Now, Mr. Farmer does not diminish the ambitions of Ariza to take this 2,000,000 feet out of the Gila River, this 2.8800 acre-feet, and then, carrying out the statement of the Governor of the State, they are going to build a dam up near Lee's Ferry take all of the rest of the water. They made that statement the Supreme Court of the United States, and they made it i written statements to the Secretary of the Interior.

That becomes more of a real fear than anything that Mexico might do.

Arizona sits here today, anxious to accrue to itself great bene of the Boulder Canyon project, without assuming its burdens, all the rest of us have assumed those burdens.

I assume that Mr. Bannister, my associate, who has lived w this thing during his life, and during the entire life of the projat presented to you quite fully the matters which occurred to h but, for my State, I want to say we are more interested in serving the use of the waters for the United States than the low basin States, because our use is delayed.

The State of California down here [indicating on map] has bee given by firm contract 5,362,000 acre-feet of water. The Gila Rive area takes, according to its own statements, 2,885,000 acre-feet di

water.

Arizona wants now another 2,000,000 acre-feet of water, and the exceeds the allocation to the lower basin, and the return of every dollar of that advance of money by the Government is dependeti upon the continuity of a water service down here, of course.

You men are charged with the responsibility of appropriating the money of the taxpayers. Let poor little Utah come along later and say it wants some water, say, out of the Green River, to improve this productive area, the cost amounting to half of what the Arizona project costs, what are you confronted with?

Are you not likely to say: "Are we going to destroy our investment down here in Arizona and throw that $80,000,000 away, or are we going to duplicate the investment up here near Salt Lake?" That is a practical matter that ought to be earnestly taken into consideration to see that you do not overdevelop the lower river at the expense of the upper river.

Here is another point: Boulder Canyon, back of the dam, Meads Lake, is estimated to endure as an efficient reservoir for something in the neighborhood of 80 years or 100 years, and then it will be filled up with silt, and it will be no longer useful.

Every time you permit us to build a reservoir up in that region you have done two things-you have divided the area in which the silt can deposit and you have retarded the flow of the stream, which creates silt, and you have thereby doubled the life of Boulder Dam.

We believe that Arizona, just as the compact contemplates, should subscribe to it and abide by it. The fact that they do not like it is not an answer to the situation at all.

If they would subscribe to it, then they would deprive themselves of the right to take, for instance, as against the upper-basin States, 600,000 acre-feet of water that flows into the river below Lees Ferry, which is substantially at this point [indicating on map] on the Boulder Canyon project.

the

A

31

Arizona stands here today to take advantage of every benefit of Boulder Dam project, and Mr. Farmer reads, as they always do hese conferences, he reads the Boulder Canyon Project Act as the is of the whole thing, but they secured from the United States preme Court the statement that it did not bind them in the slightway. It is extraneous to their history and to the question which nvolved here.

We feel justified in saying to Arizona that it shall have accrued it great benefits of this, just like all of the rest of us, but that izona shall not get benefits to our disadvantage.

Mr. RICH. You say we should not develop the lower river to the triment and expense of the upper basin?

Mr. RAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICH. In your judgment, is the lower basin being developed w to the detriment of the upper-basin States?

Mr. RAY. In this respect, Mr. Congressman: If the Gila Valley oject should go through, there is allotted to California 5,362,000 re-feet of water.

Mr. RICH. Where do they get that water?

Mr. RAY. Every drop of it comes from Boulder Dam.

Mr. RICH. All of it?

Mr. RAY. Yes; they get all of it there.

Mr. RICH. Where will this Gila Valley project take water out of he Colorado River?

Mr. RAY. Down here [indicating on map] near Yuma; but the ater comes from the dam.

Mr. RICH. What effect will that have on California if they take it own there?

Mr. RAY. California will always be bound, Arizona not being ound by the compact.

Mr. RICH. But they take the water out before it comes to the Gila Valley project?

Mr. RAY. California?

Mr. RICH. Yes.

