WSPC01517 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" L\ " J .. .. " , ) , f\ . IJOHO~ uses and satisfaction of present perfected rights 01< * 11<; ~nd third, for power. tI Secticn 6 (43 USCA Par. 617e). It is true that the authority conferred is stated to be "subject to the Colorado River Compact, II and that instrument makes the improvement of navigation subservient to all other purposes. But the specific statement of primary purpose in the act governs the general references to the compact. This court may not assume that Congress had no purpose* to aid navi- *457 gation, and that its real intention was that the stored water shall be so used as to defeat the declared primary purpose. Moreover, unless and until the stcred water, which wi~l oosist largely of flood waters n~l wasted, is consumed in new irrigation projects or in domestic use, substantially all of it will be available for the improvement of navigation. The possible abuse of the povler to regulate navigation is not an argument against its existence. Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321, 363, 23 S. ct. 321, 47 L. Ed. 492; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 168, 169, 31 S. Ct. 342, 55 L. Ed. 389, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312; Tlilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 354, 37 S. ct. 298, 61 L. Ed. 755, L. R. A. 1917E, 938, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Alaska Fish Salting & By.Products Co. v. Smith, 255 U.s. 44, 48, 41 S. ct. 219, 65 L. Ed. 489. Hamilton v. Kentuoky Dist:l.l1eries. supra. Since the grant of euthori ty to build the dam and reservoir is valid as an exercise of the Constitutional povler to improve navigation. we have no occasion to deCide whether the authority to construct the dam and reservoir mi~ht not also have been oonstitutionally conferred for the specified purpose of irrigating public lands of the United States. Compare United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 u. s. 690, 703, 19 S. ct. 770, 43 L. Ed. 1136; United States v. Alford, 274 U. s. 264, 47 S. Ct. 597, 71 L. Ed. 1040. *458 Or for the speci*fied purpose of regulating the flow and preventing floods in this interstate river. Or as a means of ccnserving and apportioning its waters among the states equitably entitled thereto. Or for the purpose of performing international obligations. Compare Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. s. 416, 40 S. Ct. 382. 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A. L. R. 984. (15-18) SECOND. The further claim is that the mere existence of the act will invade quasi sovereign rights of Arizona by preventing the state from exer- cising its right to prohibit or permit under its ovm la,ls the appropriation of unappropriated waters flowing within or on its borders. The opportunity and need for further appropriations are fully set forth in the bill. Arizona is arid, and irrigation is necessary for cultivation of additional land. The future growth alld welfare of the state are largely depelldent *upon such reclamation. *459 It is alleged that there are within Arizona 2,000,000 acres not now irrigated which are susceptible of irrigation by further appropriations from the Colorado river. To appropriate water means to take and divert a specified quantity thereof and put it to beneficial use in accordance with the laws of the state where such water is fbund, and, by so doing, to aoquire under such laws. a vested right to take and divert from the same source, and to ulie and consume the same quantity of water annually forever, subject only to the right of prior appro- priations. Under the law of Arizona, the perfected vested right to appropriate water flowing within the state cannot be acquired without the performance of -5-