PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H. R. 11449
By Mr. SWING
PART 1
JUNE 15, 16, 21, 1922
WASHINGTON-
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WO 1922
COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.
MOSES P. KINKAID, Nebraska, Chairman.
NICHOLAS J. SINNOTT, Oregon. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona.
EDWARD C. LITTLE, Kansas. C. B. HUDSPETH, Texas.
ADDISON T. SMITH, Idaho. JOHN E. RAKER, California.
JOHN W. SUMMERS, Washington. HOMER L. LYON, North Carolina.
HENRY E. BARBOUR, California. WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD, Alabama.
E> O. LEATHERWOOD, Utah.
WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, South Dakota.
SAMUEL S. ARENTZ, Nevada.
MANUEL HERRICK, Oklahoma.
A. R. HUMPHREY, Cleric.
PROTECTION AM) DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER
BASIN.
COMMITTEE ox IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS,
HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday. June 15.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.. Hon. Moses P. Kinkaid (chairman)
presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. This hearing has been called for
the purpose of hearing those who are interested in the problems of the Imperial
Valley and vicinity with respect to irrigation from the Colorado River. Mr. Swing,
\ve will say that we have a report on the Swing bill, just received a few minutes ago
from Hon." Albert B. Fall. Secretary of the Interior. I am going to leave it to you
to outline the program this morning. Do you wish to read that report?
Mr. HAYDEN. My suggestion would be that the bill be printed at the beginning
of the hearing, followed by the printing of the report, so that members of the com-
mittee and the Congress may have it for convenient reference.
(The bill referred ^o. H. R. 11449, and the report of Secretary Fall thereon are here
printed in full, as follows:)
[H. R. 11449. Sixty-seventh Congress, second session.]
A BILL To provide for the protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin.
Be it. enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled. That for the purpose of providing for the regulation, control,
and development of the Colorado River, an international, interstate, and navigable
stream, in accordance with a comprehensive and unified plan, conserving natural
resources, and aiding flood control, water supply, and power development, the United
States hereby reserves to itself the exclusive right to construct, provide, and control
dams, reservoirs, or diversion works upon the main trunk of said river below the
mouth of the Green River.
SEC. 2. That, for the purpose of regulating the lower Colorado River and controlling
the floods therein, providing storage of water for irrigation, securing the development
of electrical power, and providing homes for honorably discharged men and women of
the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps who served therein during the war
with Germany, the War with Spain, or in the suppression of the insurrection in the
Philippines, the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and empowered to
construct a dam and incidental works for the purpose of providing a reservoir at or
near Boulder Canyon on said river, adequate for the purposes aforesaid, and to acquire
by proceedings in eminent domain or otherwise all lands and rights of way necessary
for the said reservoir and incidental works: also to construct a main canal and appur-
tenant structures located entirely within the United States, connecting the Laguna
Dam on said river with the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, in California, together
with such other canals and structures as may be required for the distribution and
delivery of water from said reservoir and said river to lands in the United States
which said Secretary may find practicable of irrigation and reclamation therefrom,
and to acquire by proceedings in eminent domain or otherwise all rights of way neces-
sary for such canals and structures. No expenditures for the construction of canals
or appurtenant structures authorized hereunder shall be made until the lands to be
irrigated thereby shall have first been legally obligated to repay their proper portions,
as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interior, of the total costs thereof to
the United States in accordance with the terms of repayment prescribed in the act
of Congress approved June 17, 1902, entitled "An act appropriating the receipts from
the sale and disposal of public lands in certain States and Territories to the construc-
tion of irrigation works for the reclamation of arid lands, " and acts amendatory thereof
\ or supplementary thereto, hereinafter referred to as the reclamation law.
1
15
2 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior is empowered to receive applications
for the right to use for the generation of electrical power portion" of the water di^chanred
from said reservoir and available for the generation of electrical power at said dam,
and, after full heiring of all concerned, to allocate to such applicants such portions
of auch power privileges as, in his judgment, may be consistent with an equitable
distribution thereof among the various interested States and among the various
interested communities in each State. The .f.d'I Secretary, in making such allocation, I
may give consideration to the plans of the various applicants, having regard to their N
relative adaptability to utilize such power privileges in the public interest, and at
reasonable cost to the communities served: Provided, That subject to such allocations
he shall give preference to applications made by political subdivisions.
SEC. 4. That the said Secretary is authorized to make leases of the power privileges
so allocated, limited to fifty years, on such terms and under such regulations as he
may prescribe, and to fix what he may find to be a reasonable compensation therefor.
Upon or after the expiration of any such lease, or renewal thereof, the United States
may take over the property of the lessee which is dependent for its usefulness upon
the continuation of the lease, and if it shall do so shall pay to the lessee its net invest-
ment in the property taken, not exceeding the fair value thereof at the time it is so
taken, with reasonable severance damages to property of the lessee not taken. Such
net investment, or fair value and damages, if not agreed upon, shall be fixed by a
proceeding in equity in the district court of the United States in the district in which
such property, or some part thereof, is situated. If the United States does not exer-
cise its right to take over such property, the Secretary of the Interior may, by agree-
ment with the lessee, renew the said lease for not more than fifty years, or in his
discretion may make a lease under the terms hereof to a new lessee, upon the condition
that such new lessee shall pay to the former lessee such net investment and damages
determined as aforesaid. If such property is not taken over by the United States,
or such new lessee, or such lease renewed, the said Secretary shall extend such lease
from year to year until such property is so taken over or such lease renewed.
SEC. 5. That any such political subdivision, instead of entering into a lease, may,
with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior, as the consideration for such power
privileges as may be allocated to it as above provided, pay to the United States in
annual installments, during such period not exceeding twenty-five years as may be
agreed upon, a total sum which shall bear the same proportion to the cost of construct-
ing such dam and incidental works and acquiring lands and right? of way for said
reservoir and incidental works, as the water allocated to such political subdivision
bears to all the water available for the generation of power at said dam, together with
a like proportion of the annual expense of operating and maintaining such dam and
incidental works and interest at the rate of 5 per centum per annum on the unpaid
portion of such proportionate part of such cost. Any or all of the installments of such
proportionate part of such cost may be paid in advance. The right to use for the
generation of electrical power the water so allocated, shall continue after the comple-
tion of the payment of such proportionate part of such cost, so long as such political
subdivision shall pay annually such proportionate part of such expense of operating
and maintaining such dam and incidental works. The said Secretary is authorized
on such terms and under such regulations as he may prescribe to make any contracts
which may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this section. The title
to said dam and incidental Avorks and reservoir site shall forever remain in the United
States. Until the completion of said dam and incidental works the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to use any money received under this and the preceding section
for the construction of said dam and incidental works.
SEC. 6. That the right to develop power from the water in any canal constructed
under this act, at points along such canal, shall belong to the districts, communities,
and lands which contribute to the construction costs of such canal and appurtenant
structures, in proportion to their contributions: Proridfd, That so long as any money
is owing to the United States on account of the construction of said canals and appur-
tenant structures, the Secretary of the Interior shall control the disposition of said
rights to develop power and the net proceeds from any power development in said
canals shall be applied upon such construction charges and covered into the Treasury
of the United States, and credited to the various districts, communities, and lands in
accordance with their interests in said canals.
SEC. 7. That no part of the cost of the construction of said dam or incidental works,
or the acquisition of lands or rights of way for said reservoir, or incidental works.
shall be charged against any lands to be irrigated therefrom, but the total cost of all /-
irrigation canals and appurtenant structures which may be constructed hereunder
shall be charged equitably against such lands, in accordance with the benefits they
derive therefrom as mav be determined bv the Secretarv of the Interior.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 3
SEC. 8. That the dam and reservoir provided for by section 2 of this act shall be
used, first, for river regulation and flood control; second, for irrigation; and third,
for power.
SEC. 9. That nothing contained in this act shall be construed as limiting, diminish-
ing, or in any manner interfering with any vested rights of the States above said
reservoir, or of the citizens of said States, to the use, within the Colorado Eiver water-
l shed, of the waters of said Colorado River.
SEC. 10. That all lands of the United States found by the Secretary of the Interior
to be practicable of irrigation and reclamation by the irrigation works authorized by
the terms of this act shall be withdrawn from public entry. Thereafter when such
works shall have been so far constructed as to permit the delivery of water to any
portion of said withdrawn lands which the Secretary of the Interior shall deem proper
to open for entry, such portion of said lands shall be opened to entry in tracts, vary-
ing in size, but not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, as may be determined
by the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with the provisions of the reclama-
tion law, and any such entryman shall pay the proportionate share, as determined
by the said Secretary, of the construction cost of the canal or canals and appurtenant
structures, constructed for the irrigation and reclamation of said lands, as provided
for by this act, such construction cost to be paid in such installments, and at such
times as may be specified by the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with the
provisions of the said reclamation law: Provided, That all persons who have served
in the United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps during the war with Germany,
the war with Spain, or in the suppression of the insurrection in the Philippines,
and who have been honorably separated or discharged therefrom or placed in the
Regular Army or Navy Reserve, shall have the exclusive preference right for a period
of three months to enter said lands; and also, so far as practicable, preference shall
be given to said persons in all construction work authorized by this act: Provided,
That in the event such an entry shall be relinquished at any time prior to actual
residence upon the land by the entryman for not less than one year, lands so relin-
quished shall not be subject to entry for a period of sixty days after the filing and
notation of the relinquishnient in the local land office, and shall, after the expiration
of such sixty-day period, be subject to entry by the first qualified applicant.
SEC. 11. That for the purpose of constructing said dam and incidental worVs, and
acquiring lands and rights of way for said reservoir and incidental works, and con-
structing said main canal from Laguna Uam to Imperial and Coachella Valleys, and
appurtenant structures and acquiring rights of way therefor, there is hereby author-
ized to be appropriated, from any moneys ii : the Treasury not otherwise appropriated ,
such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act, not exceeding
in the aggregate the sum of $70,000,000, to be appropriated from time to time upon
estimates made by the Secretary of the Interior and transferred to the reclamation
fund established under said reclamation law. All moneys received under leases and
contracts authorized by sections 4 and 5 of this act, in excess of the expenseof operating
and maintaining said dam and incidental works, and not used for construction as pro-
vided in section 5 hereof, shall be covered into the Treasury of the United Stutes.
All moneys transferred from the General Treasury to the reclamation fund, and used
for the construction of any canal or appurtenant structures authorized under this act,
shall be repaid by the districts, communities, and lands benefited thereby, and the
Secretary of the Interior is hereby empowered, after a full hearing of all concerned, to
allocate the costs of any such canal and appurtenant structures among the various
districts, communities, and lands served thereby, according to the benefits derived
therefrom.
SKC. 1'2. Thai nothing in this act shall be construed as modifying in any manner
the existing contract. dat*':i October 'J:!. I'.US, between the Unitc'l States and Imperial
irrigation district, providing for a connection with Laguna Dam; but the Sec-
retary of the Interior is authorized to modify the said contract, with the consent of
the said district, in order to provide for the construction, in accordance with the terms
of this act, of a canal or canals and appurtenant structures, adequate to serve the lands
of said district, and other lands that may be served thereby, and to equitably allocate
the costs thereof.
SEC. 13. That wherever the words "political subdivision" or "political subdi-
visions" are used herein they shall be understood to include any State, district.
municipality, or other governmental organization.
4 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVKR BASIN.
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
Washington, June 14, 19..' :.
Hon. M. P. KIMKAID.
Chairman Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands.
House of Representatives .
MY DEAR MR. KINKAID: Reference is made to your letter of May 3, 1922, trans-
mitting copy of H. R. 11449. "A bill to provide for the protection and development I
of the Lower Colorado River Basin." with request for report.
The Colorado River is an interstate and international stream, the lower portion of
which is navigable. The proposed measure affects the entire stream system touching
the States of Arizona. California. Colorado. Nevada. New Mexico. Utah. Wyoming,
and the Republic of Mexico. The mean annual discharge of the Colorado River at
Lagima Dam. near Yuma, Ariz., is 16,400,000 acre-feet of water, as shown by meas-
urements taken in the years 1899 to 1920, inclusive. The problems arising from the
use of this river have been for many years the subject of much discussion and specula-
tion. They relate principally to flood control, irrigation, and power, and involve
differences actual and potential between private citizens, between States of this
Republic, and between the United States and the Republic of Mexico.
In 1921 the States above mentioned, by acts of their respective legislatures, pro-
vided for the appointment of commissioners to negotiate an agreement between said
States respecting the use of the water of said river, and by act of August 19, 1921
(42 Stat. 171), the United States consented to the making o"f such an agreement and
the President, under said act. appointed Mr. Herbert Hoover to represent the United
States in such negotiations. These several representatives have organized into what
is known as the Colorado River Commission, have held hearings in Washington and
in the West, but have as yet reached no agreement.
The act of May 18, 1920 (41 Stat. 600), authorized the Secretary of the Int-rior to
have made an examination and report on possible irrigation development of lands in
southern California from the waters of the Colorado River. A preliminary report under
this act was made by the Director of the Reclamation Service in 1920 and theame
was printed by your committee in January. 1921. under the title, "Preliminary report
on problems of Imperial Valley and vicinity."
Under the authority of said act of May 18, 1920, the preliminary report referred to
has been followed by a more detailed report made by the Director of the Reclamation
Service in January, 1922. This later report is now being printed as Senate Docu-
ment No. 143 under the title, "Report on problems of Imperial Valley and vicinity."
In the report last named, the following recommendations are made relative to the
use of the Colorado River, to wit:
1. It is recommended that through suitable legislation the United States undertake
the construction with Government funds of a high line canal from Laguna Dam to
the Imperial Valley, to be reimbursed by the lands benefited.
2. It is recommended that the public lands that can be reclaimed by such works
be reserved for settlement by ex-service men under conditions securing actual settle-
ment and cultivation.
3. It is recommended that through suitable legislation the United States undertake
the construction with Government funds of a r?s Tvoir at or n<?ar Boulder Canyon, on
the lower Colorado River, to be reimbursed by the revenues from leasing the power
privileges incident thereto.
4. It is recommended that any State interested in this development shall have the
right at its election to contribute an equitable part of the cost of the construction of
the reservoir and receive for its contribution a proportionate share of power at cost
to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
5. It is recommended that the Secretary of the Interior be empowered , after full '
hearing of all concerned, to allow the various applicants their due proportion of the
power privileges and to allocate the cost and benefits of a high line canal.
6. It is recommended that every development hereafter authorized to be under-
taken on the Colorado River, by Federal Government or otherwise, be required in
both construction and operation to give priority of right and use: (1 ^ To river regu-
lat,ion and flood control: (2> to use of storage water for irrigation (3) to development
of power.
The high line canal from Laguna Dam to the Imperial Valley, referred to above in
recommendation Xo. 1 . is the subject of a separate report made in 1919 by a board
consisting of Messrs. Elwood Mead. W. W. Schlecht. and C. E. Grunsky. This report
is published under the title. "The All-American Canal." and a copy of same is in- /"
closed for your information.
H. R. H449 seemingly is intended to give legislative expression to a considerable
extent to the above-mentioned recommendations of the report on problems of Imperial
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 5
Valley and vicinity, which recommendations I have heretofore approved. The bill
would provide for a total appropriation from the General Treasury of $70.000,000.
Apparently it would be the plan to utilize about $48,000.000 for the building of a
dam and incidental works at or near Boulder Canyon, and the remainder for construc-
tion work upom the All-American Canal from Laguna Dam.
It is roughly estimated that for $48,000.000 there could be constructed at or near
Boulder Canyon, a dam 600 feet in height having a capacity of about 24. 000, 000 acre-
feet. The upper 5.000.000 acre-feet of this capacity could be utilized principally
for flood control, and incidentally for irrigation and power, 14,000.000 acre-feet of
the capacity could be utilized primarily for irrigation and power with preference
for the former, while the lower 5.000.000 acre-feet would be required for the storage
of silt. Such a reservoir would develop about 700.000 firm turbine horsepower, on
the assumption of the irrigation of a total area of 2.000.000 acres of land above the
reservoir, and a total area of 1.500.000 acres below the reservoir. The bill proposes
that the cost of this reservoir be not charged against any of the land to be irrigated
with its waters, but that such cost be returned from the sale of the right to use the
water of the reservoir for the generation of the electrical power.
The proposed reservoir would be of great importance in controlling the destructive
floods of the lower Colorado. Through the deposit of silt the river has for years been
gradually building up a great delta cone across the head of the Gulf of California, and
back of this cone it has been gradually elevating its channel. As a result, in periods
of high water it breaks its low and unstable banks, overflowing the surrounding country
and producing great loss of property. These floods are a particular menace to large
developments in and about Yuma, Ariz., and in the Imperial Valley in California.
They have been guarded against to a certain extent by the construction of expensive
levees, which, however, afford a most inadequate protection. A large reservoir in
the vicinity of Boulder Canyon could be so used as substantially to eliminate the flood
menace of the Colorado River, but in order to secure complete protection it would be
necessary to take further precautions against the floods from the Gila River, which
joins the Colorado a short distance above Yuma. However, the floods in the latter
are of short duration and of relatively small total volume, and as a rule occur in winter
and do not coincide with those on the main Colorado.
The suggested reservoir at or near Boulder Canyon would provide a water supply
for the irrigation of large areas of fertile land in the lower Colorado Basin that can not
be developed without the storage of water-. The area of new lands in California and
Ari/onia feasible of irrigation under such a reservoir is roughly estimated at 700,000
acres, while in addition a more stable and certain water supply could be provided for
520,000 acres heretofore irrigated.
The generation of electrical power at the proposed reservoir would have an important
relation to the conservation of the oil and coal supply of the Nation.
The cost of the main All-American Canal, including connections at Laguna Dam, is
estimated at $30,000,000. The 515,000 acres in the Imperial irrigation district and the
432,000 acres of new lands above referred to could all be served with irrigation water
from this canal. At the present time the Imperial irrigation district is dependent for
a water supply upon a very uncertain and unsatisfactory diversion at Hanlon Heading
and conveyance through a canal on Mexican soil. The substantial difficulties arising
from this situation would be obviated by the construction of the All-American Canal.
Of the lands irrigable from the developments proposed by H. R. 11449, 166,900
irrigable acres are public lands in California, and these would be opened to entry
with preference rights to former soldiers .
The text of the contract of October 23, 1918. between the United States and the
Imperial irrigation district referred to in section 12 of the bill appears on pages 67 to
71, inclusive, of the copy of report on "The All-American Canal" transmitted here-
with. No actual construction work has been done by the district under this con-
tract, but the sum of $96.000 has been paid by the district to the United States to
apply upon the total obligation of $1.600.000" incurred under the contract for the
right to connect with and use Laguna Dam.
I am in general agreement with the provisions of the bill, but there are other con-
siderations which have impressed themselves upon me and which I think justify the
suggestion of the following amendments:
Page 10, line 12. insert after the word "district": "Or to enter into a new contract
or contracts with the said district, or any private corporation, or any corporation
subsidiary to such district. "
Page 10. line 16. insert after the word "thereof" and before the period: l'mri<l<'<l.
That nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary
of the Interior to enter into other contracts for the disposition of waters of the Rio
Colorado where such contracts are not in conflict with the terms of this act or in abro-
gation of contracts already entered into, nor with the laws or treaties of the United
States, or with the rights of any State. "
6 DKYKI.ol'.MKXT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
It is rather a delicate matter to refer to foreign relations in a report of this character.
However, it is a well known fact that the Colorado is an international stream. Should
it (,( possible '" enter inio a contract directly with a company or corporation organized
or doing i. urines.- under the laws of Mexico, and should such contract entered into
by such Mexican corporation or individuals operating in Mexico receive the ap-
proval of the then authorities of Mexico, claims for damage or any complaint as to
injury arising from the supposed ignoring of treaty obligations would be avoided.
Such' result may possibly be brought about without diplomatic negotiations or com-
plications should the amendments proposed be inserted in the bill.
The last amendment is intended to refer particularly to the use of waters under
the Yuma project, where the same are being conducted through the canals of said
project and the excess over our day to day use discharged at the ends of such canals.
Such discharged waters may be contracted to be used as a day to day license, to be
used by parties within the United States who may take the same as a day to day
license and apply the waters to beneficial use beyond the borders of the United
States.
