Arizona sun., 1950-01-06

which would be reduced in size to
an aqueduct. Power for pumping
HOO feet would be obtained from
the proposed Bridge Canyon Dam,
and would require one-third of its
output.
Bridge Canyon dam site is up
stream from both Parker and
Boulder Dams and at much high
er elevation. The tunnel from
Bridge Canyon reservoir would
link directly with the canal to
Central Arizona in an all-gravity
system with which no pump lift
can remotely compare in capacity
or economy.
The capacity of the uneconomical
Parker Pump Lift is limited to l.
100000 acre feet annually. This is
not enough water to take care of
the present shortages of farms and
cities in Central Arizona. No new
irrigation would be contemplated
or possible. And under Senate Bill
IS Arizona's inheritance of hydro
electric power in the Grand Canyon
would be taken by power mono
poles in California.
After having deferred construc-
ton of the Bridge Canyon gravity
tunnel in favor of the Parker Pump
Lift, Senate Bill Is in Sections II
and 13 deferS construction of the
pump lift also, pending an expected
lawsuit with California over the
Colorado River in the supreme
court. Section 13 would meanwhile
allow construction of Bridge Can
yon Dam to go ahead for produc-
tion of power only. California ex-
poets to absorb the greater part of
that power under this bill. Cali
fornia after securing all of the
benefits of Colorado River develop
ment to date now seeks further
advantage from any other construc-
ton through power development
only under Senate Bill Is.
The lawsuit to which the con-
sent of the United States Govern
ment is given by Section II Of the
Bill would be to interpret the Sante
Fe Colorado River Compact of
1922 which was designed to divide
waters of this stream in perpetuity
between the seven basin states.
This consent was placed in the bill
at the insistence of California, with
the help of the upper basin states,
and over the protest of the Arizona
congressional delegation.
The high court made such an
Interpretation of the compact in
1884, and it was adverse to Arizona.
Yet the Arizona Congressional dele
cation in Sections z and 8 and else
where throughout this bill has
made it subject to the same Santa
Fe Compact.
There should be but one under
Standable excuse for binding Ari-
zona to the Santa Fe Compact and
it should be understood before 1t
is too late. Arizona under it would
grant rights to the use of upwards
of 10 million acre feet of flood wa
ters of the Colorado River water
annually for authorization by Con-
gress of project to deliver 1,OOO,-
900 acre feet of water to Central
Arizona by the Parker Pump Lift.
The upper basin states are to re-
ceive the water Arizona would lose
under the compact and transport
it outside of the Colorado River
Basin at something illegal as
has been ruled by the supreme
court of the United States.
The McFarland-Hayden Senate
Bill IS is unacceptable to them If
it does not conform to the Sante
Fe Compact and the compact takes
Arizona's rights and divides them
in such a way that it gives her less
water than she now uses. Califor-
MIA is made the only point of attack
where Arizona cannot look for the
water filed on by Fred T. Golfer
while the upper basin states, as
well as California, get that water
and except California are hailed as
Arizona's friends in Congress. A
more confused state of affairs
would be hard to find when we
consider that the upper basin states
have joined with California to fight
Arizona in Congress as much as
they have helped her. Their last
act in forcing a supreme court suit
subject to compact provisions is in
effect asking for another decision
against the State of Arizona by
the United States Supreme Court.
ef&A a