The Coconino sun., 1923-06-22
HAYDEN EXPLAINS AWAY
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. AS TO.
COLORADO RIVER PACT
Continued from Page one.)

to the people Of the two counties IL
the Colorado River compact could be
construed TO mean that such dams as
are necessary might be built in New
Mexico without first obtaining tho
consent of that state. The compact,
however, can not be so interpreted.
The procedure to be followed Is
explicitly set forth in Article Of the
compact. The governor of Arizona is
| authorized to bring to the attention
of the governor of New Mexico that
it is our desire to construct storage
works in New Mexico for the benefit
of Arizona. When the request is made
it is the duty of both governors 10
forthwith appoint commissioners with
power to consider the proposal and,l IL
the commissioners can agree, to pre-
pare a compact or agreement which
will grant the right to impound water
in New Mexico for use in Arizona. But
any such compact or agreement is
without force or effect until it shall
first have been ratified by the IegislA-
ture of the respective state.
If the state of Arizona should de-
eide to build the Glen Canyon dam,
there will also be immediate need for
an agreement with the state of Utah.
The Glen Canyon dam site is only a
few miles south of the Utah boundary
line and a 600-foot dam erected there
would back up the water for about 200
miles IN that state. 1t is certain that
the state Of Arizona would use every
possible means to prevent another
state, without our approval, from
flooding an area of this state suffl1-
lent to impound 100000 acre fest
of water. Utah may therefore ba. ex-
pected to exercise the same vigiIanca
and to insist that her rights be re-
spected. I
The present laws of Utah provide
for the payment of a fee of two cents
for each acre foot of water stored,
which would amount to about half
rnillion dollars in the case of the Glen
Canyon Reservoir. The tender of such
fee does not insure that the neceS-
sary permit will be granted because
the state engineer can reject any ap-
plication which he deems to be detri-
mental Any further Utah legislature
can change the existing law and might
even go further, as did the Montana
lCSloldkuIO LII 1JZ1, b4lQ pIUuIDlt dIty
officer or employe of the state from
granting permission to impound wa
ter within the state for use outside of
its boundaries. Montana became
alarmed over the proposal to store
water in Flathead Lake for use on the
Columbia Basin project in the state
of Washington, and provided that no
such right could be granted except up
on petition to and an act Of the stats
legislature. What Washington cannot
do in Montana, what Arizona cannot
do in New Mexico or Utah, California
cannot do in Arizona.
1t is to meet just such situations as
/ have mentioned that the compact
very wisely provides means for the
adjustment of interstate controversies
over the construction of power and
irrigation works. The sovereignty Of
each state over its own internal affairs
is fully preserved by the requirement
that no right can be acquired within
it's borders without the consent of tbs
legislature. The only way to bring
about the development of the water
resources common to two or more
state is by agreements among them
as to what shall be done. The Colora-
do river compact is such an agreement
and it contemplates similar agree
ments whenever necessary.