New Britain herald., 1928-06-01

essential by the public throughout the entire country.
 The recent filihuster against the project in the Senate was not en- gineered by the predatory power in- terests, but was the work of the two senators from Arizona and senators of both parties from other states of the seven affected by the proposed government dam and power manu- featuring plant.
 The kernel of the problem is not one of government versus private ownership, but one of proper dlNl- sion of the water and power be- tween the seven states concerned. Objections of Arizona hinge upon the claim that it is entitled to a greater diversion Of the waters from the great river flowing through that state. The legal questions inNolN' Il are numerous and hinge chiefly upon the division Of benefits between the seven states. Without q prior agreement between these states the entire project undoubtedly would he thrown into the courts, resulting m interminable delay and contention. If that should eventuate contentious about Boulder Dam might occupy the public mind longer than the contention about Muscle Shoals. The auintcssence of states rights is found in the Boulder Dam discus sion. Arizona claims superior rights to any of the other states in the de- velopment Of the Colorado river. Unable and unwilling itself to de- yclop the potcntialitics of the river it opposes any plan which would give an advantage to other states there from. The attitude is one of states rights to the breaking point.
 1 The river runs through that state or along it's western boundary. It does not start there and does not end there, but merely because it runs through Arizona for a longer dis tance than through any other state Arizona looks upon the Colorado river as something of an Arizona in 1 stitution. It does not reach California unti, far below the site of the pro- posed dam. Although Arizona can not claim an immediate market for the electrical power it can claim the need Of the stored waters for lrrl- ! gatlon purposee. The deserts of Arizona need water badly; every citizen of the state thinks that with proper irrigation from the Colorado -broueht about through the natlon- al government-the deserts would 1 bloom like the rose.
 California, however, offers an ln- mediate and big market for the electric power 10 be generated, and also for some of the water. The need of additional water supply for Los Angeles is stressed in Southern Cali fornia, and much of the power to be l developed can be used to pump the water over the hills and mountains. California undoubtedly would fur nish the major market to reimburse the government for the outlay incl dent 10 the creation of the dam. | The objections of the power ln- terests is based over the possibility of competition in the southern Cali fornia field, which at present is dominated by the California Edison company. It is held by the power in terests that if the government goes into the power business on a large scale it will mean the reduction Of power prices to a point where the private companies cannot compete. l Thus while the interests of South- ern California are bound up with the construction of the dam, the cleo tric power interests oppose the dam on straight business principles-the nreventjon of government competl- ton. Arizona, which has nothing in common with the power interests. IS their most staunch helper so far should Arizona through an agree ment with the other states be able to secure a larger part of the water and power it would swing 10 the support Of the dam. That is it's ob-
 ject, not the object of helping the southern California power combine If Arizona is given a larger division
 of water and power. however, 1t will
 mean that InuCH lcSo ol all uHN"'i'
 1age to southern California, the big.
 gcst market for both.
 Even if the dam were built with
 oilt a contract giving Arizona moro
 water and power it would be an ad'
 vantage to that state. The state it.
 self has never attempted to develop
 irrigation or power along the river
 now that the government is willing
 10 enter into such a development
 Arizona kicks Justify merely because
 it thinks it will not get enough of the
 results. So far as Congress is con.
 cerned there is little evidence that il
 will permit one state to stop sucf