Arizona sun., 1950-01-06

CnGrII1OrG, IL II Will 40 So, Will IL
be in the shortest possible time,
with the greatest economy, and in
accordance with our full and just
rights in that stream which is the
only source of water available to
this state? Finally, if the bill in
its present amended form will not
do these things, how must it be
changed so that it will?
We can do no better in analyzing
the bill now pending before Con-
gress than to compare its proposals
with the rights assured for the
people of Arizona through the wa
ter filings made by Fred T. Golfer
in their behalf beginning in 1928.
Let us remember too that the
operation of legislative act and
the effects expected from it by it's
sponsors are two different things,
and also that the Interpretation
placed upon it by the courts is the
ultimate authority of the law. The
one member of the present Arizona
Congressional delegation who was
in Congress when the Boulder Can
yon Project Act was passed in 1928
has testified at Congressional hear
ingS that his understanding and in
tention in allowing that bill to come
up and pass when he could have
continued to filibuster it was that
the bill meant something which the
Supreme Court ruled in 1884 that
it does not mean at all and is ad-
verse to Arizona. Any such error
made at this time will be almost
impossible to rectify.
Starting at the top of the system,
the Golfer filings provide for ma
jor storage at Glen Canyon Dam
Site. This is located at the head
of the Grand Canyon, near the
Utah line. All authorities agree
that Glen Canyon is by far the best
site on the river for this purpose.
The Golfer filings also include an
alternate though lesser storage dam
at Marble Gorge, a short distance
downstream from Glen Canyon.
Now let us ask how much water
the Golfer filings appropriated to
be stored in Glen Canyon Reservoir.
The answer is: All the flood or
reservoir storage waters of the riv-
er, estimated at IL to Is million
acre feet annually.
What is this amount of water
capable of doing for Arizona? It
will develop six million new acres
of farm land in Central Arizona
and 100000 electrical horsepower,
end the water shortages Of our
present farms and cities, and pro-
vide exchange water for growth of
the rest of the state.
How would this water be divert
ed into Arizona? Golfer filed on
sites for two major diversion rou-
teS.
One is the Bridge Canyon storage
and diversion dam site, in the low
er Grand Canyon section of the
river, from which water would be
diverted by tunnel and canal to
Central and all Arizona. The other
is a tunnel to the Verde River,
down which the water would then
run to the Central section of the
state. Both would draw water from
the same storage site, Glen Canyon
or Marble Gorge reservoirs, and
irrigate virtually the same lands.
Both diversion routes are feasible
and economical, though the
Bridge Canyon route is somewhat
cheaper because it requires less
tunneling.
Senate Bill IS provides no major
storage facilities. In fact, the bill
in section one definitely states
that its authorization does not in
clude the Glen Canyon dam site
and by it's terms excludes an ade-
quate Marble Gorge dam.
Senate Bill IS authorizes a dam
at the Bridge Canyon site, with a
storage capacity of only 3,720,000
acre feet.
Now what does Senate Bill IS
authorize in the way of diversion
facilities?
First, it eliminates the Verde
Tunnel entirely.
Second, it authorizes the con-
of the Bridge Canyon
gravity tunnel-canal to Central
Arizona partially as filed on by
Golfer, the canal stopping in Pinal
County. Under the Golfer All-Ari-
zona plan the canal is of larger
and continues on through
the Gila River Valley to the west