|
<br />
<br />12 DC 1230
<br />
<br />ARKANSAS RIVE.R COMPACT
<br />
<br />Mr. STONE. The commissioners for Colorado were Henry C, Vidal,
<br />Gail L, Ireland, and Harry B. Mendenhall, Two of those commis-
<br />sioners, namely, Mr. Vidal and Mr. Mendenhall,.are here today and
<br />will speak in behalf of this compact. The commissioners for Kan.
<br />sas were George S, Knapp, who was chairman of the Kansas com-
<br />mission; Edward F. Arn, William E. Leavitt, and Roland H, Tate,
<br />And I might say that originally Charles L. Patterson was a member
<br />of the Colorado commission, but due to his removal from the State
<br />later the fourth position on the Colorado commission was not filled,
<br />As director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, I have had
<br />an opportunity to observe the functioning of this commission, This
<br />commission attacked a very difficult task; it required 2 years to make
<br />the compact.. There were many problems,. the result of litigation
<br />over many years, to overcome, and' the commission has done, I think,'
<br />an excellent, job. The members approached a rather touchy situa-
<br />tion with a fair-minded attitude and a disposition to recognize the
<br />interests of both States. In this work they were aided in a very out-
<br />standing manner by the Federal rel?resentative, General Kramer.
<br />He showed a dispositionrwhile at all tImes, to protect the interests of
<br />the Federal Government, yet of recognizing the rights and interests
<br />of these two States, and assumed that task in a very effective manner,
<br />And on behalf of Colorado, and in these hearings, I want In take
<br />public notice of the public service he has performed in the interest
<br />of both States,
<br />Congressman Marsalis has referred to. section 2 of this bill, which
<br />merely incorporates the directive contained in article .9 relative to
<br />the protection of the Federal interest and the obligation and right of
<br />the Army engineers to operate the John Martin Dam and Reservoir..
<br />As has been stated here by Congressman Marsalis, this river got
<br />into litigation in 1901, and for about 45 years litigation was almost
<br />continuous. On the last trip to the Supreme Court of the United
<br />States, that Court admonished the States that with the completion
<br />of the John Martin Dam and Reservoir on the river, those States
<br />should amicably adjust the controversy, and the Court said that could
<br />be. done in a more effective manner by that means,
<br />These States took the admonition from the Supreme Court seriously,
<br />and I believe that the commissioners, after 2 years of negotiation,
<br />have followed the suggestions of the Court, and have done it in a
<br />fair and equitable manner. .
<br />Just in closing my statement, and in view of a question that was
<br />asked me this morning, I might suggest to the committee that the
<br />Arkansas River is virtually two rivers. At Garden Oity, Kans" the
<br />water of the upper river almost disappears; that is, on the average.
<br />That water serves to irrigate an area in both Kansas and Colorado,
<br />From Garden City, Kans" down, the water of the river increases
<br />in volume, and when it gets into Oklahoma and Arkansas there. is too
<br />much water, I believe, rather than the question of the proper utiliza-
<br />tion and apportionment of the limited water supply which exists
<br />in the upper basin above Garden City. .
<br />For that reason no States other than Colorado and Kansas have a
<br />material interest in the subject oj this compact. There is a SIrtall
<br />tributary arising in New Mexico caned Trincheri' Creek, of the Pur-
<br />gatoire River, which is a tributary of the Arkansas River, but as the,
<br />
|