OCR Text |
Show THE CITIZEN of bill, or will ComparableUTAHS legislation INTERESTS IN PROTECT swing-johnso- n PASSAGE in the eastern part of the State that will be able to use this water within the immediate present, but this is a mere bagatelle. Our use is a matter for the future how far in the is future problematical. If we were prepared now to make use of this water there would be no concern about a compact. po-teint- ial COLORADO RIVER. Santa Fe 24th, 1922, the accredited Tthe duly approved by New entative of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, fttotico Arizona, Nevada, and California. It was E become legally binding and effective when and the Legislatures of these seven states fould ratify. All of the Legislatures of the above with the exception of Arizona, ratified. should Arizona refused to ratify until California division of the water inee to her demand of the the Colorado River between the lower states. more She insisted upon some 400,000 acre feet So concede. to the was willing jmn California Compact was blocked. ratifi-ation- , Later, in 1925, California withdrew her and under the Finney Resolution refused unless a dam for flood 0 agree to any compact and power purposes, was ontrol, storage at Boulder or Black by Government aidSeven-State Compact Won. Utah ratified the 1 1923. In 1925, when it appeared that the of this compact was impossible of Arizonas stand. The Legislature ratified compact conditioned upon the agreement of six if the States. Then in the Session of 1927, the considelegislature, without more than a passing ratification. Ever ration, repealed this iince then the press has been filled with attempt-i- d explanations and purported justifications of 'his repeal. The public has been led to believe that us from some ter- jut Legislature of 1927 savedWe are told that if ihle, irredeemable calamity. on the stood had Agreement, ire pat larticularly in view of Californias demands, that k would be selling the future potential rights of the people of this State for the provebrial mess On March so-call- ed From the most authentic figures available, Utah has approximately 456,000 acres of land that may be irrigated some time in the future by the waters of the Colorado. The State of Arizona hashas some 275,000. California has some 481,000 Mexico has some 600,000. Arizona, California and Mexico are in the lower reaches of the river. California and Mexico, particularly, are much further advanced that the State of Utah in being ready to make considerable present use of the waters of this river. Under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, referring particularly to the case of Colorado vs. Wyoming, decided in 1922, the law of appropriation, or priority of use, applies to the waters of an interstate stream, such as we have here. In other Con-JL- gs spven-Sta- te con-itruct- con-ummati- ed words, first come, first served. If the States in the lower basin put these waters to bene- -' ficial use before Utah is ready to take advantage on of them, the title of the lower States to such use becomes first in right and the development of the upper States must take secondary place. There is apparently no dispute of any kind with respect to this phase of the Colorado controver-sv- . Therefore, it comes important, so far as Utah is concerned, to see to it that those States in the lower basin, and particularly California, is bound under some legal agreement to recognize the rights of Utah and other upper States in the water of the river when we are ready to take the same and put it to beneficial use. Without such agreement, we shall have a scramble between the various States as to who shall put it to the first use, and there is not only a strong likelihood, but an almost certainty, that the river will be put to beneficial use by the inhabitants of other States long before Utah is ready to develop to the extent of making use of the stream. California, being in the strategical position on the river, realizes these advantages. She, therefore, says that she will consent to no agreement unless she obtains some help from the Government, such as is proposed in the Swing-Johnsbill. If we are looking on this question purely from the standpoint of Utahs interest, there can he absolutely no question as to the wisdom of Utahs acquiescence in Californias request. The moment she obtains what she is after in the way n of Government aid through the bill, or comparable legislation thereto, she becomes a party to a compact that binds her legally as to the division of the waters of the stream and she recognizes the right of the State of Utah, and other States, to participate in the use of of the water if and when they are their ready. The greater number of acres there are in the State of Utah, therefore, that can use water from the Colorado River, the greater the reason for this State endeavoring to obtain reasonaWe Legislation from Congress that will satisfy California and bring her into a legal binding compact. But. say the opponents of the Boulder Dam proposition, this will put the Government into the business of manufacturing and selling power. What of it? It must be remembered that these western public land States are largely composed of Government owned lands. For instance. California is about 41 per cent Government land. Nevada 84 per cent, Utah 76 per cent. be-gu- se i Six-sta- te Six-Sta- A te pottage. Let us see. What ' does the compact provide, and is it important that Utah is a member of a compact in order to protect its rights? This compact contains eleven articles, chief amongst them those provisions which (a) provide for the 'equitable distribution of the water of the Colorado between the upper and the lower States; (b) 'provides that the agricultural uses of the water shall he first in importance, and power second- ary; (c) provides on for the promotion of interstate removes causes for future controversies; (d) provide for protection of floods; (e) comity and agrees upon a distribution of the water of the stream upon a basis of 7,500,000 acre feet to the States of the upper basin and a similar amount ito the States of the lower basin : (f ) provides