Imperial Valley press. (El Centro, Calif.) 1907-current, 1931-11-23
CH|LDERS SAYS VALLEY NOT
giving UP WATER RIGHTS

court ruled that 1t .lad judicial
knowledge from history and records
that the Colorado was a navigable
stream, and that one OF the chief
hindrances to navigation is the
heavy silt content.
After citing this and other au-
thorities, Childers presented engl-
neering data and records from Sen
ate Document 142, an official gov
eminent report on the irrigation
and flood problems of Imperial VAL
ley, to show that As acre feet per
acre is not the required amount OF
water for irrigation needs.
That report showed that Palo Ver-
de lands use approximately 3 acre
feet per acre, and that there is
limited alea here which can be ir-
rigated from the Colorado. The re-
port showed also that Imperial VAL
leys water duty is A acre feet per
acre for gravity lands and 3.5 acre
feet for pump lands, and that the
engineering Investigations showed
the combined ultimate requirement
of all irrigable lands under the
proposed All-American canal is s..
535 100 acre feet. Deducting from
the combined ALLEGATION to Palo
Verde, Yuma and lands under the
canal amounting to 2,850,000 acre
feet, the total water that Palo Yer
de and Yuma in California can use
consumptively, amounting to 100000
acre feet, there is left 3,541 900 acr@
feet for the All-American canal
lands, or a surplus of approximate
~ 5000 acre feet over and above
the total requirement for these
lands.
Childers pointed out that the pro-
posed contract for the canal guar
antees Imperial Valley this water
out of storage, and that it is water
coming ahead of the Metropolitan
district, and that it is far more
certain than the present unregu-
lated supply, which often runs
short.
Up To People
Arguments by Childers on the Sec
ond point were to show that the
plaintiffs are attempting to thWart
the legally constituted authority Of
the voters by this injunction, and
that the proposed contract as well
as the inclusion Of new lands, are
not matters left to the authority of
the district board, but are entirely
within the powers Of the electors to
decide.
Having shown that the allegations
of the plaintiffs prove the present
established water rights of the dis
trict are not curtailed by the Aug
ust agreement, Childers asserted
that the people have the legal right
to include additional lands if they
see fit, and the court cannot inter-
vene.
A large part Of the arguments of
Attorneys E. r. SimonS and Frank
lin j. Cole, representing the plain
tiffs, was occupied with citations at
tempting to prove that the court
must accept the facts alleged in the
complaint as being correct until such
time as trial occurred and these
facts were proved to be in error.
They definitely exposed their fear
that unless an injunction is grant
ed the All-American canal project
will be effected, quoting from the
Boulder Canyon project act to show
that this canal project has been the
aim of the district for many years.
Judge Mccormick interrupted ST.
mons at one point in the hearing to
inquire if he did not regard the
August agreement as simply one of
the necessary steps required in this
project, and, as consequence, an
improvement of water rights, rather
than REIMBURSEMENT of them.
The court stated that an effort
will be made this week to give de-
cision upon the motion for dismis-
sal, meanwhile the temporary re-
order holds in effect.