Mr. RAY. They take it out of the dam. California will get her water all right. There will be no question about that.

Mr. RICH. How could the Gila Valley project in any way affect California?

Mr. RAY. I do not think the Gila Valley project can affect California.

Mr. RICH. All right; if it takes it out after it comes into the State. of Arizona, how can it affect in any way the States above there where you have the water first?

Mr. RAY. This is all storage water here, Mr. Congressman.

We are required to turn down under the compact 75,000,000 acrefeet of water within a period of 10 years, whether we have any water left or not.

The State of Arizona is a prior-appropriation State, and yet they are not bound by the compact.

Mr. RICH. In other words, you would have to let it flow through to that extent?

Mr. RAY. Yes; following those decisions in the cases of Kansas v. Colorado, Wyoming v. Colorado, and every case under the prior

139751-37-pt. 2-27

appropriation doctrine in the Western States where that doctres prevails.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Can you explain what burden you assumed in the upper basin States that Arizona did not assume?

Mr. RAY. Yes, sir; I can. We assumed every burden in the we that we have asked Arizona to assume, that is a quieting divisa of the water rights, but Arizona quite honestly disagreed.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I want to find out the burden you assumed. Mr. RAY. We assumed the burden of turning down from these ares in here, down past Lees Ferry, 75,000,000 acre-feet of water in a 10-year period.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. But you all benefit out there from the appropr tion from the United States; is that not true?

Mr. RAY. Oh, no; not in the slightest. We would get none of the water, if that is the import of your question. We would not get a drop of this water.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. That is what I am trying to get at.

Mr. RAY. We would not get a drop of the impounded water [indicating].

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Who will get the benefit of that impoun water?

Mr. RAY. Only those areas of land which lie physically below the dam. That means the State of California, primarily, and second the State of Arizona.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Then why are you bound up above there so the you cannot use the water flowing through the States?

Mr. RAY. The limitation upon that under the Six-State Compact with the consent of the United States, is that we cannot use it to te extent of the primary 75,000,000 acre-feet over a 10-year period. We must turn it down under the provisions of our State compact, a we cannot use it, and, Congressman, if the legislation had been ¿lferent, if instead of turning down 75,000,000 acre-feet in a 10-year period we have been required to turn down 150,000,000 acre-feet, would have turned it all down and could have had no possible benefits thereafter from the river.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Well, were you put to any expense or burden by signing this compact?

Mr. RAY. No; we were not put to any burden, except to turn the water down, but as to expenses we were not put to any expense.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. You made the statement that they did not assume the burden that you assumed in the upper States. What was that burden?

Mr. RAY. This is the burden we did assume, that notwithstanding practically every drop of the water which they use in the lower basin arises in our upper-basin States, we agreed to and assumed the burden of turning down that water, 75,000,000 acre-feet in eac 10-year period. That was our burden.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Do you have use for it

up there?

Mr. RAY. We have additional arid lands that need irrigation. If the Congress of the United States will give us some money to secure the necessary facilities we would have use, of course, for all of the water which we were permitted to retain. The benefit that we get from signing this compact, and this is essential to remember, was

e quieting of our title to the water which we retained. The benethat they got was the compulsion that we turn down water which e conceded they had title to, and it was a quid pro quo.

Mr. RICH. You have never had use for the water, so it has been › hardship on you up to this time?

Mr. RAY. No; it has not, up to this time.

Mr. RICH. You do not intend to develop this until the Federal overnment gives you the money to develop it?

Mr. RAY. Well, we are developing it, and have developed and aid for some of the developments. We are using some of it, and ur State would, of course, and will do a good deal of development In it whether the Federal Government comes into it or not.

Mr. RICH. If you get the money from the Federal Government, ou will continue the development?

Mr. RAY. Where you are anticipating development, it is more necssary to go to the Federal Government, where you anticipate it far n advance. Of course, the time will come when we will do our own development out there, but not so quickly as it came in California. Mr. FITZPATRICK. What would you think of the Federal Governnent stopping all contributions and letting the States develop their own water resources?