With much diffidence and hesitation, as I do not deem it my duty nor within my
proper authority to suggest legislation to Congress. I am handing you herewith a
draft of two sections which might be considered by the committee as a substitute
for section 11 of the bill. These sections, as suggested, are as follows:
SKC. 11. That for the purpose of constructing said dam and incidental works,
together with the machinery necessary for generating the power to be developed
thereby, and of acquiring lands and right of way for said reservoir and dam and inci-
dental works there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $ , to be
paid from time to time upon requisition of the Secretary of the Interior by the Secretary
of the Treasury.
' The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to issue fifty-year
bonds of the United States, in the sum of $ - , in series, and to cause to be sold
the same from time to time as needed, the proceeds of such sales to be deposited for
such dam, reservoir, and power purposes. Such bonds shall bear interest at the
rate of per cent, payable semiannually and redeemable after thirty years, in the
order of the series issue'd thereof.
"The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to enter into
contracts for the sale or lease of the hydroelectric power to be developed through the
construction and use of such dam and machinery, at.such charges, by sales, leases, or
rentals, as will produce revenues sufficient to meet the semiannual interest upon
such bonds, and to provide a sinking fund for the redemption of such bonds. Such
contract for sales, leases, rentals, shall be under the terms of this section and in accord
with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of this bill as construed together. The Secre-
tary of the Interior may assist in the sale of such bonds and the provision for the pay-
ment of interest thereupon by entering into negotiations prior to the completion of
such dam with parties or municipal or political corporations for the allocation of
stated amounts of power to such parties or corporations, upon the payment of a bonus
over and above the par value of such bonds, in consideration of such prior rights of
allocation, and the results of such negotiations shall be communicated to the Secretary
of the Treasury for his final action and approval in the delivery of the bonds.
"SEC. 12. That there.is hereby authorized to be appropriated from any moneys in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated such amounts as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of this act in the construction of said main canals or other canalt
from the Laguna Dam to the public lands which may be irrigated, and to the Imperial
and Coachella Valleys, with appurtenant structures and for the purpose of acquiring
rights of way, etc.. the sum of $ , to be made available from time to time, upon
estimates made by the Secretary of the Interior, such amounts to be paid out of the
fund designated as the reclamation fund heretofore established under the reclamation
law of 1902. All moneys received under leases and contracts for the sale of water
rights, the delivery of water, together with repayments of construction charges agreed
to bft made by the present users of water in the Imperial Valley, Coachella Valley,
and others, shall be paid into the credit of the general reclamation fund. The cost of
operating and maintaining such canals and works and the delivery of such water
under contract or otherwise shall be collected under the terms of the general reclama-
tion act and amendments thereto. Any moneys transferred from the General Treasury
to the reclamation fund for purposes herein set forth and used for the construction of
any canal or appurtenant structures authorized under this act shall be repaid by the
districts, communities, and lands benefited thereby, and the Secretary of the Interior
is hereby empowered, after a hearing of all concerned to allocate the costs of any
such canal and the appurtenant, structures among the various districts, communities,
and lands served thereby, according to the benefits derived therefrom."
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 7
(Renumber section ]2 of the bill as No. 13, and No. 13 as section 14.)
I think that from the report as hereinbefore first set forth it must be apparent that
sufficient sums can be recovered from the sale of power at the dam to finance the
construction by amortization, as suggested, of amounts to be derived from the sale
of Government bonds, without imposing any further burden upon the taxpayers of
the United States and yet in line with good and sound finance.
Also, 1 would suggest that the apparent intent of the bill would be better expressed
if in line 10 on page 5 the word "proportion" were replaced by the word "ratio,"
and in line 15 on the same page the word "proportion" were replaced by the words
"proportionate part."
I find myself able to approve the adoption of this proposed legislation with the
direct amendments suggested and with or without the substitution of the proposed
financial sections for section 11 of the bill as it lies before me.
Very respectfully,
ALBERT B. FALL,
Secretary of the Interior.
STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP D. SWING, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
FROM CALIFORNIA.
Mr. SWING. The report of the Interior Department is favorable to the general pro-
gram outlined in my bill. The principal modification which the Secretary offers is
that instead of an authorization of an- appropriation of money direct from the Treas-
ury a bond issue be authorized to cover the cost of this particular project and that
the principal and interest be paid out of the revenues to be derived from the project.
This matter has been before your committee heretofore. In 1919 I had the honor
of appearing here with a delegation representing the Imperial irrigation district and
presenting to you what appeared to us to be a very serious situation on the lower
Colorado River, meriting the attention of the Federal Government.
I think that this committee was impressed with the importance and seriousness of
the problem and felt that it was a matter of which the Federal Government should
take cognizance, because following our representations it reported a bill which was
passed by Congress authorizing an investigation by governmental officials, with
instructions to them to report to Congress what ought to be done in the matter.
This investigation has now been made, and the report of the Secretary of the Inte-
rior covering the same, together with his recommendations, is now before you. The
report is based upon an exhaustive study of the problems of the Colorado River made
by Director Davis, of the Reclamation Service, ably assisted by a board of eminent
engineers, who cooperated with him in his investigations and advised with him in
the conclusions reached .
We are here to-day to say that we accept the report and recommendations that have
been made to you by these Government officials, and are ready to cooperate in carrying
them into effect. We believe that if these recommendations are followed out it will
result in a proper solution of the problems of the Imperial Valley and of the lower
Colorado River. We go further; we believe the recommendations of the Secretary of
the Interior offer the only solution of the problem now confronting us.
As I stated to you when I was here before, the Imperial Valley is menaced by three
factors, one of which is the Mexican international complication; another of which is the
interstate complication with the Government project in the Yuma Valley, Ariz.;
and the third is with the forces of the river itself in flood times.
The difficulty of operating this, the largest single irrigated unit in the United States,
is clearly shown when we look at the map, where it is seen that about 60 miles of the
main canal of the Imperial irrigation district nins through Mexico. When the water
is taken across the line into Mexico in order to skirt a low range of sand hills which
separates Imperial Valley from the river, the Imperial irrigation district loses all con-
trol over that water, both physical and legal, and thereafter it is controlled by aMexican
corporation until it is finally returned to the American side i. e., the part of the water
which is not used inMexico. At the present time the stock of that Mexican corporation
is held by the Imperial irrigation district, but I will discuss that point a little later.
The problem of as big and complicated a business as this, doing business under two
flags, is almost self-evident. We maintain a fleet of 9 or 10 dredges in the main canal.
All of the red tape of the customhouses has to be gone through every time one of these
crosses the international boundary line. We have to put labor over there, replacing
those who quit; all the complications created by the immigration laws of two nations
have to be complied with every time a laborer goes across.
The same is true of getting supplies across as well as the necessary material to repair,
improve, and maintain not only the canals but also the flood levee systems. The
8 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BABIX.
interminable delays are not only costly but at times make operation well-nigh im-
possible. Then there is the payment of money in various forms to the Mexican
Government, called taxes. They have as many different kinds over there as we have,
and a few besides, all of which are patterned on" the principle of all the traffic will bear.
There are import duties and export duties. There is the poll tax on the employees
and another on the mules and horses: of course, there is one on the supplies which" the
men, mules, and horses eat. There is a tax on the water sold. Finally there are ( I
special assessments of various kinds some payable in money and some payable in ^
work, such as road construction, bridge buildinsr. and the like. They even charge us
an import duty on the material that goes into the levees by which their o .vn live- and
property are protected, and then discount our money when we go to pay their taxes
and charges.
That country, as you all know, particularly those of you from near the border, is
subject to sudden uprisings of various kinds, and it would be a golden opportunity
for a band of insurrectos who were striving to either oust the present governing force
which is at Mexicala, the capital of that district, or who were trying, like Villa, when
he attacked Columbus to force the intervention of the United States, to destroy with
a stick of dynamite the canal or some of its principal works, thereby cutting off not
only the Mexican capital but also the Imperial Valley from all water, including
domestic water.
As you know, the Imperial Valley is noted for its aridity rain fall, varying from 1 to
6 inches not enough, of course, to produce any crops. There are no wells except
about a dozen in one narrow section of the country and in most, if not all, of these the
water is salty and warm. So the people of Imperial Valley are absolutely dependent
for their water upon that coming from the Colorado River and their ability to get this
depends upon the good will of the citizens of a foreign country principally noted for
its lack of good will toward us.
In addition to that the country through which this canal runs is subject to cultiva-
tion, and about 190,000 acres of it is under cultivation now, and a good deal more of it
is capable of being brought under cultivation with some slight changes in the physical
situation down there. One syndicate alone owns 800,000 acres. This land has the
legal right to take half the water in the canal and the physical power to take it all.
When I say that we have had in the Imperial Valley year after year water shortages,
some of which have cost the valley in loss of crops as high as $5,000,000 or $6,000,000
in one year, and that the Mexican lands have never known a water shortage, you see
the position of advantage they are in and the position of disadvantage we are in.
Mr. HUDSPETH. What is the source of the Colorado River, Mr. Swing; does it origi-
nate in Mexico or in this country?
Mr. SWING. It originates entirely in this country none of it originates in Mexico.
We divert our water from the river on the American side of the line, about a mile and
a half from the international boundary line; and then the canal system as originally
laid out years ago, following the line of least resistance, crosses the international
boundary line and for about 60 miles is in Mexico and finally comes back into the
United States again near Calexico, Calif.
Mr. HUDSPETH. You divert it before it reaches Mexico?
Mr. SWING. Yes. An engineering survey in which the Government participated
has laid out an all- American canal route, and its construction is recommended in the
Secretary's report and is authorized in this bill. The present situation from the
standpoint of operation is one of confusion, of chaos, and of utter impossibility of
carrying on this great business which spends on an average of $2,000,000 a year, as can
be seen.
Mr. HUDSPETH. I do not know whether I fully understand you, Mr. Swing, when
you stated that the Mexicans had never known a water shortage but that the Imperial
Valley in this country had. If you take the water out before it reaches Mexico, win-
is it that this country has suffered a shortage of water and Mexico has not?
Mr. SWING. Over on the map [referring to map on the committee room wall], Mr.
Hudspeth, you see that narrow dark line representing the canal that comes out of the
river just above the international boundary line in the United States, and then goes
across the boundary and back again in a big loop. There is ctiltivated land in Mexico
all along that canal, and they have put in diversions in this canal wherever and
whenever they wanted to do so and take as much water as they wanted. The com-
pany which owns and operates this canal in Mexico is a Mexican company, of which
the Imperial irrigation district at the present time is holding the stock, and in that
way controlling this Mexican company, subject to the laws, rules, and regulations of ^
Mexico, and this is the point I want to get at now: The charter or concession of this f
Mexican company from the Mexican Government expressly provides that no foreign
State or government shall ever own the stock of this company, nor shall any foreign
government ever make any representations to Mexico regarding this company or its
business.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 9
When this original company, which laid this system out, went bankrupt and the
farmers and the settlers in the imperial Valley organized a district and bid it in. paying
$3,000,000 for what was there on the ground, both in the United States and Mexico,
they inherited this dual system of one company in Mexico and another in the United
States, and it being the only thing they coul'd do they took over the stock of this
Mexican company and now hold it in order to effect some kind of harmony of operation.
Any day, my belief is that Mexico could raise the question that this Mexican company
is violating its charter and could declare its concession forfeited, and then you would
have a situation like two mules on a team, one of them going in one direction and the
other going in another direction, without any control over the situation at all.
Mr. BARBOUR. Is this Mexican canal company different from the Mexicao land
company?
Mr. SWING. Yes. This Mexican canal company owns no land except the rights of
way and is not engaged in any land cultivation at all.
Mr. BARBOUR. The company that you referred to a few moments ago as having a
charter from the Mexican Government containing these provisions you
Mr. SWING (interposing). It is simply an operating company in Mexico, but the
Mexican Government controls it.
Mr. BARBOUR. Is it in any way connected with the land company?
Mr. SWING. Xo; that is separate. As I have said, this Mexican company is responsi-
ble to Mexican officials at Mexico City. The Imperial irrigation district is responsible
to the State officials at Sacramento. Calif. Even now it is difficult to get the two
Governments to agree to the same proposed improvement. For instance, we wanted
to put in a cut-off in Mexico to increase the grade of our main canal, as was recom-
mended to us by our consulting engineers. The California State authorities approved
it but the Mexican authorities have never permitted us to use it. Under the State
law of California if the district wants to make any prominent improvement, it must
prepare plans, send them up to Sacramento; the State engineer and the bonding
commission must investigate and approve or disapprove them; on the other hand,
if the proposed work happens to be in Mexico, we must also send a duplicate of such
plans down to Mexico City, and they look at it from the Mexican point of view.
It is possible and it has happened that the American supervising power said, "This
is a good thing, do it'': while the Mexican Government said, i- This is not a good thing;
it will interfere with getting water out for Mexican lands. We disapprove it."
So it is almost an impossible situation, and points to the necessity of getting our
irrigation system out of Mexico.
Mr. LINEBERGER. Mr. Swing, is it not also a fact that according to this concession
which the Mexican company has that they actually control 50 per cent of all the
water that passes through that canal, irrespective of the fact of whether they may
contribute to its upkeep or not?
Mr. SWING. Oh, yes.
Mr. LINEBERGER. And by virtue of the physical conditions can take the water
before it gets into the valley?
Mr. SWING. They control it all. The concession reads somewhat to this affect
a full copy of the concession is set out in the hearings before this committee in 1919
one half of the water which this company secures, whether diverted in the United
States or in Mexico, must on demand of Mexican lands be supplied to Mexican lands;
the other half may be disposed of elsewhere. There is no obligation to return any of
it to the United States.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The Imperial Valley at the present time gets its water from
this canal after it goes through Mexican territory?
Mr. S \VING. Yes; all of it.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And under the propositions contained in your bill, if the
Boulder Dam be constructed there would be a new canal to the Imperial Valley,
no part of which canal would be in Mexican territory?
Mr. SWING. That is it exactly; and. as outlined in the bill, that canal would be,
I might say, a joint investment for the United States and the Imperial irrigation
district to supply a great tract of land which the United States itself is the proprietor
of, as well as the lands now within the district.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Would that be upon the theory that the Mexicans have no
vested rights in the water?
Mr. SWING. I think that is a correct statement. In the hearings in 1919 that was
gone into very fully. I filed with the committee the opinion of the former Attorney
General, Judson Harmon, in which he said there was no such thing as international
water rights in adjudicating the Rio Grande River conflict.
The Secretary of State also filed with the committee an opinion that there was
nothing in the international law or any of our treaties with Mexico which would
10 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BAS1X.
Erevent the United States from taking out in the United States and using in the United
tates water of an American stream while it flowed on American soil.
Mr. BARBOUR. As I recall it, Secretary Lansing approved the plan for building
the all- American canal. He said there was no international treaty against it.
Mr. SWING. Yes. In frankness, I will add that he said he thought when the time
came to take the matter up with Mexico or Mexico took it up with us that he would
favor a recognition to some extent of their moral claims, but it was not what can be
termed a legal claim under any treaty or international law.
Mr. HUDSPETH. They claimed 20 per cent of the water from the Elephant Butte
and never contributed a dollar.
Mr. SWING. Mr. Hudspeth, you know as well as I do that many people many
people in New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado think the giving away of the water of
the Rio Grande to Mexico was something our Government ought not to have done.
Senator Thomas, in a powerful speech in the Senate covering two days, said abso-
lutely that our Government had been fooled, and he even charged fraud in the making
of that treaty, and he closed his speech by saying that "while it is too late to save
the waters of the Rio Grande, because the treaty has now been ratified, yet I say
this is a warning that it may not happen again on the Colorado."
Mr. LITTLE. May I ask the gentleman a question?
Mr. SWING. Certainly.
Mr. LITTLE. Have you stated where the stock is owned in that canal which is
located in Mexico?
Mr. SWING. That is owned by a Mexican company, which was in existence when the
people of the Imperial Valley through the Imperial Irrigation District bought the irri-
gation system and so got physical possession of the stock of that compnay at that time.
Mr. LITTLE. Who did?
Mr. SWING. The directors of the Imperial Irrigation District. The stock to-day is
in the vault of the Imperial Valley Irrigation District, for whatever it iray be worth.
It w"as a part of what the district got for its $3,000,000.
Mr. LITTLE. That is, the stock of the Canal Co.?
Mr. SWING. Of the Mexidan Canal Co.
Mr. LITTLE. Where do the owners of the land along that ditch live mostly?
Mr. SWING. They mostly live in the United States. The Southern Pacific at one
time owned a large tract of land, close to 100,000 acres. The Cudahy Packing Co.
has a 16,000-acre farm down there. What is known as the Los Angeles Times Syn-
dicate, or "the Colorado River Land & Water Co.," is made up of American capitalists
who owned some 800,000 acres just below the boundary in Mexico.
Mr. LITTLE. Those people own the land th,at takes the water that otherwise goes to
your valley.
Mr. SWING. Yes, sir.
Mr. LITTLE. They are the interested parties there?
Mr. SWING. I think they are to that extent; they prefer to keep the water in their
own control for their own benefit, because they can get it this way, whenever they
want it, as much as they want, and can put up a pretty good argument as to what
they should pay for it.
The second menace of the Imperial Valley is the Yuma Government project, and
when I put it that way I am perfectly willing to turn it around and put it the other
way, that the Imperial Valley menaces the Yuma reclamation project. What I
mean by that is this: When Colonel Ockerson failed to close the break in the Colorado
River at what is called the Bee River, the whole river started flowing down into what
was originally Volcano Lake, and then working its way out into the Gulf in a round-
about way; because of the increase from the break into Volcano Lake the river bed
began cutting back, and this cutting worked back up the river past our heading.
Thus the lowering of the bed resulted in lowering the water in the river arid made
it difficult to get the water out into our canal, especially during low seasons.
The problem of getting water out of the river is ordinarily a serious one, even with-
out the difficulty which I have just described. This river is a slow sluggish stream
moat of the year, and during this period it deposits a great deal of silt in its own bed
gradually building it up and then when the river rises and increases in volume and
velocity, the weight of the water, the pressure, and the velocity begins to scour its
bed out, and nature thus sort of takes care of the flood waters by deepening its bed
to accommodate the volume of the stream. After three or four weeks of this scouring
process at high water the river generally drops from a flow of 150,000 second-feet to
about 20,000 second-feet and as it falls it becomes an engineering problem how to
get the water out of the river without some control or diversion works. We have no
diversion works in the river at our in-take. We simply have a great 700-foot in-take
or headgate set in the bank of the river. At the time we built it the silt was below
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 11
the low scouring point. After the break into Bee River had worked back up stream to
our heading the river scoured its bed down below that. So it now becomes necessary
every year to put in a diversion dam.
Mr. LITTLE. How much above the Mexican line is your intake?
Mr. SWING. It is about a mile and a half. In 1916 the settlers on the Yuma project
in Arizona went to their courts and got an injunction against our rebuilding the dam
in the river, because they considered it a menace to their valley, which is also liable
to overflow from the Colorado. They feared with that dam in there a freshet might
bring down high water before we could get the dam out to let the water go by, and
it might result in the river breaking in on them and destroying their valley.
Mr. LITTLE. That is just across the river from your intake?
Mr. SWING. Yes. It is the Yuma reclamation project.
Mr. LITTLE. How high above your intake is the place where you would have the
intake for the Ail-American canal?
Mr. SWING. About 25 miles upstream at the Laguna Dam built by the United
States Government and originally intended, as I am informed, to irrigate lands in
< 'alifornia, as well as in Arizona, but which is now used practically entirely for Arizona
lands.
Mr. LITTLE. That is where the intake for the All-American would be?
Mr. SWING. That is where it ought to be, in our opinion.
Mr. LITTLE. Is that your plan?
Mr. SWING. That is our plan. We have a contract which we signed with Secretary
Lane when he was in office, with the consent and approval of the Yuma people, to
pay 1,600,000 for the privilege of going up there and using that dam jointly with
the Yuma reclamation project. We have paid, I think. 896,000 on that according
to the contract; we have met all our payments as they fell due.
Mr. BARBOUR. Do you have to take out that loose-rock dam every time there is
flood water?
Mr. SWING. Yes; absolutely.
Mr. BARBOUR. How do you get it out?
