The Coconino sun., 1924-04-04
FUTURE OF
COLORADO.

| within the last lew days must nave
the effect of laying the ghost of the
Boulder Canyon which the opponents
| Of the Colorado compact have raised
along with the spectre of the "Yel-
low PERIL" the sAsiatic Menace" Al
so the kibosh has been put upon the
wild, nighttime phantasy. These de-
velopments also make it quite clear
that without an effective agreement
among the states there will be no
public development of the Colorado
river, so that the heritage will pass
down to posterity as virgin as it has
come down to this generation.
On Wednesday there were two dec
larations against the Boulder Canyon
dam-one by the federal power COM
mission, one by Mr.. E. C. LaRue, both
on the ground that they would
be needlessly expensive for the carry
ing out of the only purpose the gov
eminent ought to have in undertaking
construction work at all-that OF
flood control.
One thing has long been quite plain.
We emphasized it frequently year
ago, the unlikelihood that the govern
ment would ever enter the field of
water-power development. It was
very doubtful also whether it would,
without a revision of its reclamation
policy, ever engage in any expensive
irrigation work.
In the evident opinion of the fed
eral power commission, as well as
that of Mr.. LaRue, the building of a
needlessly expensive dam for flood
control would be only a mask for the
entry of the government into the bus
mess of hydro-electric power produc-
tion. Both recommendations favor
flood protection at the lowest possible
cost to assure effectiveness, with only
such power and irrigation develop
ment as may be purely incidental,
or, as we may say, unavoidable.
Mr.. LaRue has always opposed the
building of the Boulder Canyon dam.
In his earlier controversy with Mr..
Arthur P. Davis he was an advocate
of a dam at Glen Canyon, both for
flood control and for such Incidental
irrigation and power development as
must result. LatterIy he has favor
ed the Topock or Mohave canyon
dam site for flood control purposes,
because a dam could be more cheap
ly constructed there than elsewhere
on the river.
The thing, though, we especially
want to reiterate is that the Boulder
canyon dam project was never in any
way associated with the Colorado
compact; nor, for that matter, were
many of the contentious raised by the
opponents of the compact. So far as
the compact was concerned in the
framing and adopting of it at Santa
Fe, it could make no difference where
dams should be built or whether they
should be built at all. The only thing
in mind was to clear the ground for
the development of the river when the
affected states should agree among
themselves on some plan of develop
ment; or when under some agreement
any of the states might undertake
a plan for development free from in
reference by any other state.
There was doubtless hope enter
tanned by the representatives at San
ia Fe that If such an agreement
should be reached and it should be
ratified by congress, at some time and
in some way the government and con-
gress would cooperate in the work of
development. Very plainly it was ap-
parent that some of the states, es-
pecially Arizona and Nevada of the
lower basin were not prepared, and
for long time would not be prepar-
ed alone to undertake development. 1t
would be work that would involve
the expenditure of hundreds of mil
lions of dollars.
Many of US believed that if we
could reach an agreement, the govern
ment under the spur Of necessity of
flood control would come to our aid
and would construct a great dam for
that purpose and that there would
thereby be an extensive development
of the river for power and irrigation.
But we have not reached an agree
ment. The matter stands just where
it stood before agreement was pro-
posed. The necessity for flood con-
troll has become more urgent and rec
concentrations have been made for
such control, in disregard of any plans |
we or the Californians may have en-
tertained with respect to irrigation
and power development.
AS to the nighttime project, we in
vite those who have been allured by it |
to careful perusal of the report of
the special board of engineers on the
Colorado river development prob
lens, which we are printing today.
The utter infeasibility of it for many
reasons is shown so conclusively that
no one can longer be deceived by the
absurd claims of its proponents.
We are confronted by two things;
we must either ratify the compact and
put ourselves in the way of reaping
the benefits of cooperation, or else
we must let things drift as they have
dyifted in the past, aimlessly, down
to other neutrality-suspicious. Re-
publican.