Mr. RAY. I could be more favorable to that if I came from California where they have already had $500,000,000, but in Utah we have not had it, so I think just after we get ours they should stop it. Of course, from a practical standpoint, that would have to be the

answer.

Mr. FARMER. Mr. Chairman, could I say a few more words?
Mr. SCRUGHAM. Yes.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. LEWIS. Perhaps it would help clarify the problem to outline briefly the law of waters which prevails in the States of the Colorado River Basin. In all of those States a right to the use of water is initiated and perfected by diversion of water from a natural stream or lake and applying it to beneficial use.

Under the common law "doctrine of riparian rights" or "riparian doctrine", a riparian landowner is entitled to have the waters of a natural stream continue to flow as they have flowed from time immemorial, subject to the reasonable uses of other riparian landowners. But 75 or 80 years ago, when agriculture was first undertaken by settlers in the region now included in the irrigated-land States, it was realized that this common-law "riparian doctrine" in regard to the waters of natural streams was not suitable or applicable to conditions in those regions. Consequently, this "riparian doctrine" was early rejected by our territorial courts and there was formulated and adopted the "doctrine of prior appropriation", or "appropriation doctrine", under which he who first diverts the water of a natural stream and applies such water to beneficial use, regardless of the locus of such beneficial use, acquires a prior right or "priority", to the extent of such use, against all subsequent appropriators up and down the

stream. This "appropriation doctrine" is frequently summarizel for the maxim "First in use, first in right."

This "appropriation doctrine" is the law in all the States in te Colorado River Basin. Furthermore, the United States Supr Court has held that this "appropriation doctrine" is applicable to interstate stream in the irrigated-land States; and, still further, its a prior water right or "priority", initiated and perfected under tas "appropriation doctrine," constitutes a prior, paramount, and e forceable right against all subsequent appropriators up and down te stream, from its source to its mouth, regardless of State lines. Now, gentlemen, I wish to state Colorado's position in regard this Gila Valley project.

Of the water which goes into Lake Mead behind Boulder Dam, percent of all of it arises in the State of Colorado. Sixty-five percent of the water which goes by Lee's Ferry-the dividing p between the upper and lower basin States-originates in the Sue of Colorado.

Colorado, up to a very few years ago, entirely on its own cret. had been developing its water rights conservatively, as its economy needs required. The States of California and Arizona were desires of having this great project at Boulder Dam constructed. Indeed this dam was indispensable to them.

Owing to the great variation in flow of the Colorado River be tween times of high water and low water, the construction of a dan was essential to the lower-basin States to regulate the flow of the riv and to store the floods that come down from the upper-basin State at certain seasons for use during times of normally low water. B cause of these variations in the flow of the Colorado River, Cal fornia and Arizona could not make use of the water from this river unless a regulating dam was constructed. The upper-basin State did not need the Boulder Canyon Dam, because it lies down the river from them. But it was indispensable to California and Arzona, if they were to use any considerable amount of water from the Colorado River.

So California and Arizona came to Colorado, they came to Utah and they came to the other upper-basin States, and they said. “W are desperately in need of this water from the Colorado River. Fed eral legislation is essential."

"Why?"

"Because this is an interstate stream and the cost of the dam wil be so great we must ask Uncle Sam to help us finance it."

Wishing to be good neighbors, we in Colorado and in Utah and in Wyoming, and in New Mexico, said: "We are getting along, we think, very well. We are developing our natural resources with our own money and with the money we borrow on our own credit and are gradually utilizing these waters which arise in our States. We can use these waters slowly as we develop and throughout the years we can continue to use them and develop the mfurther as we need them. We realize, however, that under the legal 'doctrine of appropriation, if you initiate water rights lower down the river by the construction of projects, before we, in our conservative way, construct our proj ects, then, under the principle of 'first in use, first in right you will obtain water rights which will have priority over water rights

to

Ar

Π

T

to