| Show COLORADO RIVER PACT IS HARMFUL TO INTERESTS SENATOR BELIEVES knox patterson grand county solon who leaves for capital tomorrow will seek to have state nullify former ratification of treaty the enactment of a law bv the forthcoming legislature that will nullify former ratification of the colorado nver pact will be one of the principal purposes of state senator knox patterson of moab who leaves for the state capital tomorrow to attend the session of the legislature which convenes next monday senator patterson has made a deep study of the colorado nver problem which has been so aluch in the public eye during the past few years he is convinced that the ratification of the colorado river pact by the utah legislatures of 1923 and 1925 was a mistake which if not corrected by nullification will cost the state millions of dollars m assets which rightfully belong to utah the colorado nver pact does not go into effect until it is ratified by six states and the congress of he united states so far only five states have approved the measure and it is senator patter sons hope that utah will recede from her former position before it is too late he will introduce a measure in the coming session of the legislature which if approved will withdraw approval from the pact state senator patterson has set forth his views on the subject m a beef a copy of which he submitted to governor george H dern last week he has received a reply from the governor in which the latter states that as a result of his recent gnp to california and arizona he has come to aruch the same conclusions as mr patterson has there is some likelihood that the governor will give his official approval to senator proposed annulment measure following is senator pattersons Patter sons statement which be submitted to the governor and which will be of extreme times independent readers who are interested in the development of the colorado nver basin resources the legislature of the state of utah in the enactment of chapter 28 of the laws ct the state of utah for 1921 authorized the governor to appoint a representative to represent the state on a joint commission to be composed of representatives of arizona colorado utah wyoming california nevada new mexico texico ana the duly authorized representatives of the united states reclamation service nd th united states federal power for the purpose of negotiating and entering into a compact between the aforesaid states and the united states with the consent of congress with reference to the future distribution of the waters of the colorado river and its tribu baries providing however that such compact or agreement shall not be binding upon said stes until the same shall have been approved by the legislatures of said states respectively ively and the congress of the united states it be recognized that by virtue of said chapter 68 of the session laws of 1921 that the state of utah not only recognizes the rights of each and all of the aforesaid states in and to the waters of the colorado river but likewise recognizes rights in said river and ita tributaries tributa ries in the government of the united states that pursuant to the aforesaid lav chih be becce coe 1921 the then governor of the state of utah duly appointed R E caldwell to represent the detate of utah in the negotiation of the colorado nver compact that thereafter pursuant to the aforesaid law of 1921 and similar laws on the part of each of the aforesaid states the representatives of said states entered into an respecting the distribution of the waters of the colorado river which continued on page eight COLORADO RIVER PACT OPPOSED continued from first page is known as the colo rado river compact the colorado river compact was presented to the state of utah for ratification and was ratified in 1923 and became effective on may 8 1923 subject only to the terms of the compact itself article 11 of the compact provides that the same shall become binding and obligatory when it shall have been approved by the legislatures isla tures of each of the said states respectively and by the congress of the united states at this writing the compact has been ratified by colorado nevada new mexico wyoming and utah the states of arizona and california and the congress of the united states have not yet ratified the compact the utah legislature of 1924 by chapter 64 of its session laws at tempted to waive certain provision of the compact in this that said compact may become binding and ob liga tory upon the state of utah upon the ratification of said compact b six of the contracting states and by the congress of the united states said chapter 64 to become effective and binding upon the state of utah when ix of said contracting states shall have also waived the requirements of the original compact that the same become effective upon the signature of seven of said states the validity of said chapter 64 or any such law enacted by any five ot the states parties to this compact is doubtful for the reason that the law of 1921 did not auth onze the negotiation of a six state compact and the investigation made by the utah representative or by the representative of any of the other states wab not made within the purview of a six state compact further while the writer has not briefed the question exhaustively I 1 am of the opinion and there is respectable authority for it that a legislature without constitutional authority cannot renounce sell or barter away the sov enege property of the state or property the title of which is held in I 1 trust by the state for the benefit ol 01 its citizens referring to the text of the enact the writer will point out tea tures which he believes highly ob to the interest of the state of utah first the compact recognizes in the government of the united states certain undefined rights sand makes the united states a party to the compact and asks the ratification by the congress of the united satiates of the pact this is a concession to the federal government that should not be made for as the writer views the situation the federal government is bitout right or authority of any nature in the waters of the colorado aver and its tributaries tributa ries within the state of utah second the compact by the language of subdivision a of article IV thereof declares that the colorado river has ceased to be navigable for commerce this declaration is an true in law and in fact third the compact makes distribution of the waters in the state of utah not only of the colorado river proper but of every tab dutary