Arizona republican., 1922-03-17

! shall approach this problem from
the law of common sense.
Arizona has the utmost confidence
in this commission and believes that
| under your leadership Mr.. Hoover,
they viii give the people in the Colo
RADIO basin a strictly square deal. We
believe that we can safely leave our
case in your hands.
THE question of where the water
belongs seems destined to plunge US
into troublesome litigation. ! want
to see q policy of common sense, a
spirit of neighborliness and fair play,
the policy on which this commission
may proceed. / believe that some
sort of an agreement should be
evolved that would assure against
| litigation in the determination of the
rights for a definite period of years,
allowing essential construction to
| proceed without the slightest possible
delay.
1.-THE water belongs to the state
where it can be put to the greatest
beneficial use" he added, taking
occasion to pay tribute to the work
of Joseph H. Kibbey. in the estab-
| lishment of this policy.
I'VE of Arizona appreciate that in
! the practical development of the ir-
rigation and power possibilities of the
| Colorado river lies the greatest asset
of our state, but we believe we can
completely protect these valuable
rights in a spirit Of fair play TO our
sister states in the Colorado river
! basin and we do believe most ear
nestly that the time for action has
come" he concluded
SHOULD power or irrigation be
| given priority in the ALLEGATION of
! benefits from the Development
Chairman Hoover asked.
1--WE should consider this from the
social standpoint. Irrigation and the
making of homes should be given
first consideration" Mr.. Heard re-
Piled
DAVIS EXPLAINS FORMER WORK
Arthur p. Davis, director of the
reclamation service and author of the
Davis plan, prefaced his statements
with remark that he believed asser-
| tions of previous witnesses that the
! Colorado river commission would
make decision without first getting
all the facts conveyed a wrong i'm
| preston.
He then plunged into brief resu-
me Of the reclamation service lnVes-
legations and surveys of other gov
ernment agencies into every factor
| relating to the development of the
| Colorado, intimating that the COM
mission has sufficient data on hand
| to warrant formulation of the defi-
mite program or policy in the develop
ment of the stream. These investi-
| cations carry back as far as 1883 and
represent total expenditure of more
! than $500, 600. he added. Much of the
work, he continued. is IS or 10 years
ago, so that it has long since passed
| the experim or uncertain stage.
He argued against further delay in
| beginning construction operations,
saying that the Colorado commission
! has far more data on hand than did
| the Panama commission when it un-
| dertook the construction of the Pan
anna canal.
Some Of the plans presented to
| this commission would result in long
waits. 1t would be necessary to
conduct surveys over period OF
years; congressional appropriations
would be necessary to do this work
and that all takes time.
"The cost Of the proposed highline
canal is not known but it would be
from two to five times as great as the
cost of the Panama canal.
"This question of development Of
the Colorado is an urgent one and the
building of the Boulder Canyon dam
need not await the determination of
the feasibility of the highline canal,
as proposed in the Maxwell plans.
Later, if it proves practicable to
building such a line. 1t could be done.
"Mr. MaxwelPs plan is one of many
off-hand statements, presented In an
eloquet manner, which is liable to
f,.,,- for1a nnnUinfinn TN right
minded persons" he said.
Ills assertion that his plan would
not be more expensive than would be
feasible is an assurance not justified
by any known facts. His further as
| sertion that waters would be appro-
| priated in Mexico If his plan be not
carried to fruition in the original un-
dertaking was made without future
consideration.
| Sufficient Water For Seven States.
There is sufficient water in the
| Colorado for the irrigation OF 1,500,-
| 600 acres: for the reclamation of
every acre in every feasible. sensible
| project in the seven states he de-
| clared.
| Referring to the statement Wednes
| day by Mr.. Maxwell that the gross
earnings Of lands under his proposed
| project would vary from a minimum
OF 5000 per acre to $1,000 per acre,
/ Mr. Davis cited records and figures
from the Salt River valley project,
| which he said was as fine valley as
there is in the state.
.In only one year--that in the peak
| OF 1919-has the average gross pro-
duction of Salt River valley lands ex
ceeded 500 per acre" he asserted.
The Boulder Canyon site is most
desirable because, among other
things, it is nearer the power markets
than other proposed developments he
said. 1t is the only one near enough
for present consideration, he added.
Regarding control of the Gila, Mr..
Davis told the commission that he
was not in position to state definite
whether or not that was feasible at
the proposed Seminal dam site. He
told Of findings of an engineer of the
reclamation service, which declared
that because OF bad foundations. it
would be impossible A re-survey was
| ordered, he said, a final report saying,
4 in effect, that the engineer believed
the Sentinel dam would be a safe risk
! purely as a flood control measure He