The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1950-05-05


water requirements arising out of
existing projects, and be considered
, under point 2, that is whether fur
, Their fuses" of the waters would be
practicable in the public interest
The essential dispute at this meet
! ing was as to whether the plans for
proposed use of the disrupted waters.
submitted by each governments sec
ton of the engineering board was to
be considered as a fulfillment of the
requirements of point 2. The Amer
leans argued that the showing of ir-
, rigable lands sufficient to use the
water, and proposed all-American
tunnel plan to bring that water to
those lands was sufficient to show
that a further use of American waters
in America was practicable, and that
the engineering board should proceed
to investigate possible plans of NUT
ual advantage for the utilization of
the waters. The Canadians argue
that Canada must first analyze the
engineering data supporting the pro-
I posed American plans and pass upon
its economic feasibility in order to
determine its practicability; and
further that until that is done, no
further steps may be taken. Canada
further argues that the next step
must be point 3, an ALLEGATION of |
water in accordance with the practi- !
cal possibilities of the present and |
proposed uses, and that no plan of |
mutual advantage can be considered |
or investigated until after the allo-
cation. 1t was estimated that it
would take a year for an analysis of
the engineering data.
The Joint Engineering Board pre-
sented 2 plans. one for each nation.
and requested the international
Joint Commission to resolve the dis
pute concerning future activity. :
The proposed American plan would
bring sufficient water into the upper
Marias IRRIGATION project to put an :
additional 10000 acres of land und- :
er irrigation. :
To date no decision has been reach :
ed by the International Joint Com :
mission. 1t was apparent that the
was itself divided on the =
question.
At present, under consideration :
oy the Joint Commission are a pro- =
posed stop order" mentioned be- :
ow, and also a proposal that the :
american section, at least, of the Joint =
tnglneerlng Board proceed to make :
studies of plans of mutual :
advantage for the use by both nations =
If the disputed waters. =
The Canadian program is evident =
y designed to consume as much time =
as possible ir order to enable that =
nation to put into operation the ir- :
1gatlon project proposed. Charges to :
his effect at the hearing were met !.
With proposed "stop order" from the =
commission to prevent the attempted =
of any rights in the z
Iisputed water by action on the part =
4 either government. Geography =
nd time favor the Canadian position. =
Canada argues that we have no =
resent use for the disputed waters, =
nat the mountain barriers to the =
last make uneconomic any plan to -
Sc that water before it passes over =
ne international boundary and into =
,anadian sovereignty. From that =
anada will conclude that Montana =
Mould get no part of the thousands =
acre feet of water now flowing =
orthward out of Montana. =
1t is the United States position =
nat whether the cost of the pro- -
oSeu use De great or small is OF no =
oncern to the other nation. The =
'sential question is whether these -
vo great and friendly nations can =
ot join together in the development =
comprehensive plans of mutual adj -
lntage for the conservation, con- =
oil and utilization of the waters in =
lestion. -
That question remains almost as =
From SOL, / A
o when negotiations for the sub =
ssion of the question to the Inter- -
tional Joint Commission were COM =
enced =
In line with the Commissions inves- =
alton of the proposed uses of the =
ter, it was announced that the =
Joint Commission would =
me to Montana and Canada this =
ne to conduct public hearings on =
, question. The present schedule =
those hearings is: T.