every spring and every gatei source within the drainage area ol 01 the colorado river subordinate to the pact subdivision a of article IV of the compact does not relieve us of this objectionable feature it is entirely too indefinite and uncertain fourth the distribution of waters under the pact is unequaled to the disadvantage of the upper basin and especially to the state of uliah I 1 fifth utah has nothing to gain by entering the pact on the contrary it will lose the most valuable rights land assets which it now owns the basis of the writers conten tion lies principally in the fact that the colorado river within the state ol 01 utah is a navigable stream within the purview of numerous state decisions and decisions of the supreme court of the united states such de casion uniformly holding that the title to the beds of navigable streams and lakes belongs to the state 11 which they are situated this title i absolute and is not dependent hupci i the continued navigation of the stream the title attaches with th fact of navigability and ever after ward continues this fact however ought to be established by record ahe colorado river however is nol a navigable stream in the sense thai the united states may exercise con arol over it for the purpose of navi gation although it is such a navi gable stream as will give the state of utah the title to its bed there fore it will be seen that we incur n disadvantage by the government control of the nver for navigation in case in after years we should de sire to divert the waters for domes tic purposes this principle is amp established by authority ly subdivision a of article IV of the compact uses the following language a inasmuch as the colorado river has ceased to be navigable for commerce and the reservation of its waters for navigation would seriously limit the development of its basin the use of its waters for purposes of navigation shall be subservient to the uses of such waters for domestic agricultural and power purposes if the congress shaft not consent to this paragraph the other provisions of this compact shall nevertheless remain binding where does the interest of utah lie apon this question anyone hav facts and knowledge of the ing any law applicable circumstances and the thereto must obviously say that it is to the interest of utah to have the stream declared a gaviga ble rather than a non navigable one if it is a navigable stream the state of utah controls it for tion if it is a navigable stream the state of utah by virtue of her title to the river bed has all of the pow er rights upon the river within the state bear in mind that it is the navigability of the river winch forms the basis of our claim to title to the river bed if the state of utah owns the river bed the federal government if it has any power rights which in my opinion is extremely doubtful certainly cannot exercise them if utah owns and controls the power rights of the colorado river with in the state she owns perhaps the most valuable undeveloped powei rights in the world to day let it here be understood also that we claim and it is a fact that the green river within the state of utah a erlb dutary of the colorado is also navigable from the confluence thereof with the colorado to a point it emerges from the book mountains north of the town of green river and that the state of utah by virtue ot such navigability is likewise th owner of that stream the power sites on the green and colorado Colo Tado rivers within the state of utah have fa greater potential value than any other single asset of the state not only is the river valuable foi power purposes but is must also be borne in mind that the colorado river within the state of utah at least is situated upon the apex of a senes of oil structures and which perhaps accounts for the formation of the river and this geologic feature obtains throughout the course of the river in this state the productivity of these oil structures for the production of oil been largely proven and with cla im to the riven bed throughout the state a large revenue will result to the state through the lease 01 these valuable lands if our conclusions are right with reference to the productivity of tho oil structures on the colorado amr nd that the title of the nver bed be longs to the state of utah as we ni so contend and hold as a foregone conclusion the state of utah stands to receive from her oil royalties on the colorado river many millions OT dollars in the next few years sufficient money if need be to largely develop the power sites of the and promote its irrigation projects if the colorado river is to be clas sifted as a non navigable stream utah loses her power rights her river bed rights and the right to con arol the water of the colorado river and the tributaries tributa ries thereof within the state of utah can anything be more idiotic and disastrous to the interest of the state than to have th legislature go up on record by the hw as declaring that the colorado river is a non navigable stream there is a suit now pending in the federal court of this state to determine the navigability of the colorado river over certain areas in the state of utah and the only thing that can possibly defeat our title to the river bed is this declaration of the legislature a declaration that is wholly un true thit the colorado river is a non navigable nav gable stream itis a known fact that the colo rado river use furnishes the only means of transportation for the development of the oil structures which lie all along the colorado river from where the river enters the state to where it makes its exit that hundreds of tons of machinery are now being transported monthly upon this river utah has nothing to gain by the compact under the ruling of the supreme court of the united states in the case of kansas vs colorado the court made an equitable aution of the waters of the arkansas river and this notwithstanding the fact that kansas had first appropriated the waters of said river the doctrine laid down in the above case has never been appreciably modified and the rule there laid down will obtain in the distribution of the waters of the colorado river if anything is required to protect the rights of utah to the waters cf the colorado river legislation on the part of our state authorizing th state engineer or a corporation or for the purpose to make ap for these waters under thea laws of the state of utah and eniti ate a right under such application thereby amply protecting us prior appropriations from the nvere below |
