The Coconino sun., 1926-12-24
COLORADO RIVER PERMITS ARE
ANALYZED BY FEDERAL BODY

While state commissions from Ari-
zona, Nevada and California are ne
gotiating at Los Angeles for an equi-
table division of water and power
rights in the Colorado river, the. Fed
eral Power commission laid down on
Governor Hunts desk its sixth annual
report containing legal doctrine Gi-
rectly hostile to the states rights
contentious of Arizona.
The commission analyses and sum
marizes a decision of the United
States supreme court rendered Jan
uary A, 1926, which received little
more than mention here at the time,
because on its face it concerned only
the state of New Jersey, which is
primarily interested in navigation and
not in the development of hydro
electric power or irrigation projects.
In appraising the bill of com
plaint," says the report, "the court
adverts to the firmly settled doctrine
that the commerce clause of the con-
stitution vests in congress authority
to control all navigable waters within
the states and to that end to adopt
appropriate measures to free such
waters from distractions and to en-
large their capacity, and that the au-
thOrity of a state in respect to such
waters accessible from other states
and in respect to the lands under
them is subordinate to this power of
congress-
Governor Hunt and his administra-
tion always have contended that,
even though the Colorado river for
many years has been classified as
navigable and accordingly under the
control of congress, jurisdiction over
the bed of the river, from it's Arizona
shores to it's middle line, vested in
this state where the river skirts Ne
vada and California.
New Jersey was attacking the vail
dIty of the federal water power act
and the real purpose of her COM
plant, says the report, was "to obtain
judicial declaration that congress
exceeded its authority in enacting this
legislation. In the Judgment of the
court, whether the provisions of the
act are invalid as alleged cannot oe
made the subject of judicial inquiry
until they are about to be given some
practical application and effect, and
this would naturally be after they be-
come q part of an accepted license,
and after some right, privilege, i'm
munity or duty asserted under them
becomes the subject of actual contro-
versy."
The court refused the New Jersey
application for an injunction restrain
ing the commission and dismissed the
complaint. Touching on the merely
obstructive attitude ascribed to New
Jersey, the opinion first summarizes
the main contentious of the complaint
and then goes on to say in part:
"These allegations are followed by
others, similarly indefinite, to the eff
feet that the challenged provisions IF
the act if applied and enforced will
interfere with the states contemplat-
ed development of the aforesaid
power projects will deprive the state
of revenue from the leasing of it's
submerged lands and from the de-
velopment and conservation Of water
resources.
''The state is merely shown to be
! contemplating power development
| and water conservation in the future.
There is no showing that it has de-
| ISl lliAIlCQ vi VI ID cSOOQC w HAOSNONt
/ with any definite project. Neither is
it shown that the defendants that
is, the federal power commission
''are now taking or are about to take
any definite action respecting water
bordering on or within the state, save
as the commission is about to consid-
er and act on various applications
from persons in New Jersey for pre-
/ liminary permits and licenses to uti-
lie navigable water on the boundary
and inland for the development Of
water power.
"As respects the states submerged
lands, the bill (of complaint) signally
fails to disclose any existing contro-
versy within the range of the judicial
power Stating merely that the state
will be deprived Of revenue from the
leasing of such lands is not enough.
Facts must be stated showing that