The Coconino sun., 1924-08-15

building up of the country by extend
ing agriculture and establishing. indus
tries by the use Of cheap electric
power of which there is an almost un-
limited supply latent in the river now
wasting to the sea. 1t will be practi-
cally impossible to secure the assis-
tance of the government in financing
any project, even a strictly flood
control dam for the benefit of one or
two states, if opposed by the others.
and such opposition will obtain until
the compact becomes effective.
Viewing the matter from any and
every angle, cooperation between or
among all the states is necessity to
succeed in the development of the
/ Colorado river.
TransmOuntain Diversion
In two of the states there have been
diversions of water from the Colorado
river basin across or through the
mountains into other basins.
In Utah there is such a diversion
from the Duchesne river through the
divide west to the Strawberry Project
in the Great Salt Lake basin, eight
hundred and twenty-five thousand
acre feet per annum being so diverted.
government project. A similar di-
version from Price river across to the
west slope of the divide of 1,5O0 acre
feet per annum. Out of the Virgin
river basin, tributary to the Colo
RADIO is diverted across the divide into
Grass Valley $4,000 acre feet per an
| mum. Making total of lot, 900 acre
| feet of transmountain diversions per
annum in Utah. Plans are being made
to extend somewhat these same diver
slons and make others, it may be near
| ly or quite double the present diver
| Sions.
In Colorado the present transmount-
ain diversions are from the North
/ Fork of the Grand, the Fraser, the
Williams, Blue and Eagle rivers across
| ern slope. Another diversion from
| Chetopa creek, branch of the Gunni-
son river across the divide into the
Sagauche, tributary of the Rio
Grande in the San Louis Valley, of
$500 acre feet per annum which may
| be increased without great difficulty
| to 1000 acre feet. From all these
| diversions approximately 10000 acre
| feet per annum are being taken out
of the basin, and by improveing the
present systems of transmountain di-
versions it is expected to double the
amount now diverted. In addition to
that, proposed plans, and surveys have
been made, for a diversion which will
! involve very large expenditure of
money and which it is expected will
| add 10000 acre feet per annum to
! transmountain diversions in Colorado.
This large proposed additional trans
mountain diversion is primarily for
domestic supply for the City of Den
yer and vicinity. Making an ultimate
transmountain diversion out of the
Colorado river basin in the state of
Colorado of approximately 100000
acre feet per annum.
! Strong objections have been made
| to diverting water from the Colorado
| river basin or rather, statements have
been made in the discussions before
the people of Arizona that such diver
! sions should not be permitted. Up to
date this has only been talk for home
| consumption, no legal steps having
been taken to prevent it. There is no
| law against such diversions and the
| practice is recognized in most of the
western states.
The case Of Wyoming against Colo
RADIO is often referred to by the OPP
ponents of the compact for some rea-
son not yet clearly stated. In that
case Wyoming raised the question and
made an issue of the fact that Colora-
do was attempting to divert the
waters of the Laramie river into an
other watershed in the state of Colo
rado. Mr.. Justice Van Devanter, de-
livering the opinion of the court, on
that question, said:
"The objection of Wyoming to the |
proposed diversion on the ground that |
it is to another watershed from
which she can receive no benefit, is
also untenable. The fact that the di-
version is to such watershed has a |
bearing in another connection, but |
does not in itself constitute a ground |
for condemning it. In neither state
does the right of appropriation depend |
on the place of use being within the |
same watershed. Diversions from one
watershed to another are commonly
made in both states and the practice is
I6COSIllLGu Uy lllG uGCIS1OuS Oh UnGlF |
counts. "a number of references to |
cases are here omitted). And the |
evidence shows that diversions are
made and recognized in both states
which in principle are not distinguish
able from this, that is, where water is
taken in one state from watershed /
leading into the other state and con-
Quoted into different watershed lead
ing away from that state, and from
which she can never receive any ben
eft. The principle of such diversions
being recognized in both states, it's
application to this interstate stream
does not in itself afford ground for
complaint unless the practice in both
be rejected in determining what, as
between them, is reasonable and ad-
missible as to this stream which we
think should not be DONE"
In other words, it being common
practice in both states recognized as
legal and proper diversions the court
left them where he found them. While
that might not bind Arizona to the