Mr. SWING. We had to demolish it; blow it up with dynamite. The War Depart-
ment is absolutely in control of this river. We have to get their permission to con-
struct the dam. They name such terms as they think proper, and they tell us when
the dam must go out; in fact, we have two authorities to tell us Yuma, while con-
senting from year to year to our building this dam, keep their injunction alive and
require us to meet all their terms and conditions. We agreed that whenever they
tell us to take it out we will take it out.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. May I ask a question? Does the land served by the present
canal, which, as I understand, runs through Mexican territory, or, in other words,
do the lands served both in Mexico and in southern California utilize all of the waters
of the Colorado at all times except flood stages?
Mr. SWING. Not quite as strong as that. There have been times when, during low
years, all of the water was diverted at our heading.
Mr. RAKER. You may have stated it to the committee already. But what is the
approximate number of acres now irrigated and could be irrigated on the California
side and the amount that is now irrigated and can be irrigated on the American side?
Mr. SWING. In Mr. Davis's report he gives over 2,000,000 acres below the Boulder
Canyon in Nevada, Arizona, California, and Mexico and says about 60 per cent
of that, I believe, is in the United States.
Mi-. RAKER. Right there, you say 60 per cent of it is in the L T nited States and 40
per cent is in Mexico. If you have the ail-American canal, how will you divide the
water between Mexico and the United States?
Mr. SWING. That would be a matter for agreement or treaty.
Mr. RAKER. Would that be the same with the canal now that is there? Suppose
the canal was to continue where it is now and be enlarged, would that same condition
apply as to the agreement or treaty?
Mr. SWING. There would be this difference: If the canal is enlarged and left in
Mexico where it is now, then we would be the ones who would be asking Mexico to
consent to put a limitation on the amount of water she would use, while if an all-
American canal were built, then Mexico will be the one who would be requesting
the United States to agree to put a limitation on the amount of water Americans
would use in the United States. In one case Mexico would hold all the trump cards;
in the other we would.
Mr. RAKER. Just amplify that, if you will.
Mr. SWING. Ever since Mr. Taft was President, and while he was President, various'
interests have urged upon the Government to take up with Mexico and to adjudicate
a treaty that would determine what the rights were. Personally I will say that I
feel that every year we put it off Mexico is getting more and more land in cultivation
12 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
and a broader basis for a moral claim to water. I understand that Mr. Taft actually
selected the American commissioners, although they were not publicly named.
Then nothing came of it. The matter was 'presented to President Wilson while he
was President. I talked to Secretary Lane about it, but it was impossible to get
Mexico to agree to anything our Government wanted. I think down on the Rio Grande
there are some islands in the river. There is a treaty in existence already that says
that the representatives of the two Governments must meet and adjudicate their
respective rights to these islands. We can not even get a meeting with the Mexican
officials under that treaty, which is already in existence.
Mr. HUDSPETH. We never did negotiate; we just took the island.
Mr. SWING. I think that was a proper procedure under the circumstances.
Mr. RAKER. Would that be the procedure if we get the All-American Canal if they
would not come through? I am just trying to get at how we are going to get this finally
adjudicated. Take the water as much as needed, and then let them come through?
Mr. SWING. That is the way God planned it, when he put Mexico on the lower end
of the river, that Mexico should get what water was left after we got through using it.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Under your bill, is it contemplated that additional lands
would be reclaimed?
Mr. SWING. Yes.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Aside from those now being served?
Mr. SWING. Yes. The United States Government itself has ] 70, 000 acres of land
adjoining the Imperial irrigation district, which is worthless now, but which will be
immensely valuable if water is put on it.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you estimate that with the plan and scheme in view that
it would require all of the waters of the river?
Mr. SWING. No. oh, no. You mean the flood waters?
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Yes.
Mr. SWING. Oh, no. Mr. Davis gives a little over 2.000,000 acres of land in the
United States and Mexico below Bowlder Canyon Dam. Three acre-feet is the duty
of water per acre per year; three times 2,000.000 would be 6.000,000 acre-feet annually
of water. The average annual run-off of the river at Bowlder Canyon is 17,500,000
acre-feet. This dam would have a storage capacity of anywhere from 21.000.000
acre-feet to 31,000.000 acre-feet, the idea being to have it big enough so as to equate
the flow not only between months in the same years but between years, so as to take
a reasonable span of six or seven years in order to carry the surplus of the wet years
over for the benefit of the dry years. Thus the maximum of down-stream develop-
ment would probably not use in excess of 6,000,000 acre-feet, leaving 11,500,000
acre-feet for up-stream development.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. During the dry season would you require all of the natural
flow of the stream in addition
Mr. SWING (interposing). If this new dam was not put in?
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Yes.
Mr. SWING. Frankly, yes, if there was no storage.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Then if there are large agricultural areas up the river for which
no provision has been yet made to take care of, they would be left dry would they
not?
Mr. SWING. If Boulder Canyon Dam or some other dam is not built these upriver
areas must remain dry because all the low flow of the natural stream has now been
appropriated and to undertake any considerable upstream development which would
substantially diminish the flow of the river to the down stream communities would
of course result in litigation.
With Boulder Dam constructed these areas in the upper States could safely be
developed because as I have already pointed out the total that could be used in the
lower Colorado, taking the average use which is about three acre feet of water per
year, would be 6,000,000 acre-feet at the outside when all of this land in the United
States and Mexico has been put under cultivation, and the probabilities are that all
of that land will not be put under cultivation.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What I am trying to get at is this: Would this scheme in any
way interfere with the taking out of water above the Boulder Dam along the course
of the Colorado River during the ordinary irrigation season, if you have conserved the
flood waters by your dam.
Mr. SWING. Absolutely not. Mr. Davis and Secretary Fall, as I read their report,
say "no."
Mr. RAKER. How much more land can be irrigated by the American canal than
through the present dam which they now have?
Mr. SWING. About 400,000 acres.
Mr. RAKER. On the California side?
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 13
Mr. SWING. On the California side. I want to finish up this Yuma situation.
Our district directors went over there just a few weeks ago to secure permission to
put this weir in as is necessary, if the people in the Imperial Valley are to get
even domestic water, and they said they would take the matter under advisement
and see what steps we are taking to really get away from our present difficulties. It
has been on condition that we get away from our present heading and go up to Laguna
Dam that we have received permission in the past and their injunctions are in effect
against us every year. We have to put up a half million dollars bond each year
and in addition we sign an agreement that we will be responsible to Yuma and their
citizens for every dollar's worth of damage that might result from a break in that river.
So I say Yuma is a menace to us because we never know when they are going to
ref us? us permission to construct the dam ; and we are a menace to them for the reason
which I have already stated.
Mr. LITTLE. May I ask you a question?
Mr. SWING. Yes, sir.
Mr. LITTLE. When did you last tear that dam down?
Mr. SWING. It is always taken out just before the high water comes down; this
year about a month ago.
Mr. HUDSPETH. How long does it take to get permission from Yuma to put it back?
Mr. SWING. This year we have not obtained permission yet.
Mr. HAYDEN. The flood season is not yet over.
Mr. SWING. When we see the sun rise we know that it is going to set, and when we
see the floods coming, we know that it is going to be followed by a low river and very
quickly, and we are very anxious.
Mr. RAKER (interposing). What interests do these people represent who have
obtained this injunction?
Mr. SWING. It is the farmers and settlers on the Government project in the Yuma
Valley, which is just across the river from where we have our dam.
I think if I myself was in the Yuma Valley I might feel somewhat exercised about
the matter I want to speak frankly about that. Secretary Lane at the time when
I was here before I expect to file data before the hearings are through to show that
these injunctions are alive and that we are tied up as tight as it is possible to be tied
with the situation now Secretary Lane said referring to this dam:
"This dam is such a menace to the safety of the Yuma Valley that it can only be
permitted as a temporary expedient, pending some adequate provision for fore-
stalling its necessity, such as this contract provides for" that is, the contract for
connecting with the Laguna Dam "and unless the Imperial district takes immediate
steps to secure a satisfactory and permanent method to divert the water of the Colorado
River, I will not again favor the placing of such a structure in the river. "
The acting Secretary of War, Benedict Crowell, at the same time wrote us a letter,
in granting us the permit. He said:
"That dam, " referring to the diversion dam, "is regarded as a serious menace to
the Yuma project, the further toleration of which can be justified by this department
only in connection with convincing proof, such as ratification of the proposed agree-
ment and diligence in carrying out the provisions of a definite and dependable plan
of diversion. "
Mr. RAKER. That is the dam which you maintain at the head of the Imperial
Valley now?
Mr. SWING. Yes.
Mr. RAKER. How will those people get the water out of the dam if the American
side do not use it any more down on the Mexican side?
Mr. SWING. I do not know.
Mr. RAKER. I am seeking information on that. Will they have to get it through the
same ditch and dam?
Mr. SWING. Most of the time they could get some water out of the river through this
heading which we will virtually abandon.
Mr. LITTLE. They could not if Yuma objected?
Mr. SWING. They could get it out except in low season. Or they could make a con-
tract with the district or with the Secretary of the Interior or the Government, and
get their water in that way.
Mr. LITTLE. May I ask this question, Judge Swing: If you abandon that heading,
could not the Yuma people make it impossible for anybody in Mexico to get water out
of it?
I Mr. SWING. Oh, yes, certainly; and they would object, of course, to putting in any
more dams.
Mr. LITTLE. It does not really deprive the Mexicans of anything they have got?
Mr. SWING. No; I think they would have the property that costs us very close to
$3,000,000.
14 DKVELOPMEXT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Mr. LITTLE. It would not help them any if they could not use it?
Mr. SWING. The third factor and the main far-tor which threatens the Imperial
A'alley is the flood water of the river itself.
Mr. LITTLE. May I ask one more question?
Mr. SWING. Ye?, sir.
Mr. LITTLE. Is the Reclamation Sendee of the I'nited States the plaintiff in that s
proceeding?
Mr. SWING. No.
Mr. LITTLE. Who is it?
Mr. SWING. The Yuma County Water Users' Association is the plaintiff.
Mr. RAKER. Before you go on to the others, what is the name of that governor we
met down there a year ago last spring?
Mr. XICKEKSON. We cannot keep up with them. They have had four governors
during the last vear.
Mr. RAKER. When we were down there we spent a day with the governor of Lower
California, the man who used to be the banker, and he told us that they were ready
and willing and anxious to adjust this matter with the United States and would do
everything they could. I wanted to learn why they were holding it up and he talked
it over openly and frankly with Mr. Xickerson and others and they said they were
not, that they were very anxious and willing to get it to Mexico Citv. and I wondered
what has been done in getting this matter adjusted so we would not have this bugaboo.
Mr. SWING. I think the State Department has under three different administra-
tions taken the matter up with Mexico and has gotten nowhere. The present situa-
tion amply suits them. While they have no legal prior water right, they have some-
thing just as good the physical control of all the water.
Mr. RAKER. Explain just how it suits them.
Mr. SWING. I say. while they have no legal priority of ri^ht to the water, they have
the physical possession of it. which enables them to absolutely control the use of the
water and enables them to take all thev want and when they want it.
Mr. XICKERSON. At the expense of the people on this side of the line?
Mr. SWING. Yes. sir; we bear the brunt of the expense. They pay something, but
it is nowhere near their proportion of the full cost of getting the water in and keeping
the flood out.
Mr. SINNOTT. Mr. Swing, does the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the
Colorado-Wyoming case throw any light on your situation?
Mr. SWING. Oh. not with reference to Mexico. It seems to me. however, that that
decision did furnish the Colorado River Commission a yardstick with which to meas-
ure off the rights of the various States in and to the waters of the river. Do you not
think so, Mr. Leatherwood?
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. We do not propose to measure our cloth by that yardstick, we
will say very frankly to you. gentlemen, unless we have to.
Mr. SWING. Well, the decision of the United States Supreme Court is usually con-
sidered final, even when we do not like the decision.
Mr. SWING. This river, as you know, as all silt-bearing rivers, continues to build
itself up and up like the crater of a volcano, until it gets up to where the law of gravit \
begins to operate and pulls it off down one bank or the other.
Mr. RAKER. Slop over?
Mr. SWING. Xot only slops over; it goes over bodily to one side or the other, and
geologists and people who have studied the Imperial Valley and that country down
there say they believe that that has been the habit of the river for a long period of
time. Discharging into the Gulf of California it pushed its delta out ahead of it
across the gulf and finally completely divided the gulf, leaving an inland sea, which
subsequently dried up and left the Imperial Valley and the Coachella Valley. Then
at long intervals apart it continued to flow first into the Imperial Valley and then
backing into the Gulf of California. This must have continued for many centuries
because the silt in Imperial Valley is over 600 feet deep, showing that it has been
carried in there in great quantities and over long periods of time.
The river now is trying to break back into the Imperial Valley. It did break
through in 1905-6. Its break into Bee River in 1908-9 was another effort. Xext
it directly attacked our levee along Volcano Lake. It kept building up its bed
alongside the levee forcing us to keep raising the levee. The river built the ground
up south of the levee 8 to 10 feet in the last 10 years. It is an engineering impos-
sibility to raise our dirt levee much higher. In flood season all that country south
of our levee, about 20 miles by 20 miles, is covered by a vast expanse of water, all *
pressing against the levee seeking for a weak point through which it can break. And *
if it does break with all this great volume of water back of it, it will be an entirely
problem from what it was when the river broke in 1905 and the entire flow ran
into the Imperial Valley for nearly a year. In 1905 there was only the current
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 15
running water of the river. Now, if it breaks at Volcano Lake levee there will be
not only the current running water of the river but in addition an accumulation
piled up there for miles behind the levee.
There is the menace of the thing. The normal land, on the north side of the Vol-
cano Lake levee, toward Imperial Valley, is 32 feet above sea level; on the south side,
toward the river, it is 40 feet. In case of a break this great volume of water would
start off with the impetus given it by this 8-foot fall.
Fortunately we have found a temporary expediency which will relieve the situation
somewhat for a year or two. Our engineers recently found a depression between the
old river channel and the one where it is running now; an old watercourse called the
Pescadero; they found by digging a channel about 4 miles, they could connect
this old watercourse with the present channel of the river and divert it to the South
away from Imperial Valley and away from our levees. The river to-day, at 110,000
second-feet, is going into that cut and through the old watercourse to the Gulf.
However, that is only a temporary expedient. It is going to save Imperial Valley
for the time being. But it is just a question of time and a short time at that when the
silt flowing into that depression will fill it up, as it has filled up everything the river has
run into; and we will then have the river back where it was before, with this additional
height to jump off from when it does jump into Imperial Valley. The river, according
to the report that is now before you, carries an average of 113,000 acre-feet of silt per
year. It is not a difficult engineering problem to estimate that capacity and deter-
mine how long it will take to fill it up and be back where it was before.
So that you see it is a race against time as to whether you can construct a storage
dam and reservoir which will control the flood waters of the river before the river
fills up this depression.
Mr. RAKER. It will always require the maintenance of your railroad and your dam
there, will it not?
Mr. SWING. Yes; some levee system will have to be maintained. You know that
country between Boulder Canyon and our country has a desert climate; it does not
rain very often, but when it does, it rains in torrents, and comes down in cloudbursts.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What do the engineers propose to do with that silt of which
you have spoken?
Mr. SWING. Well, suppose nothing was done at all with it, that dam would take
care of the silt for nearly three centuries, according to the estimate of the Reclamation
Service.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. At what height is this dam supposed to be built?
Mr. SWING. At the capacity of 31.000.000 acre-feet some 600 feet high.
This proposition to develop the Colorado River as a unified project, of which Boulder
Canyon Dam is only the first unit, offers to the American people the greatest con-
structive project that has been presented to them for many years. This river, begin-
ning, as it does, some 12,000 or 13,000 feet above sea level, is a river at 8,000 feet
above sea level; for half of its distance it is 4,000 feet above sea level, running through
grand canyons and baby grand canyons and narrow gorges, where nature has already
prepared sites for dams; it seems to me it offers a wonderful opportunity for develop-
ment as a national asset.
Here we have, year after year, millions of acre-feet of water running to waste, and a
menace to life and property while it is running to waste; and let me say just here what
will be emphasized by Senator Evans when he addresses the committee:
The river, right at this time, is running into Palo Verde not simply overflowing
its banks: the river is running into Palo Verde now, and it has flooded three towns
and inundated 30,000 acres of land, and in the opinion of those who know, we think
the river has adopted that valley for its future watercourse.
Now. it is attacking Palo Verde this year; it may be Yuma next year, or it may bo
the Imperial Valley the year after. This river, because of its peculiar physical
characteristics, offers the wonderful opportunity of affording a three-in-one project;
flood control, power development, and conservation of the water for reclamation, all
resulting from one structure.
The Mississippi River, on which this Government has spent $116,000,000 under the
Mississippi Flood Control Commission and I offer no criticism; I think it is the right
thing for the Government to do will not return one dollar of that SI 10.000,000 to the
Treasury of the United States, except in the added prosperity, and safety of our citizens.
That is probably the only way you can handle the floods on the bfiaauBippi. But here
on the Colorado you can absolutely control the flood situation by building a data of this
kind, and get back your money through the sale of power which can be developed
there.
I will file with the committee in a few days a letter emphasizing what this power
development means to the mining interests of Arizona. Nevada, and Utah. That
1316 22 PT 1 2
16 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
country contains some of the greatest mineral deposits in America. Many of them
are low-grade ores, but with a great quantity of cheap power to reduce and transport
tlvm you can make the mining proiitable all through there.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What iield in Utah will be reached by your power scheme?
Mr. SWING. I have not gone into that. I will file a letter on that subject. At the
present time it would only be the lower part of that State that could be reached. But
with the improvements that they are making in electrical transmission. Mr. Hoover
has stated that he believes in the near future it will be practicable to transmit power
commercially 1,000 miles, where to-day it is only being transmitted 500 miles.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is "manaiia" again.
Mr. SWIM;. Well, take the history of electrical development, and how it has moved
up; it started at 125 volts; it has crept up year by year until now they are sending
220,000 volts commercially, and in the laboratories tests made this last year they have
sent a voltage of a million. I do not call it ' ' manaiia " ; I call it to-day.
Mr. RAKER. In addition to the power possibilities, would not a great deal of the
expense of construction and maintenance of the project be returned by irrigation of
the lands?
Mr. SWIXG. Yes. This land to-day is worthless
Mr. RAKER (interposing). How much did they figure that this land could stand
that would be brought under the system how much per acre, I mean?
Mr. SWING. The report provides that the lands shall pay for all irrigation works;
the dam itself, it is estimated, can be paid for by the power.
Mr. RAKER. I know: but does not the report make some estimate as to the amount
per acre that the land ought to pay. or would be justified in paying, if it is made
profitable to cultivate and farm it?
Mr. SWING. I have not seen that estimate. Land in our country, where there is a
long growing period of 11 months, will stand a pretty good charge.
Mr. HAYDEX. Let me say to Judge Raker that there is no irrigable land in the
lower Colorado River valley with an adequate water supply that is not worth at least
$200 per acre from that up.
Mr. RAKER. What I am trying to get at is how much the land would be justified
in paying. If they have made an estimate of 2,000,000 acres of land to be covered by
the project. 60 per cent of which is in the United States, I want to find out what each
acre of that land could properly be compelled to pay toward the construction of the
dam.
Mr. HAYDEX. That depends on what crops the land can produce, which fixes its
value. When I say to you that there is no land irrigable from the lower Colorado River
which would not be worth at least $200 an acre, you can readily determine what it
could pay for an adequate water supply.
Mr. RAKER. And it is now worthless?
Mr. HAYDEN. Without irrigation, it is worthless.
Mr. RAKER. Will you point to the dam on that map on the wall?
Mr. SWIXG. I think this is Boulder Canyon [indicating].
Mr. RAKER. But that does not show the dam.
Mr. SWING. There is a mark there [indicating on the map]. There is a continuation
of Boulder Canyon called Black Canyon; and the sites are being prospected along there
[indicating]. It is very likely that the extension of Boulder Canyon, known as Black
Canyon, will contain the most feasible dam site.
Mr. RAKER. But in addition to that, where the map shows the watershed outlined
in blue, you have not any outline as to the territory that the reservoir would cover,
have you?
Mr. SWIXG. If you will look at these pictures [indicating pictures on wall], you will
see; these pictures were taken by the engineers and myself some distance up the
mountain
Mr. RAKER (interposing). Then you have been down that canyon and wrote the
recent article on ; 'The marvellous canyon"?
