Show Colorado River Board Disagrees I Herbert Hoover secretary of commerce commerce com com- merce of the United States com I was elected chairman of the Colorado river commission at its initial meeting meet meet- ing ng in Washington and a general meet meet-I discussion was had during which rather conflicting views developed with regard to the allocation of the waters vaters of the Colorado river following following follow- follow I ing ng which the commission adjourned to o meet soon somewhere In the southwest it was reported by R. R E. E I Caldwell state engineer and Utah member of the commission From my viewpoint said Mr Caldwell the differences may be resolved and the net not result of the conference was that the Ideas were and each commissioner has gone jone home to think them over to see seef if f at another meeting they may not be able to get closer together in an agreement of or ideas which may yet crystallize into a compact The use of the waters of the Colorado for irrigation seems to be granted as the matter of primary im Im- So far as power goes the federal power commission is requiring requiring requiring ing that each application for power shall be with the express understanding understand understand- ing ng that the development will not in interfere interfere interfere in- in with irrigation development that may come later i Adequacy of at Supply Questioned The discussion seemed to turn on the tho question of the water requirements requirements requirements require require- ments for irrigation of the respective respective respective tive states Upon the showing by bythe bythe bythe the states of their respective estimated ed possible irrigation developments the in the aggregate mounted mount mount- ed to such high figures that that apparently the available waters of the Colorado might not be depended on onto onto onto to take care of all the requirements So far as these estimated acre acre- ages go I am In inclined lIned to the view that an acreage basis in distributing the waters of at the Colorado is a wrong basis The figures cannot be exact in the tho mountainous states which include all aU except California in the basin The exact figures arc are not obtainable for the reason that judgment may differ as to lands in mountainous regions that may at al some reasonable time in the future be developed the matter of pumping costs irrigation appliances and the development of ot the art of ot using water goes to make all such estimates estimates esti esti- mates uncertain The position of some of at the states advocating the acreage basis was a distribution of the waters of oC the Colorado Colorado Colorado Col Col- orado with the idea that some day the number of acres mentioned might be so developed This would give a priority of right to each tate state up to the acreage involved Unrestricted Use Urged This basis appears to me to be unscientific It restricts the possible use of the water in the upper states where making due allowances for return flow probably one and one- one half feet acre-feet will perform the work that four feet acre are allowed to perform closer to the mouth of the river The land on the upper river riverIs Is just as valuable as that on the lower river Further assurance assurance assurance as as- Is given that there is water enough for all possible irrigation uses in the river For Utah therefore I proposed that unrestricted irrigation development development develop develop- ment be allowed Opposition to this thi was based on the allegation that financing of I projects farther downstream downstream downstream down down- stream would be impossible under such a regulation on un the other hand both the reclamation service and private capital have given assurance assurance assurance as as- that they ar are ready to carry carryout carryout carryout out big projects with the understanding understanding under under- standing that they will not interfere interfere inter inter- fere fero with reasonable use under proper methods of water conservation conservation conserva conserva- tion on the upper river irrigation plans Pour Plan Undetermined The Colorado member also claim ed for tor his state the right to unrestricted unrestricted unrestricted use of an equitable proportion proportion proportion tion of at its waters Wyoming was similarly Inclined although having no fault to find with the irrigable acreage assigned to the state by the reclamation service New Mexico was willing to use an acreage basis if It were permitted to name Its own acreage and It and Arizona were in inclined inclined inclined in- in to support the acreage basis There the matter rests for the present No fundamental comprehensive comprehensive compre compre- plan for tor the development of the Colorado such as has been mooted mooted mooted moot moot- ed was proposed a at tae me meeting I The commission adjourned subject I to the call of their chair in the near future but so far I have haye not been advised ad ad- as to any date set for tor another I. I meeting I ad-I |