or
control of the waters of an inter-
state stream. what remedy is afforded
| by existing law and what relief may
| be granted?
Sixth: Does the United States by
| reason of the navigability of the Col
orado, or because OF any ownership
of it's waters Independent of the ques-
! tion of its nari gability. possess the
| right OF control? s4SEl&
Seventh: If control OF the waters
within the Colorado basin lies in the
United States, under existing law,
how NAV such control be exercised?
SUPREME COURT ONLY TRi-
BUNAL
! The only tribunal having jurisdic-
| ton to adjudicate these questions is
/ the supreme court of the United
States. Strangely enough, few, il
any, OF these questions may be said
to have been so definitely decided
hv that court as to leave no ground
for controversy. While this is true.
| certain principles have been declared
| by the supreme court which / be-
lieve in effect amount TO a determi
| nation OF at least two of these ques-
tions. refer particularly to the
| status of the United States as re-
| spects ownership and control of the
unappropriated waters of the streams
| in the arid west. apart from any ques-
| tion of control in relation to naviga-
| ton, and also to the right of one state
/ to control the waters of an interstate
stream within it's boundaries without
regard to the effect of such control
upon the flow of the stream within
another state.
Upon the question Of the rights of
/ the United States in the navigable
waters within the several states in
number of cases. the latest of which
| is that of Port of Seattle VS.. Oregon
e. w. r. Co, the supreme court has
declared that such rights are limited
to control thereof for navigation pur-
poses only and that the state in all
| other respects possesses the rights OF
ownership OF such waters.
In Kansas VS.. Colorado. Mr.. Justice
Brewer declares in effect that the
state and not the United States may
control the waters of non -navigable
stream.
am aware that the United States
has been permitted to intervene in
the pending case OF Wyoming VS..
| Colorado and to set up the claim that
the federal government and not the
states is the owner of all OF the un-
| appropriated waters of the innavi
gable streams of the arid west and
has never transferred title TO such
waters except TO individual appropri-
ators under the act of July 26. 1855.
/ The position thus assumed is not
sustained, as I believe, by any deci-
| sion of the supreme court. and as II
is inconsistent with the practice of
| the government since the organiza-
tion OF the territories which preceded
| the present states in the arid west,
1t is extremely doubtful if this con-
| tention will be sustained by the court.
| But assuming in fact, as ii is in
| theory, that the Colorado river is
nayigable stream and that, therefore,
| the United States possesses control.
| there still remains a twilight zone
/ OF uncertainty because OF the unde-
! termined character and extent Of that
1 control.
QUESTION OF STATE RIGHTS
On the question, as to whether state
control is limited by the legal or