Mr. SWIXG. Yes; I have been there.
Mr. RAKER. I have read of that; that was a dangerous trip.
Mr. SWIXG. This picture [indicating] shows a view looking down the river into
Boulder Canyon Gorge. It is about 300 feet across at the water, with the solid granite
walls of the canyon rising 2,000 feet high, at an angle of about 80. We then turned
the camera around on its tripod upstream. This [indicating] shows the reservoir site,
one of the finest in the United States. It is estimated that the dam will back water
40 miles up the Colorado and 30 miles up the Virgin River, which joins the Colorado a
few miles above the dam site.
Mr. RAKER. Will you state for the benefit of the committee the height of that pro-
posed dam? You have two or three levels estimated for?
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 17
Mr. SWING. Yes: that is shown in the report.
Mr. RAKER. But can you not indicate it on that map so that it can be visualized?
Mr. SWING. I can not show it on the map, but it can be found at page 21 of the
report.
Now, just a few more comments while I am on the subject of power. I received
a few months ago and I think all of you did a report from Mr. George Otis Smith,
the Director of the Geological Survey
Mr. RAKER : inter posing). You did not quite answer my question.
Mr. SWING. I beg your pardon. What is it?
Mr. RAKER. I mean, you have the length of the dam and the height, and you have
the watershed on that map, and the location of your dam; but you have not marked
on the map the territory that the reservoir would cover just to visualize it.
Mr. SWING. I can not show it on that map.
Mr. RAKER. You can not do it now; but if you could have that map changed to
show it, that would be valuable to the committee.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That dam simply fills the gorge.
Mr. SWING. Of course, the dam fills the gorge; but he wanted shown on the map
the extent of the territory the reservoir would cover.
Mr. HA YUEN. The area of the reservoir can not be accurately shown on a map of
that scale, which comprises parts of seven States; but if you will examine the Davis
report you will find detailed maps which show the capacity of 10 various proposed
reservoirs.
Mr. SWING. Let me say this, because I have utilized all of my time: The Geological
Survey have gotten out a report which, as I read it, says this: That if these three
factors are constant, the present known oil supply in America, the present quantity
of consumption in America, and the present importation of oil from foreign fields
if these three factors remain constant for a period of 20 years, the total oil supply of
America will be exhausted.
I think that is the most startling statement that can possibly be made as to our
future. It means that we must begin at once to find a substitute for and a supple-
ment to oil, or this country is soing to suffer greatly.
Mr. RAKER. In other words. Judge Swing, this Boulder Canyon Dam and the
results coming from it, not only from irrigation, but from electric power and energy,
as to these great Western States, has about the same relation to them as Muscle Shoals
has to the southern part of the United States?
Mr. SWING. I think we feel as keenly about this in the Southwest as they do about
Muscle Shoals in the South; that it will be one of the greatest benefits to the country.
This is only one unit of the development that is proposed. Secretary Hoover
speaks of 10 dams, beginning here [indicating on map] and going up the stream, as
the complete Colorado River project.
And I want to speak for the complete project. I am not here for just one propo-
sition. I honestly believe that this project, the completed project of the Colorado
River, will be one of the most profitable assets and resources that this country could
possibly develop. I think the returns that it would brine: to the American people
would be many times greater than the returns from the Panama Canal, as .great as
that is. That was built for the world. The citizens along the coast line get the benefit
of that. But this project, in returns to the American people, will be many times
greater.
I think it has got to be developed as a comprehensive whole. I can no more think
of the Government leasing out different segments of this river to independent and
possibly hostile operating concerns one for irrigation, and another for power develop-
ment, each one running his part of it in his own way and for his own purposes and his
own gain in disregard of the effect on the rest of the river than I can think of taking
a great transcontinental railroad line, dividing it up into segments and leasing them
to independent operating companies, and then trying to run transcontinental trains
through from coast to coast without having wrecks on every mile. of the road.
Mr. RAKER. There are now many applications from organizations and institutions
for these sites in piecemeal, are there not?
Mr. SWING. Yes. And nothing could be a greater mistake to the country, in looking
to the future, than to have these reservoirs developed in a hit or miss, haphazard
wav. and possibly at cross purposes with each other; because what is done on one part
of the river directly affects every other part of the river above and below it.
Mr. RAKER. Your judgment is, from your study of this subject, that all of these
should be disallowed and the matter should be handled and developed and improved
by the Government as one project?
Mr. SWING. Yes. I say the Government, because I think it is the only agency that
can coordinate the various interests and activities and develop the various properties
18 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
on this river and impartially distribute the benefits. The Government would develop
the project for the benefit of its citizens, and those citizens living in the States adjoin-
ing the river would, of course, yet the greater direct return from the development.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think we agree as to that. But I want to ask you one ques-
tion: Does not that contemplate, however, the final determination of the commission
now working upon the question of allocating those waters?
Mr. S \vi\r;. I hope the Colorado River Commission will arrive, and speedily arrive, t]
at an agreement. The results of the six meetings that have thus far been held have ^
been very discouraging. It seems to be almost impossible for them to reach an agree-
ment. If they ever reach an agreement. I should be very glad to see that agreement
v ritten right into this bill. But Imperial Valley can not wait an indeterminate
length of time for an agreement by the commission any more than they can wait an
indeterminate length of time for Mexico to enter into a treaty.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Would not that be a very strong argument for this commission
to definitely determine whether it is going to decide anything or not?
Mr. SWING. Yes; I agree with you as to that.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I do not hesitate to say to you that I heartily agree with your
general proposition, but I want to know how these waters are going to be allocated".
Mr. SWING. In this bill, I left that out, because, as I say, when they reach an agree-
ment their agreement can be embodied into this legislation; but as to the power, this
bill says, "Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior shall hold hearings and shall
allocate the power privileges among the states according to their equitable rights and
interests therein."
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I will say. Judge Swing, that it seems to me that you have
made out a case this morning sufficient to show that it is highly important and neces-
sary that this commission should finish up its work and make a final report.
Mr. SWING. No man would say "Amen" to that louder or more earnestly than I
would.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I do not see why a commission should fool around and waste
time for four or five years, in a matter of this importance, as they usually do.
Mr. SWING. Why, if a ship like the Lusitania with 1.500 people on board were to
send in an S. O. S. that it was sinking, you know that our Government would stop
every activity if necessary in order to afford it relief. And yet here in Imperial Valley
you have 50,000 people who are in imminent danger
Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). I do not know how many States I can speak for
in this matter. We are anxious to join with you; but I can say for one of the States,
that we want to know where we will come out as to the upper waters of the river;
and when we can find out where we will come out on the matter, we will join you
shoulder to shoulder.
Mr. SWING. This scheme has wonderful possibilities if it is carried out; there is not
a man who has studied the Colorado River that has not been carried away with the pos-
sibilities that it offers. When Franklin K. Lane came in as Secretary of the Interior,
he knew the Colorado River merely as a stream that had to be crossed on the way from
the East to the West. Eastern people know very little about the Colorado River,
because the channels of trade and travel do not run parallel to it; they bisect it.
But before Mr. Lane left office, he would have given anything in his power to have
been able to say that the development of the Colorado River was started by him.
And the same thing is true of Secretary Fall. Each man who studies into the matter
soon comes to see that here is a gold mine awaiting development. Secretary Hoover
says it will be the most talked of project in America within the next two years.
Mr. RAKER. What is the matter with the commission that they do not get out their
report? Or I will put it this way: What is the fact that is holding their report up?
I think that is the better way to put it.
Mr. SWING. In those cases you have to determine water rights; and you know as
well as I do that that is one of the most complicated subjects there is to handle even by
trained jurists.
Mr. RAKER. Well, why do they not, through our State Department, adjust this
other question of international water rights, so that \ve will have that cleaned up and
be able to put it through without complications?
Mr. SWIM;. I will be glad to see that done.
Mr. HAYDEN. Permit rue to make it plain to the committee that I do not want to see
any agreement or treaty made with Mexico until we have settled our own troubles
in the United States. We must first know the ultimate possibilities, so far as irrigation
is concerned, within the United States. All of the facts should be adequately deter-
mined before Congress or the American Government concedes any water rights to any /
foreign country.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 19
Mr. SWING. I agree with you.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mexico should be made to wait, and can very well be made to wait.
The longer the Mexicans are compelled to wait and to observe that the waters of the
Colorado River are being applied to beneficial uses within the United States, the more
reasonable they will be in dealing with our Government.
Mr. RAKER. You do not get my point. We have the territory and we have the
water and we should push the project. But the point is that while we are adjusting
pur complications in our own States, we have a complication below with Mexico that
it seems to me can well be adjusted.
Mr. HAYDEN. There is no need for haste in arriving at any such adjustment with
Mexico. I am convinced, as any one who has studied the facts and the law must
be, that there is no legal obligation on the part of the United States to give one drop
of water to Mexico, for which a beneficial use can be found within the United States.
Let us start out on that basis. We may ultimately treat with Mexico; but so far as
I am concerned, I shall oppose any kind of agreement recognizing any kind of a
Mexican water right in the Colorado River until it is definitely and finally determined
that there is a surplus of water in that stream for which there is no possible use in the
United States.
Mr. RAKER. Your theory is that we have absolute control of all of that water, and
can dam it up and take it away, and do as we please with it?
Mr. HAYDEN. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You think the States should first settle their rights?
Mr. HAYDEN. Yes. And that is why the Colorado River Commission was estab-
lished by Congress and the seven States of the Colorado River basin.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is what I say.
Mr. SWING. In conclusion may I say that I hope the committee will have such
hearings as are necessary to inform itself on this proposition and enable it to determine
what in its opinion is the broad and statesmanlike policy to pursue in this matter;
and that then it will get busy and help us to get this started.
When we were here in 1919 you sent us away to await the determination of this board
of inquiry which was appointed under the Kinkaid bill which this committee
reported to the House and had passed by Congress. Under that law the report of that
commission was prepared. The Government appropriated $20,000 for its expenses.
The Imperial Irrigation District was supposed to match that, dollar for dollar. Instead
we appropriated $40,000 to begin with. Then we appropriated $30,000 additional,
making $70,000; and we have recently appropriated $30,000 more, making a total of
$100,000 advanced by Imperial Valley to enable the Government officials to make as
exhaustive an investigation as they cared to make. We are now back here again
at the earliest possible moment after the official report was completed to represent
this matter to you; and this report of the Secretary of the Interior we approve in the
main, and think it is a step in the right direction.
Mr. BARBOUR. If we have to wait for this commission to determine the water rights
when can we go ahead with any idea of accomplishing something?
Mr. SWING. Those commissioners could get together and reach an agreement within
30 or 60 days. Whether they will do that or not I do not know. That was the hope
that we had in starting it that, instead of having to have cases go through the district
court, the circuit court of appeals, and the supreme court, and then back again and
not for one community alone, but for 150 communities as each community litigated
its water rights with its neighbor and with the rest of the 149, through a period of 50
years, with the resulting waste of time and money and holding back the development
of the country, these men on this commission, honest men, citizens, neighbors,
and representatives of the people who will derive the greatest benefit by having the
Government do this work, would get together and say, "Let us cut out the red tape;
let us cut out the delay and loss of time in getting the thing started; and let us agree
on this thing as friends and neighbors and men. Let us enter into an agreement and
get this thing started, so that in our day and age, and while we are still alive, we can
see some of the many benefits returned to our country. "
Mr. HARBOUR. Yes; but if we have to wait until they get through, we may have to
wait a long time.
Mr. SwiNc;. Well, I will say that we in the Imperial Valley and the people of the
Lower Colorado River can not wait. As I said before, I will say very earnestly again,
that this is a race against time. Here is this little depression that can take care of that
silt for four or five years. After the water that will again back up onto Imperial
Valley, as it did in 1905 and 190G; and when it does there will be a much grea lei-
flood and a much greater disaster than there was before. So that it is a race against
time to get this dam started.
20 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO J1IYKK BASIN.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Let me ask you this question: As I said a moment ago, I
represent a State that is anxious to cooperate. It is a State, however, that has a
great many fertile acres that it is possible to reclaim from this river and its tributa-
ries. Now, do you not think that it is highly important, in order to solve this ques-
tion, that some decision be made as to the allocation of those waters?
You say that you can not wait down in your country. I do not care to take the SL
time of the committee to discuss that now. But if you go ahead with this project U
and allow this commission simply to hold back and do nothing, and no agreement is
reached as between the States, then you may foreclose States having thousands of
acres up the river, which would be affected from future development, and I say that
they can not afford to sit still and see a decree entered against them without protest.
Now, what we want to do is to avoid the protest.
Mr. SWING. I think you and Mr. Arentx and Mr. Montoya and Mr. Hayden and I
could sit here and reach a reasonable agreement in short order. But if you have
read the hearings of the commission carefully. I think you will not blame the failure
to reach an agreement upon the representatives from California. New Mexico, Arizona,
or Nevada.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I am not protesting or complaining; I am simply stating our
attitude.
Mr. SWING. I will say that the delay is not due to the position taken or the conten-
tions made by the representatives from Arizona, California, Nevada, or New Mexico.
There were people on that commission, however, who did not want to reach an agree-
ment. If this committee will take action on my bill, it will do more than anything
else to hurry an agreement of the Colorado River Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to terminate the hearing this morning abruptly; but
on account of matters that will come up in the House to-day, in which several members
of the committee are concerned, it will be necessary to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. SWING. Yes; I came here merely to introduce this delegation to the commit-
tee. It was intended that they should do the talking, instead of which I have taken
all the time.
The CHAIRMAN. \Ve will adjourn until 10.30 o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. SWING. Thank you for the opportunity.
(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until Fridav, June 16.
1922, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)
COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, June 16, 1922.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. M. P. Kinkaid (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, we have before us to-day Director
Davis, of the Reclamation Service, and I take it we are now ready to hear him.
STATEMENT OF MB. ARTHUR P. DAVIS, DIRECTOR RECLAMATION
SERVICE.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, on the recommendation of this committee the Congress
passed an act in 1920, approved on May 18 of that year, ' ' To provide for an examination
and report on the condition and possible irrigation development of the Imperial Valley
in California."
The report thus called for by Congress lias been recently printed and is in the hands
of the committee. In pursuance of the idea which was back of that act of Congress
and of the recommendations of the report, this bill, H. R. 11449, has been introduced,
and a report has been received from the Secretary of the Interior recommending,
with minor amendments, that it do pa-^.
The report is e-^ontially that of Secretary Fall, personally. Recommendations
were made by the Reclamation Service but were modified in the Secretary's office
and very carefully gone over by him in person and modified to a considerable extent,
and in my judgment improved. The legislation for currying out the recommenda-
tions of this report consists, in the main, in the recommendation for the building
of a canal to irrigate the high lands and serve the low lands also, of the Imperial
Valley, diverted at the Laguna Dam about 12 miles above the city of Yurna. be-
tween southern Arizona and California: also the constni'-iion of a reservoir in the
neighborhood of Boulder Canyon near Las Vegas, Nev., which would have a capacity /"
large enough to conserve and regulate the waters of the Colorado River, The. pri-
mary purpose of that reservoir is to control the waters and bring to an end, so far as
that may do so, the menace to the Imperial Valley. That menace is one that has been
standing and has been growing for many years.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 21
The Colorado River drains a very large basin about 244,000 square miles. Through
the upper part the precipitation is largely in the form of snow and comes off in the
spring and early summer and forms a very large stream in the process always. Through
the middle portion the river and its tributaries flow through canyons that they have
eroded and are still eroding in the course toward the sea. In that course the river
has a very large fall and the erosive power is very great. With sand cut loose from
the rock -the water using that sand as a tool grinds away on the remaining rock and
accumulates more and more of these tools and as it passes through the canyon be-
comes a stream very heavily ladened with sediment.
At the southern line of Nevada, where it is proposed to build a reservoir, it is
estimated from observations that the river discharges an average amount of over
80,000 acre-feet of sediment annually. The annual discharge of the river at that
point will average about 17,500,000 acre-feet, a portion of which is lost by evapora-
tion and seepage before it reaches Laguna Dam.
The problems of this river are largely complicated by the irregular flow. The
water is used to some extent for irrigation in the upper basin; about 1,500,000 acres
are irrigated in that region, and the balance flows down through the canyon. In
some parts of the basin all of the low water flow is already appropriated and diverted.
That is true of many of the smaller tributaries and of Grand River, the largest tribu-
tary, in the neighborhood of Grand Junction, Colo., but the river has many tribu-
taries below those points and discharges large quantities of water in the flood season
not now appropriated or used in any way. .So that with the deduction that irriga-
tion makes in the upper basin, the discharge at Boulder Canyon will average about
17,500,000 acre-feet per annum. This comes largely in the spring and earL summer
months; the rest of the year, about eight months, is mainly seasons of low water.
The low water flow is diverted in the neighborhood of the Mexican line for the irriga-
tion of Imperial Valley and at Laguna Dam for the irrigation of the Yuma project
and in extreme low years, the low water flow is all diverted for those purposes and
there have been slight, although not disastrous, shortages of water once or twice it,
their history, and as the irrigation grows, of course, that is likely to be intensified,
and no very large expansion of irrigation in the Imperial Valley or any other part
of the lower stream is possible without the storage of water for irrigation. Thus,
regulation for storage constitutes a secondary but very important function of the
storage that is proposed.
In the investigations that have been in progress in this river basin through the
last 25 years, a great deal of information has been compiled and stream measure-
ments have been made at various points. Irrigation has been growing and the infor-
mation has been accumulating. We have investigated many irrigation projects in
all of the States which are drained by this river, seven in number. In Wyoming there
are possibilities of irrigation and water storage. There are some in Utah and a still
larger number in Colorado. There are some in New Mexico, and Arizona can use a
large portion of the waters of the tributaries of the Colorado when they are developed.
There is also some use possible in southern Nevada, although only a small area is
drained and that is relatively arid in character. But the largest area which can be
served from the Colorado River is in California. There are some small valleys, but
the Imperial Valley is the bulk of the irrigation possible in that State from the Colorado
River.
As irrigation grows in the upper basin and throughout the basin, the water supply
will be more or less consumed, and if that growth continues the present appropriations
of water on the lower river would be embarrassed and would be interfered with,
unless some means were taken to interfere with the development above, and this
problem really brought to the engineers investigating this project the fact that while
there is an abundance of water in the Colorado River basin, if properly conserved,
to serve all the lands that can be feasibly and economically reached and served from
that river, that is not true unless the river is properly regulated and conserved, and
with the recognition of the prior right of early appropriators to the water which they
appropriate, now recognized by all of the seven States which this river drains, and also
by the Supreme Court of the United States, as being the ruling law on this subject,
the strict enforcement of which would prevent any further development in the upper
basin during the low-water season. If the priorities already acquired on the lower river
were strictly enforced they would interfere with any further development of the low-
water flow in the upper basin; and to prevent that interference and permit the full
development of the States above, six of which can utilize the tributaries of the ( 'olorado
River all of them can except California to prevent interference with their develop-
ment, it is necessary to conserve the waters of the Colorado River and regulate it so
that the further diversion of the low-water flow in the upper basin will not interfere
either with present irrigation or with further development in the lower basin.
22 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. LITTLE. May I ask you a question there, Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Certainly.
Mr. LITTLE. Would it be practicable to make a brief statement here of the lower
rights that have been developed that would interfere with the upper rights, stating
what they were and the amount of each, and under what right they arose.
Mr. DAVIS. The figures on that
Mr. LITTLE (interposing). I did not mean for you to do that just now. fl
Mr. DAVIS. I can put that in the record at this point. The principal developments V
in the lower basin are the Imperial Valley and the Yuma project and some small
diversions above those points, but those two are the main ones.
Mr. LITTLE. That is not it. What I wanted to get was a statement of what settled,
legal right they had that gave them a priority, and how great the amount was.
Mr. DAVIS. The priority is due to use, to the present irrigated area which is the
best index to the answer to your question, and is about 400,000 acres in the Im-
perial Valley irrigation district.
Mr. SWING. About 415,000.
Mr. DAVIS. About 415,000 acres in the Imperial irrigation district and about 120,000
appropriated, of which about two-thirds has been used, on the Yuma project.
Mr. LITTLE. Then there is no statutory provision that would have that effect.
Mr. DAVIS. No statutory provision. There are statutory provisions in the individual
States that give priority of right and which would apply against any other appropriator
in that State. The Supreme Court of -the United States recently handed down a
decision sustaining that principle.
