Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />:J <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />,) <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />", <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />OOH05 <br /> <br />physical acts through which the water is and will in fact be diverted to ben~fi?ial <br />usa.. Topographical conditions make it necessary that land in the state be 1rr1- <br />gated in large projects. The Colorado river flows, both on the boundary between <br />Arizona and Nevada, and in Arizona alone, through an almost continuous series of <br />deep canyons, the walls of which rise in Arizona to a height varying from a few <br />hundred to Dore than 5,000 feet. The cost of installing the dams, reservoirs, <br />canals. and distribution works required to effect any diversion will be very <br />heavy; and financing on a large scale is indispensable. Such financing will be <br />impossible unless it clearly appears that, at or prior to the time of construct- <br />ing-such works, vested rights to the permanent use of the water will be acquired. <br /> <br />*J.i,o <br /> <br />*The alleged interference with the right of the state to oontrol additional <br />appropriations is based upon the following faots: The average annual flow of the <br />Colorado river system, inoluding the tributaries, is 18,000.000 acre-feet. Only <br />9,000.000 acre-feet have been appropriated by Arizona and the defendant states. <br />Of this 3.500,000 aore-feet have been appropriated in Arizona under its laws, and <br />the remaining 5.500.000 acre-feet by the other states. The 9.000,000 acre-feet <br />unappropriated are now subject to appropriation in Arizona under its laws. It <br />is alleged that there are numerous sites suitable for the construction, mainten- <br />ance, and operation of dams and reservoirs required for the irrigation of land <br />in Arizona; and that actual projeots have been planned for the irrigation of <br />1.000,000 acres, including 100,000 acres oV1rled by the state. For this purpose <br />4.500,000 acre-feet annue.11ywill be additionally required. Permits to ap- <br />propriate this water have been granted by the state; and definite plans to carry <br />out projects for the building of dams on that part of the river flowing in or <br />on the borders of Arizona have been approved by the state engineer. It is stated <br />that, but for the passage of the Boulder Canyon Projeot Act. oonstruction work <br />would long since have connnenced. <br /> <br />It is conceded that the continued use of the 3,500.000 aore-feet of water <br />already appropriated in Arizona is not noW threatened. And there is no allega- <br />tion that at the present time the enjoyment of these rights is being interfered <br />with in any way. The claim strenuously urged is that the existence of the act, <br />and the threatened exercise of the authority to use the stored water pursuant <br />to its terms, will prevent Arizona from exercising its right to control the <br />making of further appropriations. It is argued * that such needed additional <br /> <br />*461 <br />appropriations will be prevented because Tlilbur proposes to store the entire <br />unappropriated floVl of the main stream of the Colorado river at the dam; that <br />Arizona, and, those olaiming under it, will not be permitted to take any water <br />from the reservoir except upon agreeing that the use shall be subject to the <br />compact; that under the terms of the compact they will not be entitled to appro- <br />priate any water in excess of that to which there are now perfected rights in <br />Arizona; and that, in order to irrigate land in Arizona. it is frequently <br />necessary to utilize rights of way over lands of the United States, and. since <br /> <br />*462 <br />the act provides that all such *rights of way or other privileges to be granted <br /> <br />-6- <br />