The border vidette., 1925-08-22

reply is that Arizona is not ask
ing that the law of priorities
based upon appropriation fol
beneficial use, be set aside
Arizona is fully content with
that law. We think it is fair,
equitable and just. Under the
provisions of that law there has
been no need for Arizona to be
in any hurry about spending
money for Colorado River sur.
veys or to fear early develop
ment of the Colorado River from
any other sourse, as we spent
our money elsewhere where
there was more need of it.
Since the Colorado River com
pact was negotiated. engineers
tell US that it is possible to de
velop additionally from 100000
to 3, 900, 600 acres of land in Ari
| IONA from the Colorado River.
Other engineers accept the data
of Mr.. Arthur P. Davis which
states that it is only practicable
to irrigate some 100000 acres of
land, which includes the Yuma
Project, in Arizona from the
Colorado River. We think we
have secured sufficient informa.
ton in the past two years to
justify the belief that a consider
ably greater area in this state
can be irrigated from the Colo
RADIO River and we want the
water to do it, if further. sur
veys prove it practicable.
In negotiating a treaty con
corning the Colorado River, we
do not see our way clear to allo
cate. by treaty, any of the
waters from Arizona streams as
a portion of the main Colorado
River. We>insist that the laws
Arizona shall govern on the
basis of prior appropriation for
beneficial use and remain undis
turbed on Arizona streams. We
grant the same right to Nevada
aud to California to utilize the
waters of all of the streams that
originate in their territory but
we decline to dispose of, to other
states, by treaty, rights in Ari
IONA streams, that can be &C
quired in no other way. Econo
mic law and self.preservation
dictate our policy in this matter.
think I appreciate fully that
you gentlemen did not come to
Arizona looking for charity. If
Arizona signed the Colorado Ri
yer compact in its present form
we would be signing away our
future right to utilize the re
sources of the river without re
compense. If we have some.
thing you want and can utilize,
economic justice dictates that it
be paid for. believe Arizona
and Nevada have a definite in
terest in the Colorado River that
received no consideration in the
compact and little consideration
in the discussion of it; and that
| is the right to derive revenue
from the power developed by
the Harvesting of the river with
in our borders.
I am not fully informed as to
how Nevada feels about the mat
ter, but the State of Arizona ex
poets to derive revenue from
every unit of electrical energy
generated in this state that is
utilized in other stales. The
Colorado River compact does not
| deal with this question. but the
State Engineer of California, in
a communication addressed to
the governor of California, states
that the upper basin states have
some claim on power that may
be developed in the lower basin.
1 deny that any such right ex
lists. I repudiate such doctrine,
| The Colorado River compact
gives to the upper basin states
rights which they cannot &C
quire under the law accept by
putting the water to beneficial
use before it is utilized in. the
lower basin. What do they give
ia return? Whether the water
be apportioned under existing
law, or by treaty, when it comes
to the Arizona line the upper
basin states have lost all title
and right to it and Arizona will
conclude no treaty unless tina
right be fully recognized and es
tablished.
Something has been said, from
| time to time, about the NATURAL
IN tion Of tho river. that riZOns