Mr. LITTLE. Would you be good enough to put that decision in the record?
Mr. DAVIS. Certainly. I have not yet received a copy of that decision and it is
only rumor as to just what it provides, but I think that is correct.
Mr. SWIXG. That was in the case of Wyoming r. Colorado.
Mr. HAYDEN. I inquired of the clerk of the Supreme Court yesterday who said that
the decision would probably be available early next week. I hope that it can be
printed in these hearings.
(NOTE. The Supreme Court decision referred to is printed at the conclusion of Mr.
Davia's remarks.)
Mr. RAKER. Is there any contest between the Yuma project and the Imperial
Valley now as to the priorities.
Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; that was settled by contract a few years ago. The Secretary
of the Interior, on behalf of the Yuma project and also of the United States, entered
into a contract with the Imperial irrigation district in which a division is made of
the waters there definitely.
Mr. RAKER. So that question is settled.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. RAKER. Where does this contest come from, spoken of yesterday relative to
some one serving an injunction upon the Imperial Valley people for putting in this
dam which they put in every year to divert the water.
Mr. DAVIS. That comes from the Yuma project. That, however, is not a contest
over water. It is a fear on the part of the Yuma project that a diversion dam built
near the Mexican line, a few miles below Yuma, will imperil that valley by diverting
the river into it. It is a dam that is necessary to divert water into the Imperial
Canal. That, however, I understand, is in process of settlement. There is a contract
entered into by the Imperial irrigation district with the United States, the same one
that divided the waters, and that provides that the Imperial irrigation district shall
build a high-line canal and take its water from the Laguna Dam, and the contract
provides for the right to do that, and for the obligation also. When the water is all
taken from the Laguna Dam, which is a dam with rock abutments, so that there is no
danger of the river going around it and one which has been in service a long time,
then the menace of a diversion below will be removed. That menace would be
partly removed by the regulation of the river.
The Reclamation Service has built a number of projects in the basin of the Colorado
River. Two are in the State of Colorado, one taking water from the Gunnison River,
a tributary of the Grand River, and one taking water directly from the Grand River,
called the Uncompahsre project and the Grand Valley project. There is a project
in Utah taking water from the drainage of the Colorado River into the drainage of
Utah Lake, and that is known as the Strawberry Valley project. There is a project
also on the drainage of the Colorado in Arizona, storing water in the Roosevelt Reser-
voir on Salt River for use in the Salt River Valley, which is a tributary of the Colorado. ,,
There are other projects that have been investigated, but before and after the adoption /
of these projects that have been built and show that there is a considerable expansion
of irrigation still possible, there being a possibility of building that irrigation up to
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 23
about 4,000,000 acres in the total, instead of 1,500,000 acres. In order to do that it
is necessary to build reservoirs, and in investigating this whole problem investiga-
tions have been made as to the storage of water in all promising places in the entire
basin, and it has been found that storage reservoirs of large capacity and feasible of
construction at moderate cost can be built on Grand River, the lowest one being at
Dewey and the upper one being known as the Kremmling Reservoir. Reservoirs
are also possible and feasible on the Green River. The one that seems to be the most
promising at the present time is in Flaming Gorge, just south of the Wyoming line.
Small reservoirs can be provided on the tributaries for regulating the water for use
in Wyoming.
The question has been studied whether or not the storage of water for the lower
river could be feasibly and properly accomplished in the upper basin, and whether
or not it' would solve the problems as well as below.
Mr. HAYDEN. I am interested in that phase of the Colorado River problem, and I
would like to have you elaborate on it. Prof. G. E. P. Smith, an irrigation engineer
connected with the College of Agriculture of the University of Arizona, stated not
long ago that in his opinion the quickest way to regulate the floods of the Colorado
River for the protection of the Imperial Valley is to build the Flaming Gorge Reservoir
and to utilize the Dewey Reservoir site which you have just mentioned.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, may I hang one of the maps which I brought
with me?
I wanted this map [indicating] because it shows the reservoir sites which have been
investigated in the basin. They are marked in red and show vividly. The map
shows that there are possibilities on the upper tributaries of the Colorado River for
storage. The Flaming Gorge site, which I mentioned, is in southern Wyoming, the
south end of the reservoir being just south of the Wyoming-Utah line. That is the best
site and is a very feasible site, with a large water supply; and the best one on the
Grand River for the purpose of regulating the water is at the Dewey site in eastern
Utah near the Colorado line.
Mr. HAYDEN. Those are the two reservoirs on the headwaters that Professor Smith
has recommended. He said that there would be no engineering difficulties, nothing
new or experimental in their construction, that the dams would not be any larger
than the Roosevelt Dam and that the work could begin right away, which would give
protection to the Imperial Valley in a much less period of time than to wait for the
construction of the great dam at Boulder Canyon.
Mr. DAVIS. I am well acquainted with Professor Smith, and he is a very able and
intelligent gentleman and on most subjects I agree with him. It is true that those
two reservoir sites have been thoroughly tested, the foundation has been explored
and they are both feasible and relatively reasonable in cost. They intercept about
three-fourths of the flow of the Colorado River and approximately one-fourth of the
drainage area.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Would they simply be used as storage reservoirs for water to
be used lower down or is there any irrigation project in that locality?
Mr. DAVIS. Flaming Gorge could be used on lands in Utah and Colorado; Dewey
could not. The Dewey site on the Grand River is below any irrigable lands in that
basin and it would be useful only for regulating the river through and below the
canyon.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is there enough water in tliis water basin to irrigate all the
lands to which water could be applied north of Bowlder Canyon and still have sufficient
to take care of the lands in the Imperial Valley and adjacent lands?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; if you confine that to lands which can be feasibly reached
and with some to spare.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Then why are there objections to this project on the part oi
some of the people in Colorado and elsewhere?
Mr. DAVIS. Well, there are three reasons why these two sites do not solve the ques-
tion that I speak of. In the first place, they have not adequate capacity. They are
smaller than is necessary.
Mr. RAKER. Where is the Glen Canyon?
Mr. DAVIS. A little lower down there you will find the dam site, in northern
Arizona.
Mr. RAKER. That covers a very large territory, does it not?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. The reservoirs spoken of, Flaming Gorge and Dewey, if built,
would regulate the main flow of the water in a manner adequate for irrigation and for
power through the Boulder Canyon or in any part of the Grand Canyon region; that is,
any point below the junction of the Green and the Grand Rivers. They would not,
of course, intercept all of the water and would not make as large a quantity available
for power, but would make available a sufficient quantity to satisfy irrigation needs.
24 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER I'.ASIX.
The Flaming Gorge Reservoir is the most valuable and promising site at which to
develop power for use in that region and is now desired for the development of power for
use in Salt Lake City and in the mining regions of Utah. If it were built for irrigation
or flood-control purposes, in the lower basin, it could not, of course, be used in the
method necessary for the development of power. The same thing is true of its use
for the development of irrigation in the upper basin, and it can be used for that pur-
pose, and those two uses, power and irrigation, up there, are so antagonistic to the
uses of the valley below, for which it would be confined to a draft of about three
months, and that at a different part of the year from what it would be used above, that
the use of reservoirs in either of those places for the benefit of the valley below would
destroy large resources of the upper States. That is the main objection.
The other objections are that they do not solve the problem. While they intercept
about three-fourths of the actual flow of water, it is the regular flow from the mountains
that comes to them. They do not intercept the flashy flood flows that cause the
damage. Three-fourths of the basin or more would be left unintercepted by those
two reservoirs, I think nearly four-fifths, and all of it is subject to great floods and a
great deal of it to heavy flow at times from the mountains, so that the floods would not
be regulated. To illustrate the importance of that, I wish to call attention to the fact
that the Gila River in southern Arizona, which has 57,000 square miles of drainage, or
about 22 per cent of the entire drainage of the Colorado River, discharges only
6 per cent of the water of that basin, but it furnishes flood waves at times which are as
great as the maximum flow of the Colorado River itself above the mouth of the Gila.
So that in the final regulation of the stream at Yuma and below, it will be necessary
to provide a dam on the Gila. The Gila floods, however, are not nearly so menacing
to the Imperial Valley as the Colorado, because they are very brief and although th,ey
might break the levees and break into the valley they are over in time to allow the
break to be repaired at low water, instead of continuing for months at a high water
stage like the Colorado River does.
Mr. HAYDEN. In other words, the flood season on the Gila is not the same as on the
Colorado.
Mr. DAVIS. That ie true. It floods in the winter and early spring, while the Colorado
fleods in the summer.
Mr. HAYDEN. Let me see if I understand vou correctly.
Your first objection to the construction of the reservoirs at the Flaming Gorge and
Dewey sites is that if they were used for the purpose of regulating the floods so as to
protect the Imperial Valley the release of the water would have to be made at such
times as to seriously interfere with a constant market for power in Salt Lake or Denver
or other cities and towns in that vicinity.
Mr. DAVIS. It would destroy their use for power purposes almost.
Mr. HAYDEN. So that the people in the upper section of the Colorado River Basin
who are interested in obtaining power feel that it would be better to have the flood
waters stored at some other place farther downstream and allow these two dams to be
built primarily for power purposes.
Mr. DAVIS. And also for irrigation. Flaming Gorge is of use for irrigation and could
be used for both irrigation and power.
Mr. HAYDEN. Your second objection is that the waters entering these two reservoirs
largely come from melting snow which runs off slowly, and that therefore they would
not control the flashy floods that are the real menace to the Imperial Valley.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, there is a great deal of water that comes at high times, and those
reservoirs would contribute to the control of the damaging floods, but they leave
more than three-fourths of that basin uncontrolled and on the maximum floods would
have but little influence, for two reasons the reservoirs might be discharging at that
time as their capacity is not great, and they would not be sufficient to hold all of the
water in the basin back, either one of them; but the reasons you have given are the
principal ones. In the first place it does not solve the flood problem and in the second
place it would destroy resources in the upper States to use the reservoirs for that
purpose.
Mr. LITTLE. Have you any suggestion to offer as to what additional provisions
should be made to meet this other emergency? Are there other places available?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. This map shows that there are two reservoir sites on the main
stream of large capacity, one at Glen Canyon, where the river enters Arizona, and one
about 300 miles farther down at Boulder Canyon, where the river forms the boundary
between Arizona and Nevada. The Boulder Canyon site will hold a little more
water for a given height of dam than the Glen Canyon site. It is also below and inter-
cepts about 50,000 square miles of drainage area which Glen Canyon does not inter-
cept. It is also, of course, much nearer to the necessary market for power on the
Pacific coast.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 25
The report recently issued discusses this question briefly and recommends the
construction of the reservoir in Boulder Canyon. Investigations have been made with
that in view and are still in progress. We have found one good, feasible dam site
but there are numerous places in the canyon where a dam can be built, and it is desir-
able to get it at the lowest point in the canyon possible so as to utilize whatever fall
is available, because a second dam in the same canyon, of course, would not be a
practical proposition, and with that in view we are making additional investigations
and the last investigations were made at the point indicated on that map as the dam
site in Black Canyon.
Mr. UAYDEX. Black Canyon is just below Boulder Canyon?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes; it is simply a continuation of Boulder Canyon.
Mr. HAYDEN. What funds have you available to continue this engineering investi-
gation?
Mr. DAVIS. The appropriation bill passed for the Interior Department recently
contains an item of 100,000 for carrying on the investigation of the Colorado River.
Mr. HAYDEN. It is your purpose to use such funds to thoroughly explore every
possible site in Boulder and Black Canyons so as to finally determine where the best
location is?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAYDEN. And the farther down the river you could find a feasible site is where
you would locate the dam?
Mr. DAVIS. I think so. Of course, we have to take many other things into consid-
eration the depth to rock and everything of that kind but, other things being equal,
it is desirable to locate it as far down the stream as possible.
Mr. HAYDEN. You have mentioned the Glen Canyon Reservoir site. If you are at
all familiar with the discussion that has been going on in the Southwest, you are
aware that the construction of a reservoir at Glen Canyon, near Lee's Ferry, where,
I understand, the canyon walls are some 1,300 feet high
Mr. DAVIS (interposing). So they are at Boulder.
Mr. HAYDEN (continuing.) The plan suggested is that instead of building an ex-
pensive stone and concrete dam, as is proposed in your Boulder Canyon report, to
place immense charges of dynamite in the upper part of each of the walls of Glen
Canyon and blast them down into the river bed so as to make a great rock-fill dam.
The canyon, as I understand it, makes a sharp bend there, and the plan would be to
thus build this rock-fill dam and then cut through the bend for a spillway and for
power development. So many people have written to me in regard to the Glen
Canyon Dam that I shall be greatly obliged if you will discuss the possibilities there.
Please tell us what investigations the Reclamation Service has made, and whether it
is possible to build that kind of a dam so as to control the flood waters of the Colorado
River. If you could blast the rock into the Canyon and build a dam in that way,
obviously it would be very much cheaper than a structure made of stone and concrete.
Mr. DAVIS. I have given a great deal of consideration to that question and have
discussed it. The first proposition I ever knew for doing that was for the Boulder
Canyon Dam. Our engineers have studied that and I do not agree it would be cheaper
to do it. If all the necessary precautions were taken to make that dam safe, it is very
doubtful whether it would be cheaper. It is so unprecedented in its attempt that
I do not regard it as wise to do it. It is not, however, beyond consideration at the pres-
ent time because nothing has been done that might not permit that type of dam to
be built, but it is irrelevant to this question because it can be done just as well in
Boulder Canyon as it can in Glen Cauoa, because of the high walls.
Mr. HAVDKN-. If the scheme of blasting rock from the sides of the canyon is feasible
at (Jlen Canyon it is just as practicable at Boulder Canyon?
Mr. DAVIS. Certainly; nobody has ever mentioned any reason why it would not
be, and we considered and estimated for it at Boulder Canyon a year and a half ago
and decided upon the other type of dam.
Mr. HAVDKN. What was the principal engineering reason which led you to that
decision?
Mr. DAVIS. Safety.
Mr. HAYDEV. In other words, you believe that a dam of that kind would not stay
in the river after the rock is blasted in.
Mr. DAVIS. Ye.s. A paper advocating that type of dam has been published in the
proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and I have sent my views on
that subject to that society for publication, and they will appear in the next issue of
the proceedings, I think. Of course, it is a technical question and others are discussing
the matter, and it would hardly be profitable, I think, to undertake that discussion
now because, for one thing, both sides are not represented here, and it is a \ cry tech-
nical question and it would take a day or two to discuss it.
26 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Mr. HAYDEX. What investigations have been made at Glen Canyon to determine the
depth to bedrock.
Mr. DAVIS. None.
Mr. HAYDEX. Have you any funds available to make such an investigation?
Mr. DAVIS. Our- present appropriation would be available for that purpose, as 1
interpret it. ^
Mr. HAYDEX. If it is available, would it be adequate to do that work? y
Mr. DAVIS. No, it would not, unless we neglected other work.
Mr. HAYDEX. You have $100,000 available that could be expended anywhere on the
Colorado River.
Mr. DAVIS. Anywhere in the basin: yes.
Mr. HAYDEX. As I stated before, there has been such great interest shown in the
Glen Canyon dam site that if funds are available it would seem to me to be highly
desirable to take a diamond drill and find out how far it is to bedrock there, as one
element that would determine its feasibility.
Mr. DAVIS. The exploration would be very expensive, because it is a long way
from the railroad and from supplies' of any kind, and it would be very expensive to
bring in the machinery" and to get the men there and would require a large appropria-
tion. I suppose that is the reason it has not been done before, because the power
companies have considered it and abandoned it. A survey of the Glen Canyon site
was made by the Geological Survey, but the Reclamation Service has made no in-
vestigation of that site on the ground, but it has been listed and its capacity known
for years and has been included in our list of possible reservoir sites. It. however,
leaves 50,000 square miles of drainage above the Boulder Canyon site unintercepted.
Mr. HAYDEX. That would be the drainage from the Virgin and the Little Colorado?
Mr. DAMS. The Little Colorado, the Paria. the Virgin. Grand Wash, Kanab Creek,
Diamond Creek, and many other tributaries.
Mr. SUMMERS. Would the construction of either one of the proposed dams have
any deleterious effect on the Grand Canyon National Park?
Mr. DAVIS. Xo: neither one would have any effect on it at all, because they are
both remote from that park. Glen Canyon is a long distance above the park. As
you will see, the park is colored there in purple. The Boulder Canyon is a long
distance below it.
Mr. SUMMERS. Perhaps 150 miles.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. There are two good power sites which should be developed
between Boulder Canyon and the Grand Canyon Park that would not interfere with
it at all, and there is one good one between Glen Canyon and the Grand Canyon Park
that would not touch it at all.
Mr. HAYDEX. You have reference to the Diamond Creek power site?
Mr. DAVIS. Diamond Creek is one and then there is room for another between
that and Boulder Canyon.
Mr. HAYDEX. If the application made by James B. Girand, of Phoenix, for the
Diamond Creek site, now pending before the Federal Power Commission was allowed,
would it in any engineering way interfere with the construction of the Boulder Canvon
Dam?
Mr. DAVIS. No.
Mr. HAYDEN. I understand the Federal Power Commission has determined not to
grant any water power applications on the stream pending action by the Colorado
River Commission looking to an equitable distribution of its waters between the
seven States interested. Also that no applications will be approved pending the
determination of the question as to whether the granting of any such applications
would interfere with any Government dams. Has there been any especial objection
made to granting the Girand application by reason of any interference in any way
with the Boulder Canyon dam?
Mr. DAVIS. Xo; in a physical sense it would not interfere at all.
Mr. HAYDEX. The only possible interference, then, would be that the development
of power at Diamond Creek would supply a market for power which otherwise might
be supplied from the Boulder Canyon dam.
Mr. DAVIS-. Yes. sir.
Mr. HAYDEX. The people in my State. I will say very frankly to the committee, are
immensely interested in the possibilities of the development of power on the Colorado
River. We have no oil field of any kind in Arizona and no large coal field has been
developed. We are compelled to import all of our fuel oil either from California or
Texas and our coal from Colorado or Xew Mexico. The mining industry in Arizona s~
is operating under high costs with tremendous charges for transportation to move out *
the copper. If hydroelectric power is produced on the Colorado River, the mines of
Arizona will be immediate consumers of large quantities of it.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 27
A secondary market for this power, which I believe will in time be very great,
would be the use of electric power to develop water by pumping for the irrigation
of lands within the State. The area of land that can be irrigated in Arizona by gravity
is less than in California, as Director Davis has stated. Therefore, the people of Ari-
zona have an immediate interest in the power question. They are anxious to have
cheap power made available as soon as possible.
Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. SWING. As I understand it. there are no flood -control possibilities to speak of in
connection with the proposed Diamond Creek dam.
Mr. DAVIS. No; the entire canyon between the two sites is a narrow canyon with
practically no storage capacity.
Mr. SWING. It is virtually a pure power proposition.
Mr. DAVIS. Purely.
Mr. SWING. Now, if Diamond Creek dam was built and then we built Boulder
Canyon dam, so far as you can see now or in the near future, is there a market for
the power from both dams?
Mr. DAVIS. Well, that is looking into the fxiture in a way that none of xis is entirely
competent to do.
Mr. SWING. The market is not sufficient for both dams now.
Mr. DAVIS. That is true.
Mr. RAKER. Mr. Davis, if the Government is going in there to build the Boulder
Canyon dam or the Glen Canyon dam with the power possibilities of both, would
it be wise to permit private individuals to go in there in advance and develop power
plants while the Government was proceeding to develop the whole project?
Mr. DAVIS. I think not. That brings me to a question that I was intending to touch
upon. The first section of this bill declares a policy on the part of the Government.
The interrelation of the power possibilities and of the control of floods and of irriga-
tion on that river are so intimate that any conflict of authority is bound to lead to
waste and maybe danger.
Mr. RAKER. Not only that, but what is in my mind is that if we sre starting in to
develop that whole country, if we allow private individuals in the meantime to take
up the choice sites and in addition to that take the market, are not Congress and the
people going to hestitate a good deal about making the general development?
Mr. DAVIS. I think so; yes, sir.
Mr. HAYDEN. In your opinion, if Congress was to take the necessary steps to author-
ize you to commence construction at the Boulder Canyon dam site, do you believe that
you_ would have power available for the State of Arizona as quickly as it would be
available if it were developed by private enterprise at some other site?
