Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-05-18
Arizona Loses Fight on Con-
stitutionaIity of Boulder
Canyon Project Act.
CHARGED STATE WOULD
LOSE RIGHTS TO WATER
Way Left Open for State to Renew
Fight if Later Developments
Show Impairment of Powers.
BY the Associated Press

BY the Associated Press.
The law authorizing the construction
of Hoover Dam on the Colorado River
was sustained as constitutional today
by the Supreme Court.
Arizona's bill of complaint was dis
missed by the court without prejudice
to her right to proceed further in the
matter should It later develop that any
Of her rights were being impaired
Arizona succeeded in showing. the
court declared, that it may suffer injury
as result of distribution of water from
the reservoir.
II at any time in the future her
rights to water from the river should
be impaired, the court said that the
State might take appropriate legal &C
ticn. but that it could net deliver judg-
ment based on the assumption that the
States rights would be injured.
Work Under Way.
Work on the dam, already under way,
will go forward as result of the de-
cision although it may eventually De
halted If Arizona should bring other
court action with regard to distribution
of the water.
The act authorizing the construction
of the dam was passed in December,
1928, over the bitter opposition Of Arr
Zona's Representatives in Congress
The cost was estimated at $165 ,000,-
900, with reimbursement to go to the
Government from revenue from the
sale of water and hydro-electric con-
tracts, which have already been let by
the Interior Secretary.
Arizona attacked the validity of the
Boulder Canyon project act and asked
the Supreme Court to prohibit Secre-
49, 80 T~.A Er- ~
ing the Hoover Dam under its provi-
sions, contending Congress under the
act proposed to deprive Arizona Of
water from the Colorado River in viola
ton of its quasi-sovereign rights.
Arizona asserted that while the act
declared it was in aid of navigation and
for the reclamation of public lands II
was, In fact, for irrigation and power
purposes and not in aid of navigation.
Admitting Congress had jurisdiction
under the Federal Constitution to pro-
mote interstate commerce and had con-
troll of navigable rivers for that purpose
Arizona insisted the Colorado River Is
not, and never was, navigable and de-
clared navigation on a non-rlavigable
river was not promoted by dfverting
one-half of its natural flow, as was
proposed under the present act.
Compact Is Challenged.
The six-State compact between Cali
fornia, Nevada. Utah, New Mexico, Col
ora6o and wyoming was challenged by
Arizona on the ground 1t proposed to
take water to which she was entitled.
Particular emphasis was placed by
Arizona on the charge that under the
Hoover Dam act Secretary Wilbur, a
party to the suit, was proposing TO d.
vert under contracts large quantities OF
i,@k1 Ia l.
ley, Los Angeles and Southern Cali
fornia.
Arizona declared that not only would
it be deprived of water rights, but that
the project contemplated the diversion
CT water over a mountain range into
ano her watershed. The act Of Congress
was described by Arizona as promoted
to furnish Southern California with
water from the river to which 1T was
not entitled, and also for the generation
of hydro electric current for the benefit
of others than citizens of Arizona. 1t
also denied that the act could benefit
navigation on the river by flood control.
California, Nevada, Utah. New Mex
leo, Colorado and wyoming. the six
States parties to the Colorado River
compact, and Secretary of the Interior
when served with the complaint of
Arizona asked the court to dismiss it,
contending 1t presented no FEDERAL
question within the jurisdiction OF the
court.
No Injury at Present.
They declared that Arizona at the
present time was suffering no injury
under the act of Congress for the con-
struction of Hoover Dam which would
permit it to maintain a suit to enjoin
the construction of the dam. The
complaint was based, they insisted,
upon injuries Arizona anticipated would
arise from the construction of the dam.
1t would be time for Arizona to come
into court when 1t could show that it
actually was being deprived of some
constitutional right under the dam act
The dam act had properly been
designated by Congress as an aid to
navigation, they stated. asserting the
court had no right to question the ac-
curacy of the designation, but must ac-
cept the construction given by Congress
The impounding of water at Hoover
Dam would create lake, they explain
ed, which would permit navigation
around Boulder and Black canyons, now
Continued on Page 2, Column g.