Show rUT UTAH AH WINS WIN INS BOULDER SUIT 1 I t It Law Authorizing Huge Project Constitutional I I Supreme Court Holds Dismisses Action Brought by Arizona to Halt Construction Construction Con Con- I I RIGHTS NOT PREJUDICED State Can Take Steps to Protect Protect Protect Pro Pro- Water Interests V WASHINGTON Nay May 18 Associated Press Thc The law authorizing the construction of Jf Hoover oo cr dam on the Colorado river rl was sustained as constitutional con con- toda today by by the supreme court 4 Arizona's bill bUl or of complaint was WM dismissed dis missed by the court without prejudice to her right to proceed further in the matter should it later Inter develop that any of her rights arc being impaired Arizona succeeded In showing the court declared that it may suffer Injury inJury in in- Jury as a result of the distribution o or of water from the reservoir If It at an any time in the future Arizona's rights t to wat water r from the river are Impaired d the court said that the thc state may take appropriate legal egal action but that it could not deliver a Judgment based on the assumption that the states state's rights would be injured J Work on the dam darn already under underway underway underway way will go f as a result of the decision although V. V may eventually e be halted if it Arizona should bring other court action with regard to distribution distribution dis dIs- dis- dis of water I The act authorizing the construe construe- tion of the dam was passed In December December Decem Decem- ber 1928 over the bitter opposition of ot Arizona's representatives in congress COST The cost was estimated at with reimbursement to RO go o to the government from revenues from the sale of or water and h hydroelectric contracts contracts con con- tracts which have already been let by the secretary of the Interior Arizona In its complaint ques the constitutionality of the law and asked the supreme court to prohibit the interior depa department ment from carrying out its provisions The state also challenged the Colorado river compact California Nevada Utah New Mexico Colorado and Wyoming the states party to the compact joined with the federal government go In hi asking askIng ask ask- ing the court to dismiss Arizona's complaint They argued the construction construction construction con con- of the thc dam as provided for foi- forin torin in the law was working no Injury on Arizona and did not deprive that state of or any of its constitutional rights Justice Brandeis in delivering the opinion said Arizona had claimed a n. aright aright right t to take from the river as much muchas as feet acre-feet of ot water but that it bad not appropriated that amount of water and ind had laU failed d to show that the construction of ot the dam and reservoir would deprive It of or any water now being taken CAN BRING SUIT The state has the right he said to come Into court at any time it can cnn show that the construction of ot the dam darn and reservoir is depriving it of or any of or the water to which it claims a a. right t. t Justice dissented taking taking tak tak- tak ing the view the governments government's motion to dismiss should hould be overruled and that the United States and the other states in the Colorado river compact should be required to answer th the complaint of Arizona Arizona contended congress under the act proposed to deprive Arizona of water from the Colorado river in violation of its quasi so sovereign rights The state disputed assertions contained con con- on- on tamed in the thc law that it was wa-s In aid nid of nav navigation gatlon and for or the reclamation of ot public lands It claimed the purpose purpose purpose pur pur- pose of or the act was In fact Irrigation and power Conceding con congress had Jurisdiction jurisdiction jurisdiction tion under the federal constitution to promote interstate commerce and audi had control of or n rivers for fOl that purpose Arizona Insisted the Colorado river is not and never was navigable and asserted navigation na on ona ona ona a river was not promoted promoted pro pro- promoted by diverting one half of ot its natural flow as is proposed under the act COMPACT COl CHALLENGED The state six Colorado river compact com toni pact was challenged by Arizona on the ground It proposes to take water to which Arizona ArIzon is entitled Particular emphasis was placed by Arizona on the charge that under the Continued on Pale Pace Two HOOVER DAM UW LAM UPHELD BY COU COURT COURTS T S Continued from Page Pace One I Ilaw law Secretary Wilbur a party to the suit was proposing to divert under contracts large quantities of water from the river into Imperial valley Los Angeles and southern California Arizona declared that not only would it be deprived of water rights but that the project contemplated the no water over overa a mountain range into another watershed The law was described by Arizona as promoted to furnish southern California Call Cali fornia with water from the river to which It was not entitled and also aIso for forthe forthe forthe the generation of hydroelectric current current current cur cur- rent for the benefit of others than citizens of Arizona It also denied that the act could benefit navigation on the river by flood control The six states state