Arizona republican., 1922-03-16

wolves no necessity Of any precedent
in the settlement of these problems
SO vital to the basin states. We will
have lifted the flood menace and
created a condition that changes the
river flow from q minimum of $500
second feet to q maximum flow of
140, 600 second feet to an even flow
OF $4,000 second feet for the entire
year. No rights above the dam sites
are pretudiced and / say that this
court has not the facts before 1t to
determine the equitable allocations Of
the benefits accruing from the river
development.
Makes Assumptions
~Y assume two things; first, that
this commission is desirous Of obtain
ing the full information Of these
proposed development projects and,
second, to give no decision until It
gets all the facts.
Eve desire earnestly and sincerely
to cooperate with the commission
to the end that there shall be an ab-
solute and complete agreement be-
tween states that the possibility OF
litigation shall be dispensed with.
Il do not believe that the facts OF
these development problems are suf-
ficiently well established at this time
to warrant this commission to rem
der a Judgment. The legal questions
are such that before this commission
undertakes to decide them, more OPP
portunity for argument should be
Referring to an article which ap-
peared recently in Los Angeles
na ner az from the pen Of w. S. Nor
viel. a commission member and state
water commissioner for Arizona, Mr'
Maxwell declared that the riparian
rights to use Of water is one OF the
outstanding doctrines of the COLORADO
river development.
"The rights of citizens OF the Unlt-
ed states, of California and OF Arl-
zona are protected by the doctrine
Of riparian ownership. This question
ought not to be lightly weighed ana
1t is my opinion that 1t has no ap-
plication in the Colorado river DIS
cussion."
Hoover Interrupts
Chairman Hoover interrupted at
this point, declaring that the COM
mission had arrived at no concluslohs
whatsoever, neither on the issue OF
riparian rights or any other question
concerning the river development.
He made it plain that the commission
was striving to keep it's mind open.
In reply Mr.. Maxwell said that ne
had taken his position believing the
nawsnaner article referred to ex-
pressed the sentiment OF the com
mission on the question OF riparian
rights. ~.
the article referred to was not COM
plete print of Mr.. Norylefs sugses-
tions and intimated that 1T was ms
leading in its summary. u
Returning to his proposed deyelop
nent projects. Mr. Maxwell said tnat
through development Of power ana
irrigation projects on the COLORADO IA
tha Grand Canyon would Of necessity
result in an earlier development OF
lands in California, Arizona and Ne
vada. ,4 +ba
neorles OF this state will create
priority right to the flow Of the river
forever" he said. s ho
"TTnder this plan, there should pe
no dinninution Of the river flow 70 tne
northern line of Arizona The Chains
Of upper states should be more thor-
ouehly studied to obviate future dan
ger OF litigation.
"c,lairns OF states in the upper
reaches Of the river for use OK Walei
would destroy for all times the great
est power asset in North America
Al best. the total acreage to be re-
claimed by these states would not DC
more than $500, 900. And all of the
water taken from the river for irrl-
cation purposes would be used. There
would be no return seepage.
Must Be Fixed Flow
"It Is my belief that the absolute
consent Of the state OF Utah TO the
oIans 7 have suggested here that
tbere he no dimunition Of the flow at
The northern Arizona line can be Sc
cured for the exchange Of a local
nower zone in that state. There must
be fixed and established flow OF
water to guarantee the success of
| these plans. 1t will not be very far