Mr. DAVIS. I think we could. There are some advantages in each case and it is a
close question. It might take a little longer at Boulder Canyon or it might take a
little longer at Diamond Creek. The opportunities for diverting the river and making
it safe to work in are better, in my judgment, at Boulder Canyon than they are at
Diamond Creek. The Diamond Creek site, though, is an excellent one for power
and some day ought to be developed.
Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Davis: Is it not a fact that in the
construction of the Boulder Canyon dam or the Glen Canyon dam, if there are
intermediate places where you could develop electric energy, that ought to be done
by the Government first, so as to have that power for use in the construction of either
one of the dams?
Mr. DAVIS. If it could be done cheaper, that is true, but any dam that it i<? wise
to put into the Colorado River has got to be a high dam. The foundation conditions
and the flood conditions are too strenuous there to permit a small dam that would be
safe, and I do not see any very great difference between the time and cost of building
a dam of a sriven height in any good site in that canyon. Some of them are a little
less accessible than others. The one at Glen Canyon ig very inaccessible. It is 130
miles from the railroad and that, of course, would handicap it. The Diamond Creek
site and the Boulder Canyon site are both relatively close to the railroad and that
would be in their favor.
Mr. SUMMERS. How far is the Boulder Canyon from the railroad?
M r. DAVIS. It is about 30 miles on a straight line and 38 miles by the way the wagon
road goes; that is, the dam site that I am speaking of. The Glen Canyon site is about
100 miles farther. The Diamond Creek site is a little closer to the railroad.
Mr. RAKER. What I have in mind is that in the construction of many of these plants
they construct a small plant to use in building the large one. Now, if it was possible
to build, at reasonable cost, a dam or any other structure that would develop electric
energy which could be used in constructing the dam, you would have that power to
supply to the people in the various States that are near by.
28 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. We have tentative plans, not included in this report, looking to
the early development of power for use at that dam and for any other use, of course,
that can be made of it at Boulder < 'an yon. We have got to divert the river in order
to unwater the foundation. Tunnels are made for that diversion. There will have
to be more than one, and probably three, on account of the volume. As soon as the
dam is built high enough, so that there is any considerable head, one of these tunnels
can be closed and machinery installed in it. )
Mr. LITTLE. I beg your pardon, but you say that you will have to divert the river
in order to do something
Mr. DAVIS (interposing). For unwatering the foundation.
Mr. RAKER. You are going to make a tunnel, and then after you get the tunnel
you will have to iill up the tunnel again?
Mr. DAVIS. We might. Those tunnels might be used later, and I think they
would.
Mr. LITTLE. You say for unwatering it?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes; dry-ing it up. We have got to excavate the river without the
water in it. It is entirely feasible and convenient to use one of those tunnels after
the dam is up high enough to give head enough for the purpose, to install machinery
there and develop power which will be used in the construction of the main dam.
That first dam will be built to a certain height, which is described in this report, on
the foundation that it would require for itself only, so as to get that up as quickly as
possible and get away from the menace of floods. That dam would be high enough
to store the floods to some extent and divert them through the tunnel without danger
of its overwhelming the work, and then the excavation below would be finished and
the large dam completed. The first dam would be relatively small, but it would
furnish a head for the power plant in the tunnel, just what Judge Raker has described,
a small plant that would develop power for use on the large dam, and of course would
fit in very well with the cheapest construction of the dam, and I do not know of any
reason why that can not be done as quickly and as well at Boulder Canyon as at any
other place in the canyon.
Mr. RAKER. If there were enough power developed there, in addition to the power
for use of the plant, would that permit of the excess power being distributed and used
by the mines in the valley to which Mr. Hayden has referred?
Mr. DAVIS. Certainly, and that would be a necessary and a very wise part of the
development, because when the dam is completed we need transmission lines and all
the appurtenances, and they can be just as well put in to carry that preliminary
power, and used afterwards for the permanent transmission of power.
Mr. RAKER. So the development by and for the Government, as you have des-
cribed it, would not only help toward the building of the dam but would commence to
develop this territory where the private individuals are now seeking rights for building
dams to establish hydroelectric plants?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; and the only physical difference in the time required is the
availability of funds. If they can get the money quicker than we can, then they can
build it quicker. If they can not, then they can not build it any quicker.
Mr. RAKER. You are not satisfied they could do it any better?
Mr. DAVIS. Xo. The local conditions are such that it is desirable to put that plant
in for the construction of the dam itself, if for no other reason, because it is a very large
work, over 3,000,000 cubic yards of masonry, and a large amount of excavation, which
requires, as everybody knows, a very large quantity of power, and to develop that
power on the ground is the cheapest way of getting it.
Mr. HAYDEX. I understand there is an immediate market in Arizona to-day lor at
least 100,000 horsepower. The copper mines would substitute hydroelectric power for
the power now generated by oil and coal.
Mr. DAVIS. That market for mining purposes in Arizona is one of the outstanding
features of this proposition. The mines of Arizona can not be properly developed
without it, and it is bound to come sometime, and the sooner it conies the sooner that
development will come, and in that development, Arizona being the leading copper
State and very important in gold and silver and other products, the entire country is
interested.
Mr. HAYDEN. I would suggest that you leave out the word ''one. " Arizona, is the
leading copper State.
Mr. DAVIS. I will be glad to dp that. I know it has been the leading State.
Mr. HAYDEX. The statistics will show that Arizona produces more copper than any
other State in the Union. .-
Mr. RAKER. As to the original cost to start the plant, which is the cheaper place? (
Mr. DAVIS. The cost of starting?
Mr. RAKER. Yes.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 29
Mr. DAVIS. In cost I do not think there is very much difference. I do not know
why there should be any. Both will require a railroad. There are a few miles
more of railroad to Bpulder Canyon necessary but not enough to make much differ-
ence. The Diamond Creek site is difficult to reach right in the canyon but very
accessible to a point not far from the site. There is very little difference in the
length of time that would be required. The advantage, I think, would be some-
what with Boulder Canyon, if it *vere planned to build a big dam, because wo would
put in a large plant and could work faster. The present plans for the Diamond
Creek development do not call for nearly as high a dam as the Boulder Canyon Dam.
Mr. SWING. As compared with Glen Canyon, on which no investigation has been
made and which is 100 miles farther away from the railroad, which dam, Boulder
or Glen Canyon, could be built sooner?
Mr. DAVIS. The Boulder Canyon could be built much sooner. We are a year
further ahead on the investigation and there would be pretty nearly a year longer
required to make Glen Canyon accessible for starting the work and getting in the
equipment, and then when you got that you would have a large possibility of power
too far from the market to market it. It is 264 miles farther from the Pacific coast
than the Boulder Canyon site, by transmission line.
Mr. RAKER. With the dam site and with the height of dam you contemplate, your
statement is that it would practically hold back all of the flood waters?
Mr. DAVIS. The most important stream coming in below Boulder Canyon is the Gila.
Mr. RAKER. I know the Gila is below, but I am speaking of the Colorado. It would
be sufficient to control practically all the flood waters of the Colorado?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir: and it is the only site where that can be done.
Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Davis, what is the magnitude of that proposed dam?
Mr. DAVIS. Of course, there are some details of that kind that our investigation may
influence later, but about 600 feet in height.
Mr. SUMMERS. What would be the width at the bottom and at the top?
Mr. DAVIS. The width at the river level is about 340 feet at the site that seems most
promising in the Boulder Canyon, and the width at the top is about 1,200 feet.
Mr. RAKER. Mr. Davis, what is the approximate cost of completing the Boulder
Canyon dam and installing the electric plant there? What is the estimate you have
now?
Mr. DAVIS. The dam itself, by the best estimate we have at present and at the height
I spoke of. would be about $48.000,000. The development of power would be more
gradual. If we are going to build transmission lines, of course that depends on where
you build the line and what kind of line you build, but the development of practically
all of the firm power that this site would furnish would cost just about as much as the
dam or perhaps a little less.
Mr. RAKER. If the Government appropriates the $48,000.000 and the other a n .11. .la
necessary to build the ditch to extend the transmission line, what method and mean.-*
and from what source are you going to get the money back to pay the Government,
for This money expended?
Mr. DAVIS. The lease of the power privileges is ample to cover the cost and pay
interest on it.
Mr. RAKER. What about the use of the water? Would there be anything from
that?
Mr. DAVIS. I think it would be difficult to make any charge for the use of the water
because it would be practically impossible to withhold its benefits. Of course, a
charge could be made on lands not yet opened, if Congress so ordered, but the develop-
ments from the Colorado River that are feasible are so difficult that no very large
charge of that kind could be stood by the average settler.
Mr. HAYDEN. In your opinion the construction of the necessary diversion dams
and canals in order to get the water out of the river, after the Boulder Canyon dam is
built, would amount to practically all reclamation charge that the land could stand?
Mr. DAVIS. Nearly so. in many cases.
Mr. HAYDEX. The reason I asked that question is this: Arizona, being interested
in power and anxious to obtain it as cheap as possible, if a part of the cost of the Boul-
der Canyon dam could be charged to the irrigable land benefited, that amount of the
cost would be taken off of the sum necessary to collect from the sale of power?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAYDEN. In other words, the plan you have proposal is to recover the entile
cost of the dam out of power sales and reimburse the Government in that way. If the
cost of the Boulder Canyon dam is reduced by the amount that might be fairly appor-
tioned to the irrigated lands, the power sharge would be correspondingly reduced?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SUMMERS. Would not the charge for power be based upon the value of the
power furnished? You would not cut that down 50 per cent because you were able
to shift part of the cost of construction over onto the land, would you?
30 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. HAYDEN T . The theory, as I understand it, is that in building this dam Congress
should confer the widest possible public benefit. There are three benefits to be con-
ferred: First and primarily, asset out in the report made by Mr. 'Davis, the relief of the
Imperial Valley from possibility of destruction by flood; second, if stated in this order,
the conservation of the water for purposes of irrigation; and, third, for the develop-
ment of hydroelectric power.
Mr. SUMMERS. When you commence selling that power and regulating the price y
of it in the way you indicated, I think you open up a A-ery different problem.
Mr. HAYDEN. It seems to me that the irrigator under a reclamation project is entitled
to receive his water as cheaply as it can be served to him. I think that is in the
public interest. It would also be in the public interest for the United States to sell
this power as cheaply as it could be sold and still reimburse the Government within
a period of years. The cheaper the power the greater the stimulation to the mining
and every other industry in the entire territory tributary to the power development.
There can be no question but what cheap coal or cheap oil builds up industrial com-
munities and cheap hydroelectric power will do the same thing. The Government
should not seek to obtain a greater revenue out of the development of power on
the Colorado River over and above the amount necessary to recoup itself.
Mr. SUMMERS. Without wishing to interrupt further, my point is that it would not
be proper to shift the cost of construction over to the land, up to the highest point
that it could possibly carry, in order to sell power for less than it was actually worth.
Mr. HAYDEN. I have no such idea in mind.
Mr. RAKER. Mr. Davis, in that connection, if we start out on the theory that this
is entirely for power and that the power will repay the cost of construction and the
maintenance and interest, and it will also irrigate 2,000,000 acres of land, and the
2,000,000 acres of land would not pay anything for the benefits they received, we can
not talk very hard or very long on the question of irrigation and the prevention of
flood, unless they pay a reasonable proportion of the cost for the benefit they receive;
is not that right?
The irrigation resources of the lower Colorado River are limited. There is less
land that can be reached within feasible cost than there is water for. We should
ultimately equalize that river for power purposes, if for no other, and we could use
it all in irrigation if the land was available.
Mr. RAKER. What I meant was that we should not give preference to either, but
if there is a benefit to irrigation and flood control, they should meet some of the cost
that brings about that condition.
Mr. DAVIS. The trouble is that we are talking about a man who is not there, and there
is no way you can make him meet it. He will not meet it unless he chooses, and if
you make the price too high, he will not choose to meet it.
Mr. RAKER. I do not mean to make it too high.
Mr. DAVIS. That is the point. That is what stops development and that is where
the limit is.
Mr. RAKER. I thought we were figuring on the matter of flood control and irrigation.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. And if we thus benefit this 2,000,000 acres of land, they should stand
for a reasonable proportion of the cost.
Mr. DAVIS. While I have not figured it out in detail. I will venture that if you put
enough of the price of the dam upon the land that is to be benefited by flood control
and irrigation to make a difference of 1 mill per kilowatt hour in the price of that
power, it would be prohibitive on most of that land.
Mr. HAYDEX. In your opinion the power resource is so great that there is no ques-
tion about the ability of the Boulder Canyon project both to produce power and then
to sell it at a comparatively low price which will be sufficient to fully reimburse the
Government for the cost of the dam?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes; that is the fact, and the cost of the dam itself is only a fraction of
the cost of that power delivered to the user. In the first place, the installation of
the machinery is about as great in cost as the cost of the dam. The cost of the trans-
mission for distant points would be nearly as great, and the cost of the motors and the
upkeep of the transmission lines and their operation is expensive, and all those things
taken together make the cost of the dam. so far a? it might be saddled onto irrigation
or anything else, relatively trivial.
The proposed plan for paying for the Boulder Canyon Dam from power receipts is
not only the most practical but is the most just. This is illustrated by the operations
of the reclamation act. For example, in Salt River Valley we have constructed a s
project at a cost of about $11,000,000, all of which must be paid back by the farms (
which receive the irrigation water. The city of Phoenix, which pays nothing to the
Government for this work, is the greatest beneficiary of the project, and has in fact
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 31
received benefit? due to this construction far in excess of the entire cost of the project;
but there is no method under existing law by which these benefits can be collected.
The cost must all be carried by the farmer or bv the Government. This is unjust.
The construction of a large reservoir in Boulder Canyon will provide flood control,
making safe the districts below which are now threatened by the floods of the Colo-
rado. It will regulate the river so as to provide irrigation for a large additional acreage
of land. It will furnish cheap po\ver for the mines of Arizona and Xevada. All
these direct benefits will build up the country that is tributary to Los Angeles, San
Diego, Prescott, Phoenix, and the other cities of California and Arizona. There is
no way of collecting from those cities anv portion of the cost except through the sale
of power. Under the plan proposed this does furnish a means by which the cities
indirectly benefited by the development will pay a small portion of the cost of that
development. They have the ability to pay and justice demands they should pay
something for the great benefits conferred in the stimulation of their tributary ter-
ritory.
Mr. HUDSPETH. Mr. Davis, are all of these projects below this proposed dam site.
the Yuma project and the Imperial Valley project. Federal projects?
Mr. DAVIS. Xo. sir; the Imperial Valley was not irrigated by the Government.
The Imperial Valley is a district organization.
Mr. HUDSPETH. As I understood from Judge Swing yesterday, by reason of putting
in this dam you would irrigate about 400,000 acres of land on this side, additional to
what is being irrigated now in the Imperial Valley?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUDSPETH. Would you propose to furnish the water users or the landowners
water free from this project?
Mr. DAVIS. Xo. I would not charge any of this dam to them, but they could not
get water free.
-Mr. HUDSPETH. That point was not clear in my mind.
Mr. DAVIS. In order to reach that land, we will have to build another structure,
which is recommended in this report, a main high-line canal to cost $30,000,000.
The rest of the system would cost a great deal, top.
Mr. HUDSPETH. What would they pay for this additional water that would flow
from this dam?
Mr. DAVIS. Nothing. They would pay for the works necessary to use that water,
and according to my plan would contribute nothing to the res3rvoir itself.
Mr. HUDSPETH. But they would pay additional money to the Government?
Mr. DAVIS. Oh, yes.
Mr. HUDSPETH. For this additional benefit?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAYDEX. You would charge to the Imperial Valley its proportionate share of
the cost of the all- American canal and you would charge to the additional area that
can be irrigated on the mesa above Imperial Valley its share of the cost of that canal
and the lateral ditches that may be necessary. If an appropriation were made by
Congress or the funds provided by any other means, the lands benefited would be
fully charged for the whole cost of that, development?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. HAYDEX. And you think that that cost would be about all the land could stand
without adding any part of the cost of the Boulder Canyon Dam?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir. One of our very serious problems was to determine whether
or not the mesa lands, which are very sandy, were of such character that a poor settler,
the only kind we could get. would go on there and with the charge make good.
Mr. RAKER. Outside of the cost of the construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam,
the subdam you spoke of and the canal would cost about $30.000,000?
Mr. DAVIS. Just the main canal.
Mr. RAKER. The main canal and the subdam there? .
Mr. DAVIS. The dam is already there.
Mr. RAKER. You said there would have to be other appliances.
Mr. DAVIS. I mean the whole distribution system.
Mr. RAKER. That would cost about $30,000,000?
Mr. DAVIS. Xo: the main canal would cost about $30,000,000.
Mr. RAKER. That would cover the present Government land there of about 400,000
acres?
Mr. DAVIS. There is not that much Government land. There is about 100,000
a^res additional, of which less than half is public land. At your left . Mr. < luiinnan. is
a package of pamphlets which go into this subject \vhich has now been broached and
which I would like to have passed ar.mnd to the members of the committee. It is
a report of the board of engineers constituted for that purpose on the all-Americun
canal, which was made about two years ago.
131G 22 PT 1 3
32 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. RAKER. The Government land and all the private land now under irrigation
and all that would be benefited by this all-American canal, costing about s:. 0.000.000,
would have apportioned or allocated to it that charge.
Mr. DAVIS. All the lands benefited: yes. sir.
Mr. RAKER. So there would be no one getting benefit without paying in proportion
to the benefit they obtained?
Mr. DAVIS. That is true.
Mr. HAYDEX. That would also be true as to the proposed irrigation project on the
Colorado River Indian Reservation in Arizona, which has been investigated by the
Indian Sendee?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir: that is the plan.
Mr. HAYDEX. If a diversion dam v ere built at Headgate Rock with canal? and
laterals and levees and other necessary structures to reclaim 100,000 acres of land near
Parker, it is vour idea that all the cost of that project, as I have outlined it. would be
charged to the land benefited, but that any stored water that came down from the
Boulder Canyon Dam would be free of c<
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAYDEN. And the same would be true of any development in the Mohave
Valley made possible by building a dam at Bulls Head Rock?
Mr: DAVIS. Yes. sir.
Mr. HAYDEN. The question has been asked of me by a constituent of mine as to
why it is necessary to specify the All-American canal, which is designed to care for
lands in California, when no mention is made in the bill of the Colorado River Indian
Reservation project and the Mohave Valley project in Arizona?
Mr. DAVIS. They are mentioned in the bill in the general language, but the reason
stress is laid upon the All-American canal and other things and an appropriation
asked, is that it complies \uth the act of Congress which was entitled. "An act to
provide for an examination and report on the condition and possible irrigation develop-
ment of the Imperial Valley in California.'' That is the title of the act under which
we made this report, and these other subjects are so related to the whole Colorado
River that, of course, they come in and were discussed and this bill provides means
by which those canals can be built.
Mr. HAYDEN. It is your contention that, whether the Arizona irrigation projects
are specifically mentioned or not, if the bill as written were to become a law the Re-
clamation Service coula then undertake the reclamation of all the irrigable land below
Boulder Canyon within the United States?
Mr. DAVIS. I think that is correct, as fast as funds are provided.
Mr. RAKEF. In other words, Mr. Davis, the cost of the constru'ction of the Boulder
Canyon dam and its maintenance and the cost of all transmission lines connected with
it would depend upon the repayments from power from that dam exclusively?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. And then below the Boulder Canyon dam, all additional or secondary
projects, like the Indian Reservation spoken of and the all-American canal and any
others, would pay individually for that expense by those who used the water?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. It is a fact. Mr. Chairman, that in the decades of develop-
ment we have had in irrigation, all of the easy projects have been built, apd the only
way of increasing the resources of irrigated land in any part of the West, with a few
trivial exceptions, is by expensive work, that requires a long time for construction
and a great deal of money, and if the cost of those works is increased, some of them
are made not feasible and others are made not feasible for a period of time; and in
this case, where the full conservation of the water is in excess of the land that is
not true everywhere but it is on the lower Colorado it would he a destruction of re-
sources to put any unnecessary charge upon the lands to be irrigated.
Mr. SINNOTT. Mr. Davis, would the primary benefit of this dam be the protection
of the Imperial Valley?
Mr. DAVIS. That is the most urgent thing. Mr. Sinnott; yes. sir.
