Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1922-02-10

HOrldnI part OF the lTdnSInlSSloH Lines
to California would also be in Ne
vada. Arizona would have one-hali
the dam and the power transmission
lines to Arizona points within her Dor
| ders.
With the dam at Boulder Canyon
built by the government, Nevada IN
the main would benefit from the CON
sIruction and operating activities o1
the dam and power plant, and if the
power plant and transmission lines
are built by other capital as is tai
of, Nevada will be benefited by an
important increase in her taxable
wealth.
California will be benefitG by
the relief from the flood menace of
the Imperial Valley, an important in
crease in her irrigated lands and by
a needed supply of hydro-cs cot:-o
power for her industries.
| Would Furnish Much Power.
IF the government builds the dam
at Boulder Canyon, Arizona would at
least be benefited from the increase
! in her irrigated lands and from the
! hydro electric power available Tor
pumping and bringing still more land
under irrigation, and by power needed
for the mining and other industries oil
! the state.
If dam were located at Lees
Ferry at the upper end of the canyon,
| all the advantages to Arizona just
mentioned would still obtain, ana
/ also the advantages mentioned Tor
Nevada would practically all accrue to
| arizona. Also, Lees Ferry would be
a oil tn hn wi NJ,
for power in Arizona.
another argumenl for the location
at Lee Ferry is Inat a dam Iocateu
tnere Will have larger available stor-
age capacity and the big argument
advanced for the Lees Ferry site Is
that dam located there would con-
troll nearly 80 per cent of the waite.
passing Boulder Canyon and bring
the river under control so that the
construction of subsequent dams be-
low will be greatly simplified, as the
most difficult engineering problem in
the construction of a dam in the Col
oradO is the protection of the work as
II progresses from damage by floods.
This is the uncertain element in the
cost OF the dam. 1t would seem evil
aent that if the river could be brought
under control by dam in the upper
end OF the canyon, the cost of suhse=
quent dams below will be greatly les
sened. Mr.. Davis partly meets this
argument by stating that while the
ayeragt drainage into the river be-
tween Lees Ferry and Boulder Can
yon Is only 10 per cent of the total
flow of the river, vast area is
nI int h.,
two points and that some of the i'm
portant floods of the river in the pas,
were due to the drainage into the
river between Lees Ferry and Bould-
er Canyon and that, therefore a dam
at Lees Ferry would not control the
river as effectively as the lower dam
at Boulder Canyon.
Explains Controversy.
The advantages accruing to Cali
fornia, Arizona and Nevada in the de-
velopment of the Colorado river nave
been mentioned. What interests have
the upper states in the river basin IN
this development, Colorado, Wyoming,
Utah and New Mexico? And why the
Colorado river commission?
Inc upper states have been in the
courts and have had cases pending in
the supreme court for years, and con-
tfoVersles which they think may pus-
slbly be duplicated later on by the
development of the lower Colorado
river. Lands in Kansas early using
the waters of the Arkansas river rur
irrigation have been deprived of water
by a subsequent diversion =, TIC
water upon lands in Colorado. Kan
sas takes the position that as between
lands within any state, priority of use
gives preference in the use, and con-
tehds that the same rational practice
or the right of priority, should gov
ern the use Of water as between lands
IN adjoining states. Colorado takes
the position that the water originates
with her and that it is one of her ma
tural resources for her to use as she
likes. Hence the controversy.
What | have just said applies to
land owners in the southern part OF
colorado. In the northern part there
is district located on a river y-a:yn
mas been deprived of wa.er Nv IN,
farmers farther up the river in " vom-
ing. These Colorado farmers have the
same viewpoint as the Kansas farm
ers.
Explains Right of Priority.
Court cases between Colorado ann
wyoming are pending, and between
New Mexico and Colorado.
Recently a proposed irrigation
project in Colorado was turned down
by the department of the interior, for