9337 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

THE FIRST 50 YEARS on a treaty covering both rivers. Terms of the proposed treaty had just become known, and the "real" water users gathered at the Last Frontier were hopping mad, their individual conflicts, for the moment, shoved aside. The treaty provided, among other things, that Mexico would be guaranteed 1.5 million acre-feet a year of their precious Colorado River water, and Texas would be guaranteed 325,000 acre-feet a year of Rio Grande water that had been under the control of Mexico. Nobody could convince this group that this wasn't the result of political maneuvering - all wrapped up and ready to be delivered in one neat package. It had not taken long for the word to spread and alarm to be voiced by many. That's when Nevada Governor E. P. Carville and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, reacting to requests from inside and outside the state, called a meeting of those sharing the indignation and concern. Several hundred answered the call and assembled at the Last Frontier. As it approached time for the meeting to begin, they clustered in groups, muttering and grumbling, periodically with one or another agitated voice rising above the others. "They have no compunction about selling our assets down the river." "You know, don't you, Texas has been trying for years to get more Rio Grande water." "This really doesn't look good what with the president making it known he wants this treaty." Everyone had his opinion. But there was no doubt the name heard most often was Connally, as in Tom Connally, U.S. senator from Texas and chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the committee that would hold the hearings. Once the meeting began, by acclamation Alan Bible, then attorney general of Nevada, eventually to become its senior senator, was named chairman to preside over the meeting. It didn't take long to recognize that, out of the several hundred in attendance, 56 participants represented water entities from six of the seven Colorado River basin states, organizations later conservatively estimated to cover 77 percent of the water users of the system. New Mexico was the only state lacking anyone to speak or act in its interests. The treaty was discussed from all angles by the prominent water users. As the first day drew to a close, they zeroed in on the beliefs in which they were of one mind: Loss of their Colorado River water to Mexico would be offset by ALFRED MERRITT SMITH, FIRST Texas' gain from the Rio Grande. The PRESIDENT, COLORADO RIVER denial by those promoting the treaty that WATER USERS ASSOCIATON. this exchange was a factor in determining its terms was political hogwash. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with the burden of war upon him, had asked that this treaty be ratified, not based upon its merits in settling international water rights, not based upon whether it was fair or unfair, but rather for reasons of state - Mexico was an important wartime ally. The resulting treaty was a violation of the rights of the people living in the Colorado River Basin, which would forever deprive them of their property and destroy a substantial possibility for development in the western United States. A universal fear permeated the meeting room, a fear that present needs of water, as well as a substantial amount of development in the western United States, were being traded away to Mexico. The protesters knew they were the real water users, and it was apparent that if they were to combat this treaty, they had to organize - not just to fight this give- away of their water, but to present a united front to combat future political moves, state or national, which impaired or confiscated their water rights. Their repeated references to themselves as the "real" water users reflected their dissatisfaction with the Committee of Fourteen whose members from the upper basin states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico and the Arizona members in the lower basin, political appointees all, had voted to approve the treaty as prepared and submitted by the International Boundary Commission. These members of the Committee of Fourteen had been strongly supported by Texas, whose representatives had met with them upon occasion. Nevada and California members, on the other hand, had maintained that the treaty was contrary to the Committee of Fourteen's recommendations, which had been presented to the U.S. Boundary Commissioner at a meeting in El Paso, Texas, in June of 1942. These two states, knowing that the terms were objectionable to a large majority of the river's water users, withdrew from the SIDE WITH AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS TO FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS TO THE WATERS OF THE COLORADO RIVER. committee. The states in support of the treaty had claimed fear that federal funding for development of the river's resources would be withheld if they didn't support the treaty. Further, they claimed worry that Mexico could wind up with far more than the 1.5 million acre-feet each year if the issue went to international arbitration. Mexico's use of the river had been increasing over the years to where it had reached that 1.5 million acre-feet by 1945. And a new world body to deal with such matters - the United Nations - was about to be formed. These supporters seemingly believed there was enough Colorado River water to meet all demands, including the Mexican burden. How woefully wrong the future would prove them to be. During the fateful meeting at the Last Frontier - on its second day, January 13, 1945 - the Colorado River Water Users Association was founded. Officers were elected, directors were named and a resolution was adopted opposing the ratification of the Mexican treaty, setting out 12 reasons why it should be rejected. For 1945, Nevada State Engineer Alfred Merritt Smith would serve as president; Perry Jenkins of Cora, Wyoming, would be secretary and a year later would become president; and A.J. Shaver of Las Vegas assumed the duties of treasurer. At its next meeting, held in Salt Lake City in 1946, the offices of secretary and treasurer were combined, and Shaver would take on that responsibility in 1947, 1948 and again in 1950. He would serve as vice president in 1951 and as president in 1952 and 1953. When the membership left that charter meeting, its first order of business was the opposition to congressional ratification of the treaty. The hearings began with Senator Connally of Texas, who had actively pushed for ratification, at the gavel. Representatives from California, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and Nevada strongly protested the terms. But with the Committee of Fourteen (minus members from California and Nevada) having hopped on the bandwagon for ratification, and the president of the United States and the committee chairman immovable in their support, 4 BURGEONING MID-40S URBAN AREAS STOOD SIDE-BY-