Mr. SINNOTT. Then in the next place, power?
Mr. DAVIS. In money value the power comes first. In operation. I think irrigation
should have the preference, because it would disturb power very little to accommo-
date itself to irrigation, whereas if you reveised it, you might make prohibitive some
of the irrigation.
Mr. SINNOTT. Can you take care of all the hazards of the river at the Boulder Dam?
Mr. DAVIS. You mean during construction?
Mr. SINNOTT. Xo; I mean after it is constructed, can you care for all the flood waters
of the river at the Boulder Dam?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir; if built as proposed, it will hold more than an entire year's
flow. It will hold nearly all of a maximum year's flow if it were empty. It will not
be necessary, however, to hold it empty, because at that point the floods all come in
about three months; in fact, nearly always in June.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 33
Mr. SiN'NOTT. What is the minimum flow in second feet?
Mr. DAVIS. At that point s '.miething like 4,000 cubic feet per second in very low
years. It seldom goes down to that amount.
Mr. SIXXOTT. What is the mean flow? .
Mr. DAVIS. The mean flow is about 22,000 second-feet.
Mr. SIXXOTT. And the mixirnum?
Mr. DAVIS. Something; like 200.000. as nearly as our records show it.
Mr. SIXXOTT. About four times the low water flow of the Columbia, which is about
50.000 second feet at The Dalles?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. I did not .suppose that the Columbia down at The Dalles ever
got that low.
Mr. SIXXOTT. Yes: the minimum is about 50.000 second feet.
Mr. RAKEK. Mr. Davis. I would like to ask you a, question because this is a matter
that will come up and by getting a little information on it now we will have some-
thing upon which to act. Suppose the Boulder Canyon Dam is put in as designated,
fully equipped with electric distributing lines and all that sort of thing, you can
control all the flood waters?
Mr. I >.\vis. Yes. sir.
Mr. RAKER. Would that relieve the condition down at the diverting dam of the
present Imperial Valley Canal?
Mr. DAVIS. No. Relief at that point requires a connection of the Imperial Canal
with the Laguna Dam, which means the building of about 15 or 16 miles of canal.
Mr. RAKER. The floods being controlled, could those people use their present
works with considerable safety?
Mr. DAVIS. With greater safety, yes. sir: but the floods of the Gila River, of course,
would still be there and until that is taken care of I do not think the conditions would
be entirely safe.
Mr. RAKER. Then with the Boulder Canyon Dam completed and with the present
condition of the works there, the Imperial Valley people are still in the same condition
they are now, by virtue of the flood waters from the Gila River?
Mr. DAVIS. No; not the same condition they are in now, because the major menace
will be removed. The greatest menace to the Imperial Valley is not merely the
breaking of the levees, but a break at the beginning of the high water period of the
Colorado River, when it will be in too large volume to be controlled, and will continue
to run into the valley for a period of months, cutting a great deep gash in there that
it will afterwards be practically impossible or at least very difficult and very expensive
to close, and which would submerge a lot of land before you could get it closed.
Mr. RAKER. If we are now going to relieve them from the flood waters of the Colorado
River, they will still have difficulty on their hands by virtue of the flood waters from
the Gila River, even though the Colorado River floods are controlled?
Mr. DAVIS. Xo, sir; for this reason: The floods of the Gila River are so short that while
they will still have to levee against them, they are not very likely to destroy the levee
because they do not last long enough to cut the banks and" undermine the levee; and
in the second place, if they should destroy the levee and go through, they are over so
quickly that repairs can be made in the dry.
Mr. SWING. The Imperial Valley would still have the problem of getting the water
out of the river and getting it to the Imperial Valley without going to Mexico, unless
the all- American canal were built?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. RAKER. I was leaving Mexico out of it and was just referring to the physical
conditions already existing.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. The Gila River should ultimately be controlled, but the floods
from that river are not as dangerous by any means as tne floods of the Colorado.
Mr. HAVDEX. In your report you state that there are 520,000 acres of land now irri-
gated below Boulder Canyon and about 700,000 additional acres could be irrigated
as far as you have investigated the matter. The table which you have in your report
shows that there is now irrigated in Arizona by gravity 54,000 acres; that there can be
irrigated by gravity 155.000 acres additional.
Mr. DAVIS. What page is that on?
Mr. HAVDEX. The table is printed on the colored map inserted before page 21.
That makes a total of 209,000 acres that could be irrigated by gravity. The table
shows 70.000 acres to be irrigated by pumping or a total of 279,000 acres that you
estimate can be irrigated in Arizona. Many people in Arizona, of which I am one,
have been hopeful that a much larger area might be irrigated from the Colorado River
in our State. I want to ask you what detailed study you have made of the irrigation
possibilities in Arizona. If cheap power were available have you made investigations
as to the possibility of lifting water upon the higher mesas and thus reclaiming addi-
tional tracts of land?
34 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Mr. DAVIS. There are undoubtedly small tracts here and there the aggregate
being considerable that could be added by increasing the pumping lift, of couife.
It is admitted there is considerable margin of expansion possible.
Mr. HAYDEN. It would depend, to a large extent, on how cheap the power was as
to how high the water could be lifted.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. HAYDEN. The cheaper the power the more extensive the area which can be
irrigated?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAYDEN. There has been some discussion of a high-line canal following about
the 1,200 or 1,300 foot contour below Boulder Canyon, which would cover an immense
area of land in Arizona. I have made a study of the map of Arizona and find that a
very large proportion of the area proposed to be irrigated by this high-line canal
has never been topographically mapped. I have inquired of the United States
Geological Survey as to whether funds were available for a topographic survey of
northern Yuma County and the western part of Maricopa County. The director has
not given me a very definite answer except to say that he thought that it might be
highly desirable to have such a survey made in cooperation with the State of Arizona.
Have you ever made a study to determine what areas in southwestern Arizona should
be accurately mapped, to ascertain the additional lands that might he irrigated fiom
the Colorado River?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. There is an investigation about starting now in the State of
Arizona, where, on their request we are to detail one engineer and the Geological
Survey one engineer, and the State one, and that board will have charge of a fund
the State has for making investigations of contour in the Colorado Valley and any part
of southwestern Arizona and will undoubtedly throw light on what could be topo-
graphically mapped. I could lay out by guess what could be, but I do not think that
should be taken as a guide, because the information is too meager in the unmapped
regions. Some such preliminary investigation as this would be a good undertaking
to find out how much money would be necessary for it all.
Mr. HAYDEN. About how much money would be necessary for such an investiga-
tion?
Mr. DAVIS. I have not been informed, but they have asked us if we would under-
take that kind of cooperation and we have answered in the affirmative.
Mr. HAYDEN. After these three engineers have made a reconnaissance examination
of the country, will it then be possible to intelligently direct the Geological Survey
as to what areas should be topographically surveyed with a view to determining
whether irrigation from the Colorado River is practicable?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SUMMERS. I understand the Boulder Dam will cost about $48,000,000?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SUMMERS. And the construction of power lines and other construction neces-
sary to utilize the power would probably cost about an equal amount?
Mr. DAVIS. It would run about $100,000,000. It would depend upon where the
power was taken.
Mr. SUMMERS. But figuring on general averages down through that country of
mileages.
Mr. DAVIS. As near as I care to state it would take a little more than the cost of the
dam.
Mr. SUMMERS. So practically $100,000,000 to utilize the power that would create
the revenue which is to repay the cost of construction?
Mr. DAVIS. The whole thing.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the Government to advance that $100,000,000?
Mr. DAVIS. According to the bill, no. The bill as introduced and referred to this
committee provided only for the construction of the dam and the high-line canal, and
the Secretary of the Interior in his report on it suggests a method of financing and a
program of building also the generating machinery, that would be built at the site of the
dam, leaving the customers, the power companies, and others to build their own
transmission lines.
Mr. SUMMERS. As I understand, there would be about 400,000 additional acres that
could be irrigated from that? What charge have you estimated will probably be put
on that land for water?
Mr. DAVIS. What I had in mind was to charge them the cost of the works, but the
details of the distribution system have not been gone into. The main canal would cost
about $30,000,000, and that divided by the acreage it would serve, would
Mr. SUMMERS. That would all be charged to this 400,000 acres irrigated?
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWEK COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 35
Mr. DAVIS. Xo, not at all. The present irrigated lands would be charged with
some of it, I think. That is a matter to be left to some kind of equitable adjudication
by the Secretary of Inferior later.
The CHAIRMAN-. Under the Secretary's plan how much will the Government be
supposed to advance S48,000,000 for the dam and how much?
Mr. DAVIS. In the neighborhood of $100,000,000.
Mr. HAYDEN. As I read Secretary Fall's report on this bill he suggests a bonding
plan somewhat similar to that upon which funds were raised to constiuct the Panama
Canal?
Mr. DAVIS, lie suggested the bonding plan. I do not remember how closely it
was followed in the Panama Canal, but it has this difference: that the same authority
requires him to sell this power at a rate to provide interests and sinking funds to
retire those bonds. In other words, the requirement is put on this that will stand the
cost of those bonds the amortization. That is not connected with the Panama Canal.
Mr. HAYDKX. The Panama Canal was built by direct appropriations, but wherever
there was a lack of funds in the Treasury authority was granted to the Secretary
of the Treasury to sell bonds, and some Panama Canal bonds were sold.
Mr. DAVIS. That is true.
Mr. HAYDKX. If there is to be a bond issue should it not be large enough to include
both the construction of the Boulder Canyon dam and the power plants and then to
provide for the various irrigation projects down the stream that may be demonstrated
to be feasible? In other words, should not the same bond issue also take care of the
Parker irrigation project and all-American canal for Imperial Valley as well as for the
Boulder Canyon dam itself?
Mr. DAVIS. Xo. It would have to be treated separately, because it would have
to be refunded in a different manner, and in my opinion the irrigation projects some
of them certainly and perhaps most of them could not stand an interest charge.
At least, they could not with the certainty that the power can, and the market for
bonds with irrigation basis would not be near so good as with the power basis, because
the power basis is sure shot it will pay we know that.
Mr. RAKEK. What proportion of thifl entire amount would be reimbursable is to
be repaid from the us" of the plant and all its accessories?
Mr. DAVIS. All of it.
Mr. RAKER. The entire amount?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. si?-.
Mr. RAKEK. So. there is no direct appropriation for even the development or the
prevention of floods that is not to be repaid from the entire plant?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. By some one who eventually uses it?
Mr. DAVIS. That is the idea.
Mr. RAKER. And your view is. from your examination of all the reports, that within
a reasonable length of time the money can be repaid and will be repaid with a rea-
sonable rate of interest?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir: so far as the bill and the Secretary's amendments to the bill
are concerned that is true. So far as irrigation is concerned, I have my doubt about
some of them being able to pay interest : but those covered by the bill certainly could.
Mr. RAKEK. In this bill then we do not even go as far as we do in the Sacramento
River flood control or in the Mississippi River flood control, that is. to provihe funds
to develop and prevent the Hood caused by those rivers overflowing adjoining lands,
and we get no record return from the latter two as in<li\ iduals?
Mr. DAVIS. In that respect it is distinctly different; yes. sir.
Mr. HAYDEN. Is not the distinction due to the fact that the Sacramento and Mis-
sissippi Rivers are navigable streams, and under the flood control act there was a find-
ing by a board of Army engineers as to what Federal interest was involved? Part of
the on.-t \\;>- cl, to the United States by reason of navigation and the remainder
is a charge against lands benefited by the levees.
Mr. DAVIS. I do not know anything about the engineers' report, but I do know that
the Colorado River is navigable in the same sense that the Sacramento River is.
They are both technically and actually navigable, but practically little used.
Mr. RAKER. The main point that I was trying to find our i> that there \vill he IM
question hereafter about what relief will be given the Imperial Valley by virtue of con-
trolling the floods. We are doing now for the Sa'-ramentu River and the great Mis-
sissippi River the same thing, and it is not reimbursable.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKEK. But with this entire dam, commencing with the Boulder Creek dam
and all its accessories and uses, you are to charge enough money for its use to, within
a reasonable time, repay the principal with interest?
36 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir.
Mr. HAYDEX. Your statement would be absolutely accurate. Judge Raker, if you
would say that a part of the Mississippi flood control work and a part of Sacramento
flood control work is done as a gratuity on the part of the Government. The whole
amount is not. I am quite sure, appropriated and paid for out of the Federal Treasury.
There is a substantial charge against the levee districts.
Mr. RAKER. I did not go into that. So far as the Government appropriation is con-
cerned, we spent this money. It is not a criticism, but we spent the money for flood
control and I am just wondering whether or not in this instance they could make any
objection that we prevent floods from the Imperial Valley, where, as a matter of fact.
all the money expended in this enterprise is to be reimbursed.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir.
Mr. BARBOUR. On the Mississippi River the levee districts are supposed to con-
tribute one third and the Government two thirds, two-thirds being contributed by the
Federal Government on the theory the river is navigable. The Mississippi River
people at this time are contemplating a scheme somewhat like this: In order to complete
the construction of the levees on the Mississippi River and do it by the issuing of bonds
of the levee districts and turning those funds in by paying all the expense of the projects.
Mr. RAKER. But there is this distinction, bearing in mind that this territory now
could be destroyed might be destroyed any day by virtue of floods and by building
the Boulder Canvon Dam it will prevent the floods and the Government will be reim-
bursed for all this money expended. Down below, as to the question of irrigation, on
the question of a canal or any system they put in there, these people for the use of that
canal will pay all the expense. That is right, is it not, Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. They will return all that is put into it.
Mr. BARBOUR. You are simply pointing out the expenditures contemplated on the
Mississippi River and the expenditures here. In one case on the Mississippi River
it will never be returned to the Government, and here it will all be returned?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. NICKERSON. I want to get your statement clear on that money question. He
asked you how much money the Government would have to put up on this whole
proposition. Is it not a fact that the Secretary, under his bill, can enter into a contract
after he starts that work and receive money to finish this dam, so that the Government
would not have to put up this entire amount?
Mr. DAVIS. If the Secretary's recommendations are passed the Government will not
have to appropriate anything. It provides for the issuing of bonds by the Government
and the Government credit being behind them, and the bonds to be paid off from the
power receipts, interest and principal.
The CHAIRMAN. The Government backs the bonds?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; the Government backs the bonds.
(Thereupon, at 12.10, the committee adjourned.)
Supreme Court of the United States Xo. 3 Original. October term, 1921. The
State of Wyoming, complainant, v. The State of Colorado, the Greeley-Poudre
Irrigation District, and the Laramie-Poudre Reservoirs and Irrigation Company.
[June 5, 1922.]
Mr. Justice VAN DEVAXTER delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an original suit in this court by the State of Wyoming against the State of
Colorado and two Colorado corporations to prevent a proposed diversion in Colorado
of part of the waters of the Laramie River, an interstate stream. The bill was brought
in 1911, the evidence was taken in 1913 and 1914, and the parties put it in condensed
and narrative form in 1916 preparatory to the usual printing. The case has been
argued at the bar three times. The court directed one reargument because of the
novelty and importance of some of the questions involved, and the other because of
an intervening succession in the office of Chief Justice. As the United States appeared
to have a possible interest in some of the questions, the court also directed that the
suit be called to the attention of the Attorney General: and. by the court's leave, a
representative of the United States participated in the subsequent hearings.
The Laramie is an unnavigable river which has its source in the mountains of north-
ern Colorado, flows northerly 27 miles in that State, crosses into Wyoming, and there
flows northerly and northeasterly 150 miles to the North Platte River, of which it is a
tributary. Both Colorado and Wyoming are in the arid region where flowing waters
are, and long have been, commonly diverted from their natural channels and used in
irrigating the soil and making it productive. For many years some of the waters .of
the Laramie River have been subjected to such diversion and use, part in Colorado
and part in Wyoming.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 37
When this suit was brought the two corporate defendants, acting under the authority
and permission of Colorado, were proceeding to divert in that State a considerable
portion of the waters of the river and to conduct the same into another watershed,
lying wholly in Colorado, for use in irrigating lands more than fifty miles distant from
the point of diversion. The topography and natural drainage are such that none of the
water can return to the stream or ever reach Wyoming.
By the bill Wyoming seeks to prevent this diversion on two grounds: One that,
without her sanction, the waters of this interstate stream can not riditi'ully be taken
from its watershed and carried into another where she never can receive any benefit
from them; and the other that through many appropriations made at great cost, which
are prior in time and superior in right to the proposed Colorado diversion, Wyoming
and her citizens have become and are entitled to use a large portion of the waters of
the river in the irrigation of lands in that State and that the proposed Colorado diver-
sion will not leave in the stream sufficient water to satisfy these prior and superior
appropriations, and so will work irreparable prejudice to Wyoming and her citizens.
By the answers Colorado and her codefendants seek to justify and sustain the pro-
posed diversion on three distinct grounds: First, that it is the right of Colorado as a
State to dispose, as she may choose, of any part or all of the waters flowing in the por-
tion of the river within her borders, "regardless of the prejudice that it may work''
to Wyoming and her citizens; secondly, that Colorado is entitled to an equitable
division of the waters of the river and that the proposed diversion, together with all
subsisting appropriations in Colorado, does not exceed her share: and. thirdly, that
after the proposed diversion there will be left in the river and its tributaries inWyoming
sufficient water to satisfy all appropriations in that State whose origin was prior in
time to the effective inception of the right under which the proposed Colorado diversion
is about to be made.
Before taking up the opposing contentions a survey of several matters in the light
of which they should be approached and considered is in order.
Both Colorado and Wyoming are along the apex of the Continental Divide, and
include high mountain ranges where heavy snows fall in winter and melt in late spring
and early summer, this being the chief source of water supply. Small streams in
the mountains gather the water from the malting snow and conduct it to larger streams
bi'bw which ultimately pass into surrounding States. The flow in all streams varies
greatly in the cours3 of the year, being highest in May, Tune, and July, and relatively
verv low in other months. There is also a pronounced variation from year to year.
To illustrate, the gauging of the Cache la Poudre, a typical stream, for 191^ shows that
the total flo\v for May, Jun Q , and July was more than three times that for the nine
other momh<, and the gauging for a pariod of 30 years shows that the yearly flow varied
from 151,636 to 666,466 acre-feet 1 and was in excess of 400,000 acre-feet in each of four
years uu-I !<<- than 175.000 acre-feat in each of five years. Both Stat"s have vast
plains and many valleys of varying elevation where there is not sufficient natural
precipitation to moi-T"ii rh soil and make it productive, but where, when additional
water is applied artificially, the soil becomes fruitful the reward being generous in
some areas and moderate in others, just as husbandry is variously rewarded in States
where there is greater humidity, such as Massachusetts, Virginia. Ohio, and Tennessee.
Both States were Territories long before they were admitted into the Union as States
and while the Territorial condition continued were under the full dominion of the
United States. At first the United States owned all the lands in both and it still owns
and is offering for disposal millions of acres in ouch.
Turning to the decisions of the courts of last tvsurt in the two States, we learn that
the same doctrine respecting the diversion and use of the waters of natural streams
has prevailed in both from the beginning and that <'.irh St-ite ai tributes much of her
development and prosperity to the practical operation of this doctrine. The relevant
views of the origin and nature of the doctrine as shown in these decisions may be
summarized as follows: The common law rule respecting riparian rights in flowing
water never obtained in either State. It always was deemed inapplicable to their
situation and climatic conditions. The earliest settlers gave effect to a different rule
whereby the waters of the streams were regarded as open to appropriation for irrigation,
mining; and other beneficial purposes. The diversion from the stream and the applica-
tion of the water to a beneficial purpose constituted an appropriation, and the ap-
propriator was treated as acquiring a continuing right to divert and use the water to
the extent of his appropriation, but not beyond what was reasonably required and
actually used. This was deemed a property right and dealt with and respected ac-
cordingly. As between different appropriations from the same stream, the one iir.-t
in time was deemed superior in right, and a completed appropriation was regarded as
effective from the time the purpose to make it was definitely formed and actual work
1 An acre-foot is the quantity of water required to cover an acre to a depth of one foot 13,560 cubic feet.
38 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER. COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
thereon was begun, provided the work was carried to completion with reasonable
diligence. This doctrine of appropriation, prompted by necessity and formulated
by custom, received early legislative recognition in both Territories and -vas enforced
in their couit-. When the state? were admitted into the Union it received further
sanction in their constitutions and statutes and their courts have been uniformly
enforcing it. Yunker r. Nichols (1 Colo. 551): Schilling r. Romincrer (4 Colo. 100);
Coffin r. Left Hand Ditch Co. (6 Colo. 443); Thomas v. Guiraud i U Colo. 530 : Strickler (
r. Colorado Springs (16 Colo. 61); Oppenlander r. Left Hand Ditch Co. (1$ Colo. 142);
Wyatt r. Larimer" and Weld Irrigation Co. (18 Colo. 298); Crippen v. White (28 Colo.
