The Winslow mail., 1923-07-27
ENGINEER LARUE
MAKES REPORT
ON ARIz. SURVEY
COLORADO RIVER

E. G. LaRue, United States geolo-
gical engineer and chairman of the
Arizona engineering commission, has
made report to Goveror Hunt in
which he suggest that sum Of $685.
600 be appropriated for the purpose
of making what he calls a broad in
vestigation of the river and it's pos
sibilities in the irrigation of lands
within the state He also suggests
that the waters of the Colorado river
may not be sufficient to reclaim all
the lands which may be found COM
mercially feasible of development.
This is merely and opinion, however
and is contrary to the opinion of
many other competent men.
The commission, of which Mr. La
Rue is head, is composed of three
engineers. They began their survey
of the river last fall to determine
how many acres of land were possi-
BILE of irrigation from the waters of
the river and the probable cost
This report has been awaited with
considerable interest by the citizens
of the state, especially because of
the bearing it might have on the
ratification of the Colorado compact
According to the report of Mr.. La
Rue, taking his data from Congress
sional records as to the flow of wat
er in the Colorado river, there would
be an annual supply at Boulder
Canyon of 9,610,000 acre-feet. The
annual demand for 100000 acres
would be 100000 acre-feet, leaving
a surplus of 100000 acre-feet. This
would be on the basis of the 2,O00,-
600 acres of land along the river
which the commission considered po-
ssible of irrigation. But Mr.. LaRue
goes on the assumption, it seems,
that there may be double that am
ount of irrigable lands in the state
in which case it would require 49,
600 900 acre-feet of water to irrigate
the available lands for irrigation
And with the average amount avail
able of 100000 acre-feet there would
be a shortage of 100000 acre-feet
Hence Mr.. LaRue thinks a broad in
vestigation should be made to deter
mine just how much land in Arizona
can be irrigated from the waters of
the Colorado river. These figures of
Mr.. LaRue do not seem to agree
with those of others who have fig
uered somewhat on the question and
seem to be rather large. From what
others have said it appears there
would not be as large and amount of
land in Arizona available for irriga-
tion from the Colorado river as Mr..
LaRue indicates there might be. 1t
has also been stated by others who
have studied the question quite tho
roughly that there would be an abun-
dance of water to irrigate all the
lands available for irrigation in Ari-
Zona. However this may be, we
cannot see why it need to have any
particular bearing on the ratification
of the Colorado river compact or
delay such ratification. The ratifica-
tion of the compact will not make
any more or less water in the river
nor will it make any more or less
land to irrigate in the state of Ariz-
Ona The compact is meant to al
locate the waters of the river in &C
cordance with the rights of the
several states tributary thereto and
to guarantee those rights to each one
of the states. Our rights in Arizona
will not be changed one way or the
other by ratification or lack of rati
fication. There must be an agree
ment or compact before we can OBJ
tain any water at all for irrigation.
Hence it seems to us the only thing
to do is to ratify the compact and
then be in a position to irrigate all
the land possible with the water
available, whether it be two or four
million acres or less. No doubt the
suggestion of Mr.. LaRue to make |
broad investigation is a good one
but what is the use of putting of
the ratification of the compact until
that is done. 1t could be done after
the ratification just as well as be-
fore. 1t would be a waste of money
it seems to us to make such an in
vestigation unless the compact were
signed which would make it possible
for the irrigation projects to be car
ried out after the investigation was
made.