that the demands from surplus amounts. Here is Swing-Johnso- . of Mexico shall be taken care of waters over and above these an intelligent, equitable and statesmanlike compromise of a tremendously involved pro-rat- a .question. I It is imperative so far as Utahs rights are concerned, the protection of that there be a compact to which California is a party. PreferaCompact, but if bly, it should be a Seven-Stat- e Impossible to obtain this (and apparently such is the case) then there should be a compact based upon an agreement between six States, or even less in number. But California must be a party to uch an agreement. as Hjtle or no present use for the ColoRiver either for power or agriculture. It is that there may be some few thousand acres so-call- ed M rado 3 Wyoming 52 per cent Colorado 38 per cent, New Mexico 38 per cent and Arizona, 67 per cent. Heretofore, the Government has helped these various States through Reclamation and Irrigation Projects Projects entirely financed by Government money. No States has yet objected to such assistance, or to the Government going into business to this extent of helping these States. What is the difference in principle, between the Government assisting the States in projects of this kind and the proposed construction of ,a dam at Boulder Canyon to assist California in the prevention of floods, in the storage of water, and in the furnishing of power to be used in placing such water upon lands and for other purposes. It is conceded that the construction of a dam at Boulder, or Black Canyon, will not prevent the future developmen of the upper reaches of the river so far as power is concerned, for the reason that the manufacture of power takes no water from the stream. If we have no Boulder Dam legislation prior to March, 1929, there is a strong likelihood that the river will be thrown open by the Federal Power Commission and various premits or licenses issued up and down the stream to individuals and corporations. If such should happen, and we have no assurance that it will not, there is no hope for the obtaining of the consent of California to any compact in the future. The scramble will then be on, and Utah, not being ready to make use of the water, either for power or agriculture, may find herself in a position where she sees the other States, particularly California, and Mexico, making beneficial use of the water and obtaining good legal title thereto. Summarizing the reasons why Utah should apn or comparable legisprove of the Swing-Johnso- lation: By such legislation California and Nevada, two of the three states of the lower basin, would become parties to a compact which, even if predicated upon a Agreement would give the States of the upper basin protection which they do not have now, and some assurance for their potential development in the future. It is much better to have California legally bound to recognize our future rights in the stream than to fight legislation that will keep her out. 2. It is much better, so far as the upper States are concerned, to obtain a division and segregation of water as is done in the compact through interstate agreement among as many States as can be had, even though we do not have a Seven-Stat- e 1. Six-Sta- te 3. Compact. If a Compact is obtained, even though agreed to by only six States, California, in effect, consents that the lower States, including Arizona, shall have the right to only a certain amount of water. Any future rights of Arizona, therefore, would be taken from such division allotted to the lower basin. California, therefore, becomes a guarantor that any rights which Arizona may acquire by law in the future, even though not a party to the compact, would be part of the allotment given to the lower basin States by the compact. By favoring such legislation we are assistin ing the development of the great southwestern empire, which is the natural market for the products of the State of Utah. The greater the development in Southern California, the larger the market for Utahs sheen, cattle, wool, dairy products, etc. It can serve Utah nothing to assist in retarding such development. 4. RICHARD W. YOUNG. 1 f IN UNION IS PROFIT. I Let us replace indifference with active reciprocity. IT EVER occurred to you that Utah and California, their efforts to attract and entertain tourists, can be of great service to each other? This is fast becoming an age w service, and reciprocity in service would mean thousands of dollars to both California and Utah and send satisfied custom's back east to tell their neighbors and friends where to go on eir , nxt vacation. counties in California, extending from the Oregon state line south to Ama-a- n dorado counties in the historic Mother Lode section, nine National Forests, the Lassen Volcanic National I akj Lake Tahoe, Clear Lake, Mt. Shasta, hundreds of streams es for fishing, the. deepest gold mine in the world, the rgest lemon grove in the world, tlie peach bowl of the world, many, many other attractions, is ready and willing, even vP16 .Sacramento Region, comprising i s twenty-on- e anxious, to join hands with Salt Lake City and exchange service. An honest service that will please and not offend even those not included in the pact. Shall we jog along in the same old way, or shall we snap out of it and go to work? There is no reason why at least twenty thousand residents of the Sacramento region should ont visit Salt Lake and other Utah points during their summer vacations this year, and there is no reason why all the tourists visiting southern Oregon and the Sacramento region this year should not receive literature telling them what they can see by visiting Utah and Salt Lake; There is likewise no good reason why all tourists visiting Salt Lake City should not be given an opportunity to read about the attractions offered by the Sacramento region. In time the two states will pull together, why not the Salt Lake City region and the Sacramento region join now and show the way to a harmonious and profitable interchange of service? The Sacramento Region Citizens Council has sent a representative here to meet with those who will consider plans for |