WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002179 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 5 might be made from the Colorado River for irrigation in the Imperial Valley." The Fall-Davis Report,'O sub- mitted to Congress in compliance with the Kinkaid Act, began by declaring that "the control of the floods and development of the resources of the Colorado River are peculiarly national problems . . . ." 11 and then went on to give reasons why this was so, concluding with the state- ment that the job was so big that only the Federal Gov- ernment could do it.l2 Quite naturally, therefore, the Report recommended that the United States construct as a government project not only an all-American canal from the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley but also a dam and reservoir at or near Boulder Canyon." The prospect that the United States would undertake to build as a national project the necessary works to con- trol floods and store river waters for irrigation was appar- entlya welcome one for the basin States. But it brought to life strong fears in the northern basin States that addi- tftmal waters made available by the storage and canal projects might be gobbled up in perpetuity by faster grow- ing lower basin areas, particularly California, before the upper States could appropriate what they believed to be their fair share. These fears were not without founda- tion, since the law of prior appropriation prevailed in "41 Stat. 600 (1920). 10S. Doc. No. 142, 67th Cong., 2d Sess. (1922). 11 Id., at 1. 12 The reasons given were: "1. The Colorado River is international. "2. The stream and many of its tributaries are interstate. "3. It is a navigable river. "4. Its waters may be made to serve large areas of public lands naturally desert in character. "5. Its problems are of such magnitude as to be beyond the reach of other than national solution." Ibid. 13Id" at 21.