parties to the Colorado Colorado Colo Cola rado ratio river compact and Secretary Wilbur Wil WU- bur when served with the complaint of Ar Arizona Ariona ona asked the court to dismiss it co contending It presented no federal question n within the Jurisdiction of the court DENY INJURIES They said Arizona at the present time was suffering no Injury which would permit it to maintain a a. suit to enjoin the construction of the dam The complaint was based the they Insisted upon injuries Arizona anticipated anticipated anticipated antici antici- from the construction of the dam It will be time for Arizona to come Into court they said when the state can show it actually is being deprived of some constitutional right The law was properly designated by congress as an aid to navigation they stated asserting the court had no right to question the accuracy of the designation but must accept the construction given by congress The impounding of water r at the Hoover dam will create a a. lake they explained which will penn permit it navigation navigation tion around Boulder and Black canyons canyons can can- your now Impossible and b by flood control materially contribute to nav nay I Large quantities of silt sut are now carried carried car car- ried ned down the river into Arizona where it Is deposited in the bed of the river creating sandbars and other obstructions to navigation they said The Hoover dam will create a lake they said in which the silt would stop and water free of sediment be furnished downstream RIGHTS DEFINED The state six compact was described described de tie- scribed by the states party to it as an equitable agreement under which rights to appropriate water from the river for beneficial use are declared and fixed Arizona refused the states declared to Join the compact but is free under the dam darn act they stated to contract for a supply of water sufficient sufficient suf sul t to meet all its needs The courts they added will prevent prevent pre pre- vent any unlawful diversion of water into California or elsewhere Justice Brandeis said Arizona claimed that the building of the dam damand damand damand and reservoir without securing the approval of state officials was a a threatened invasion n of the quasi Quasi- sovereignty of Arizona and that the water apportionment outlined also was a a. threatened invasion of state rights The Unit United d States may perform Its functions without conforming to the police pollee regulations of a state stat Justice Brandeis said If U congress has power to authorize the construction construction construe construe- I tion of the dam and reservoir Secretary Secretary Sec Sec- Wilbur is under no obligation to submit the plans and specifications specifics specifics- to the state engineer for ap ap- ap- ap And the federal government has the power to create this obstruction in the river for the purpose of ImprovIng improving im Im- proving navigation if the Colorado river rI is navigable DISCUSSES NAVIGATION It is true that whether a stream is navigable In law depends upon whether it is navigable in fact meL But a court may take Judicial notice that a n river within its Jurisdiction is navigable We know Judicially from the evidence of or history that a large part of the Colorado river south of Black canyon was formerly navIgable navigable navigable able and that the main obstacles to navigation have been the accumulations lations of silt sUt coming from the upper reaches of the river system and the Irregularity in the flow low due to periods of low water Justice Brandeis said the court could not riot inquire into the motives which induced members of congress to pass the Hoover dam act The act declares that the authority authority author author- ity to construct the dam and reservoir reservoir reser voir Is conferred Justice Brandeis I said among other things for the purpose of improving navigation and regulating the flow low of the river As the river is navigable and the means which the act provides are not Unrelated unrelated unrelated un un- related to the control of navigation the erection and maintenance of such a dam darn and reservoir are clearly within the powers conferred upon congress Whether the particular structures proposed are reasonably necessary Is not for this court to determine Justice Brandeis said the dam and reservoir al also o ml might ht have been constructed constructed constructed con con- under the authority conferred conferred con con- erred upon congress to irrigate public pub pub- He lie lands but that it was not necessary necessary sary ary to go into that question because I Ithe the court decided that congress has the power to order the Hoover dam constructed to improve e navigation WILBUR PLEASED When informed of ot the decision Secretary Wilbur expressed deep gratification I I am hopeful that with this out of the road we can cnn work out the water division so it can be settled out of court I regard this as a very important decision as without it we would have ha considerable difficulty in working out similar regional region III problems affecting the natural resources not only of the western states but also of others I OIl have been particularly gratified by the assistance of all the other states In working out the details of the s suit it |