298); Moyer r. Preston (6 Wyo. 308); Farm Investment Co. r. Carpenter (!i Wyo. L10);
Willev c". Decker (11 Wyo." 496); Johnston 7'. Little Horse Creek Irrieatimr Co. (13
Wyo. 208).
As the United States possessed plenary authority over Colorado and Wyoming
while they were Territories and has at all times owned the public lands therein, we
turn next to its action.
The act of July 26. 1866 (ch. 262. sec. 9. 14 Stat. 251 '. contained a section providing:
' ' Whenever, by priori ty of "possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural ,
manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued, and the same are recog-
nized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the
pos?essors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the
same." The occasion for this provision and its purpose and effect were extensively
considered by this court in the cases of Atchison r. Peterson (20 Wall. 507) and Bascy
r. Gallagher (20 Wall. 670). the conclusions in both being shown in the following
excerpt from the latter, pp. 681-682:
"In the late case of Atchison r. Peterson, we had occasion to consider the respective
rights of miners to running waters on the mineral lands of the public domain: and
we there held that by the custom which had obtained among miners in the Pacific
States and Territories, the party who first subjected the water to use or took the n<
s.uy steps for that purpose, was regarded, except as against the Government, as the
source of title in all controversies respecting it: that the doctrines of the common
law declaratory of the rights of riparian proprietors were inapplicable, or applicable
only to a limited extent, to the necessities of miners, and were inadequate to their
protection: that the equality of right recognized by that law among all the proprietors
upon the same stream, would have been incompatible with any extended diversion
of the water by one proprietor, and its conveyance for mining purposes to points
from which it could not be restored to the stream: that the Government l>y its silent
acquiescence had assented to and encouraged the occupation of the public lands for
mining: and that he who first connected his la) or with property thus situated and
open to general exploration, did in natural justice acquire a better right to its use and
enjoyment than others who had not given such labor: that the miners on the public
lands throughout the Pacific States and Territories, by their customs, usages, and
regulations, had recognized the inherent justice of this principle, and the principle
itself was at an early period recognized by legislation and enforced by the courts in
those States and Territories, and was finally approved by the legislation of Congress
in 1866. The views there expressed and the rulings made are equally applicable to
the use of water on the public lands for purposes of irrigation. Xo distinction is made
in those States and Territories by the custom of miners or settlers, or by the courts,
in the rights of th,e first appropriator from the use made of the water, if the use be a
beneficial one."
And on the same subject it was further said, in Broder r. Water ('<>. 101 U. S. 274,
"It is the established doctrine of this court that rights of miners, who had taken
possession of mines and worked and developed them, and the ri-rhts of persons who
had constructed canals and ditches to be used in mining operations and for purp<
of agricultural irrigation, in the region where such artificial use of the water was an
absolute necessity, are rights which the Government had. by its conduct, recognixed
and encouraged and was bound to protect, before the passage of the act of I860'. We
are of opinion that the section of the act which we have quoted was rather a voluntary
recognition of a preexisting right of possession, constituting a valid claim of its con-
tinued use, than the establishment of a new 01
The act of July 9, 1870 (ch. 235. sec. 17. Hi Stat. 217 ), provided that ''all patents
granted, or preemption or homesteads allowed, shall be subject to any vested and
accrued water rights" acquired under or recognized by the provision of 186G. These
provisions are now sections 2339 and 2340 of the Revised Statutes. <
The act of March 3. L877 (ch. IT. 8ec. I, lit Star. 377 . providing for the sale of (.-'
desert lands in tracts of one section each to persons undertaking and effecting their
reclamation, contained a proviso declaring that "the right to the use of water by the
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 39
person so conducting the same, on or to any tract of desert land of six hundred and
forty acres shall depend upon bona fide prior appropriation; and such right shall
not exceed the amount of water actually appropriated, and necessarily used for the
purpose of irrigation and reclamation: and all surplus water over and above such
actual appropriation and use, together with the water of all lakes, rivers, and other
sources of water supply upon the public lands, and not navigable, shall remain and
be held free for the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining, and
manufacturing purposes subject to exist ing rights." Colorado was not at first included
in this act, but was brought in by an amendatory act. Next came the act of March 3,
1891 (ch. 561, sec. 18, 26 Stat. 1095), granting right of way through the public lands
and resarvations for canals and ditches to be used for irrigation purposes, and con-
taining a proviso saying, "the privilege herein granted . shall not be construed to
interfere with the control of water for irrigation and other purposes under authority
of the respective States or Territories."
Of the legislation thus far recited it was said, in United States r. Rio Grande Irriga-
tion Co. (174 U. S. 690, 706): "Obviously by these acts, so far as they extended, Con-
gress recognized and assented to the appropriation of water in contravention of the
common-law rule as to continuous flow"; and again, "the obvious purpose of Congress
waS to give its a c s?nt, so far ai the public lands were concerned, to any s> stem, although
in contravention to the common-law rule, which permitted the appropriation of those
waters far legitimate industries."
June 17. 1902 i.ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), the national reclamation act was passed,
under which the United States entered upon the construction of extensive irrigation
works to be used in the reclamation of large bodies of arid public lands in the Western
States. Its eighth section declared: "Nothing in this act shall be construed as af-
fecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or
Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in
irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and the Secretary of the Interior,
in carrying out the provisions of this act, shall proceed in conformity with such laws,
inul itu!hiii<! In riin shall in umj n'aij affect any right of any State or of the Federal
.it or of any lundotcner. appropriator, or user of -water in, to, or from any
mterstati stream or we n-ti/crx thereof: rmridnl. That the right to the use of water
acquired under the provisions of this act shall be appurtenant, to the land irrigated,
and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right." The
words which we have italicized constitute the only instance, so far as we are advised,
in which the legislation of Congress relating to the appropriation of water in the arid
land region has contained any distinct mention of interstate streams. The explana-
tion of this exceptional mention is to be found in the pendency in this court at that
time of the case of Kansas r. Colorado, wherein the relative rights of the two States,
the United States, certain Kansas riparians and certain Colorado appropriators
and users in and to the waters of the Arkansas River, an interstate stream, were thought
to be involved. Congress was solicitous that all quest ions respecting interstate streams
thought, to be involved in that litigation should be left to judicial determination
unaffected by the act: in other words, that the matter be left just as it was before.
The words aptly reflect that purpo
The decision in Kansas r. Colorado (206 U. S. 4(i) was a pioneer in its field. On
some of the questions presented it was intended to be and is comprehensive, and on
others it was intended to be within narrower limits, the court saying, "The views
expressed in this opinion are to be confined to a case in which the facts and the local
law of the two States are as here disclosed." On full consideration it was broadly
determined that a controversy I KM ween two States over the diversion and use of
waters of a stream passing from one to the other "makes a matter for investigation and
determination by this court" in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, and also that
the upper State on such a stream does not have such ownership or control of the waters
flowing therein as entitles her to divert and use them regardless of any injury or preju-
dice to the rights of the lower State in the stream. And, on consideration of the
particular facts disclosed and the local law of the two Suites, it was determined that
Colorado was not taking more than what under the circumstances would lie her share
under an equitable apportionment.
As respects the scope 'and interpretation of the ultimate conclusion in that case,
it should he observed, first, that the court was there concerned, as it said, with a
controversy between two States, "one recognizing generally the common-law rule of
riparian rights'" and the other the doctrine of appropriation: secondly, that the diver-
sion complained of was not 1o a watershed from which none of the water could find its
way into the complaining State, but quite to the contrary: and, thirdly, that what
the complaining State was seeking was not to prevent a projmsed diversion for the
benefit of lands as yet unreclaimed, but to interfere with u diversion which had been
40 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
practiced for years and under which many thousands of acres of unoccupied and
barren lands had been reclaimed and made productive. In these circumstances, and
after observing that the diminution in the flow of the river had resulted in "percepti-
ble injurv" TO portions of the valley in Kansas, but in "little, if anv. detriment" to
the great body of the valley, the court said, "It would seem equality of right and equity
between the two States forbids any interference with the present withdrawal of water
in Colorado for purposes of irrigation." and that if the depletion of the waters by C
Colorado should be increased, the time would come when Kansas mi'.-ht " rightfully V
call for relief against the action of Colorado, its corporations, and citi/.ens in appropri-
ating the waters of the Arkansas for irrigation purposes." What was there said about
''eiualitv of rurht" refers, as the opinion shows ,-p. !)7i, not to an e'jual division of
the water, but to the e ]ual level or plane on which all the State- stand, in point of
power and right, under our constitutional system.
Like that case, the one now before us presents a controversy over the waters of an
interstate stream. But here the controversy is between States in both of which the
doctrine of appropriation has prevailed from the time of the lirst settlements, alwavs
has been applied in the same way. and has been recognized and sanctioned by the
United States, the owner of the public lands. Here the complaining State is not
seeking to impose a policy of her choosing on the other State, but to have the com-
mon policy which each enforces within her limits applied in determining their rela-
tive rights in the interstate stream. Nor is the United States seeking to impose a
policy of its choosing on either State. All that it has done has been to recognize
and give its sanction to the policy which each has adopted. Whether its public land
holdings would enable it to go further we need not consider. And here the complain-
ing State is not seeking to interfere with a diversion which has long been practiced,
and under which much reclamation has been effected, but to prevent a proposed
diversion for the benefit of lands as yet unreclaimed .
With this understanding of the case in hand and of some of the matters in the light
of which it should be considered, we take up the several contentions, before noticed,
which are pressed on our attention.
The contention of Colorado that she as a State rightfully may divert and use, as she
may choose, the waters flowing within her boundaries in this interstate stream, re-
gardless of any prejudice, that this may work to others having rights in the stream be-
low her boundary, can not be maintained. The river throughout its course in both
States is but a single stream wherein each State has an interest which should be re-
spected by the other. A like contention was set up by Colorado in her answer in
Kansas r. Colorado and was adjudged untenable. Further consideration satisfies us
that the ruling was ri;ht. It has support in other cases, of which Rickey Land & Cattle
Co. v. Miller and Lux (218 U. S. 2158 : I Jean v. Morris ( 221 U. S. 485); Missouri s.
Illinois (180 U. S. 208 and 200 U. S. 496), and Georgia r. Tennessee Copper Co. (206
I". S. 230 . are examples.
The objection of Wyoming to the proposed diversion on the ground that it is to an-
other watershed, from which she can receive no benefit, is also untenable. The fact
that the diversion is to such a watershed has a bearing in another connection, but does
not in itself constitute a ground for condemning it. In neither State does the right of
appropriation depend on the place of use being within the same watershed. Diver-
sions from one watershed to another are commonly made in both States and the practice
is recognized by the decisions of their courts. Coffin r. Left Hand Ditch Co. (6 Colo.
443, 449); Thomas P. Guiraud (6 Colo. 530 r. Hammond v. Rose, i 11 Colo. 524 i; Oppen-
lander v. Left Hand Ditch Co. ( IS Colo. 142. 144 >; Mover v. Preston <<i Wvo. 308, 321);
Wiley / . Decker i 1 1 Wyo. 4!lfi, o20-o31 I. And the evidence shows that diversions are
made and recognized in both States which in principle are not distinguishable from this,
that is. where wat er is taken in one State from a watershed leading into the other State
and conducted into a different watershed leading away from that State, and from which
she never can receive any benefit. The principle of. such diversions being recognized
in both States, its application to this interstate stream does not in itself afford a ground
for complaint, unless the practice in both be rejected in determining what, as between
them, is reasonable and admissible as to this stream, which we think should not be
done.
We are thus brought to the question of the basis on which the relative rights of these
Stites in the waters of this interstate stream should be determined. Should the doc-
trine of appropriation, which each recognizes and enforces within her borders, be
applied'?' Or is there another basis which is more consonant with right and equity?
The lands in both States are naturally arid and the need for irrigation is the same in
one as in the other. The lands were settled under the same public land laws and their f
settlement was induced largely by the prevailing right to divert and use water for irri-
gation, without which the lands were of little value. Many of the lands were acquired
under the deeert land act which made reclamation by irrigation a condition to the
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 41
acquisition. The first settlers located along the streams where water could be diverted
and applied at small cost. Others with more means followed and reclaimed lands
farther away. Then companies with large capital constructed extensive canals and
occasional tunnels whereby water was carried to lands remote from the stream and sup-
plied, for hire, to settlers who were not prepared to engage in such large undertakings,
ritimatley, the demand for water being in excess of the dependable flow of the streams
during the irrigation season, reservoirs were constructed wherein water was impounded
when not needed and released when needed, thereby measurably equalizing the
natural flew. Such was the course of irrigation development in both States. It began
in territorial days, continued without change after statehood, and was the basis for the
large respect always shown for water rights. These constituted the foundation of all
rural home building and agricultural development, and, if they were rejected now,
the lands would return to their naturally arid condition, the efforts of the settlers and
the expenditures of others would go for naught and values mounting into large figures
would be lost.
In neither State was the right to appropriate water from this interstate stream denied .
On the contrary, it was permitted and recognized in both. The rule was the same on
both sides of the line. Some of the appropriations were made as much as 50 years ago
and many as much as 25. In the circumstances we have stated, why should not
appropriations from this stream be respected, as between the two States, according
to their several priorities, as would be done if the stream lay wholly within either
State? By what principal of right or equity may either State proceed in disregard
of prior appropriations in the^other?
Colorado answers that this is not a suit between private appropriators. This is
true, but it does not follow that their situation and what has been accomplished by
them for their respective States can be ignored. As respects Wyoming the welfare,
prosperity, and hapiness of the people of the larger part of the Laramie Valley, as also
a large portion of the taxable resources of two counties, are dependent on the appro-
priations in that State. Thus the interests of the State are indissolubly linked with
the rights of the appropriators. To the extent of the appropriation and use of the water
in Colorado a like situation exists there.
Colorado further answers that she can accomplish more with the water than Wyo-
ming does or can : that she proposes to use it on lands in the Cache la Poundre Valley,
and that they with less water will produce more than the lands in the portion of the
Laramie Valley known as the Laramie Plains. It is true that irrigation in the Poudre
Valley has been carried to a higher state of development than els3whero in the Rocky
Mountain region and that the lands of that valley Ue at a lower altitude than do those
in the Laramie Plains and generally are better adapted to agriculture. In some
parts they also reqiiire less water. It may be assumed that the lands intended to be
reclaimed and irrigated in the Poudre Valley conform to the general standard, although
this is left uncertain. But for combined farming and stockraising those of the Laramie
Plains offer opportunities and advantages which are well recognized. It is to this
use that they chiefly are devoted. It is a recognized and profitable industry, has
been carried on there for many years and is of general economic value. Many of the
original ranchmen still are engaged in it, some on the tracts where they first settled.
With the aid of irrigation native hay of a high quality, alfalfa. oats, and other forage
are grown for winter feeding, the live stock being grazed most of the year on un irrigated
;< icas and in the neighboring hills and mountains. In this way not only are the irriirat-
ed tracts made productive, but the utility and value of the grazing areas are greatly
enhanced. The same industry is carried on in the same way in sections of Colorado.
In both States this is a purpose for \vhich the right to appropriate water may be exer-
cise.], and no discrimination is made between it and other firming. Even in this suit
Colorado is a<se*ti:ig appropriations of this class for 4.250 acres in the portion of the
Laramie Valley in that State, and is claiming under them an amount of water in excess
of what she asserts will irrigate a like acreage in the Poudre Valley.
Some of the appropriations from the stream in Wyoming are used tor auriculture
alone. One of the large projects, dating from territorial days, and constructed at
great cost, carries water from the river through a tunnel one-half mile long and canals
several miles in length to the Wheat land district, where it is used in irrigating :'/>, 000
acres, all of which are very successfully and profitably farmed in small tracts. This
project uses one very large and one comparatively small reservoir for storing v, ater and
equalizing the natural flow.
We conclude that Colorado's objections to the doctrine of appropriation as a basis
of decision are not well taken, and that it furnishes the onlv basis which is con> >nant
with the principles of right and equity applicable to such a controversy as this IB.
The cardinal rule of the doctrine is that priority of appropriation gives superiori!
right. Hai-h of these States applies and enforces this rule in her own territory, and it
is the one to which intending appropriators naturally v.ould turn for guidance. The
42 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASTX.
principle on which it proceeds is not less applicable to interstate streams and contro-
versies than to others. Both States pronounce the rule just and reasonable us applied
to the natural conditions jn that region; and to prevent any departure from it the people
of 1 "ill incorporated it into their constitutions. It originated in the customs and
usages of the people before either State came into existence, and the courts of both
hold that their constitutional provisions me to 1 e taken as recognizing the prior usage
rather than as creating a new rule. These considerations persuade us that its appliea-
tion to such a controversy as is here presented can not be other than eminently just
and equitable to all concerned.
In suits between appropriators from the same stream, but in different States recog-
nizing the doctrine of appropriation, the question whether rights under such appro-
priations should be judged by the rule of priority has been considered by several
courts, State and Federal, and has been unifounly answered in the affirmative.
Conant v. Deep Creek Irrigation Co. (23 Utah f>27, 681); Willey v. Decker i 11 Wyo.
496, 534-535); Taylor r. Hulett (15 Idaho 265, 271); Howell r. Johnson (89 Fed. 51
Hoge r. Eaton (135 Fed. 411): Morris v. Bean i]46 Fed. -123 r. Bean v. Morris (159
Fed. 651). One of the cases came to this court, and the judgment below was
affirmed. Morris r. Bean (221 U. S. 485.) These decisions, although given in suits
between individuals, tend strongly to support our conclusion, for they show that by
common usage, as also by judicial pronouncement, the rule of priority is regarded
in such States as having the same application to a stream flowing from one of them
to another that it has to streams wholly within one of them.
The remaining questions are largely matters of fact. The evidence is voluminous,
some of it highly technical and some quite conflicting. It has all been considered.
The reasonable limits of an opinion do not admit of its extended discussion. We
must be content to give our conclusions on the main questions and make such refer-
ences to and comment on what is evidential as will point to the grounds on which
the conclusions on those questions rest: As to minor questions, we can only state
the ultimate facts as we find them from the evidence.
The question first in order, and the one most difficult of solution, relates to the
flow of the Laramie River, the common source of supply. The difficulty arises
chiefly out of the fact that the flow varies greatly in the course of the year and also
from year to year.
Colorado's evidence, which for convenience we take up first, is din et< d to show-
ing the average yearly flow of all years in a considerable period, as if that constituted
a proper measure of the available supply. We think it is not a proper measure, and
this because of the great variation in the flow. To bo available in a practical s^nse,
the supply must be fairly continuous and dependable. No doubt the natural How
can be materially conserved and equali/.ed by means of stn:. but this
has its limitations, both financial and physical. The construction of reservoirs of
real capacity is attended with great expense, and unless an adequate return reasonahly
can be foreseen the expenditure is not justified and will not be made. The years of
high water and those of low do not alternate. Often several of the same kind follow
in succession. The evaporation of stored water in Colorado and Wyoming is from
5 to 6 feet per year. So, while it generally is practicable to store water in one part
of the year for us? in another, or in one year for us^ in the next, it oftn. if not gen-
erally, is impracticable to store it for longer periods. All this is recognized elsewhere
in Colorado's evidence. One of her principal witnesses said:
"With re.gard to financial practicability of construction of r -s-rvoii-s on Poudre
River capable of conserving extraordinary floods, will state that they call for an
expenditure that could be utilized only occasionally. It would be similar to finan-
cial proposition of people in Florida preparing to heat their houses in the same man-
ner as those in the northern part of the United States. For years of unusually high
flow in the Poudre River conservation works to utilize the excess \vat -rs in that
stream would have to count on carrying wat<>r over more than one year. The utili/.a-
tion of this water means the presence of population on the land: that population must
have a living from year to year, and they are not justified in going out on the land
and settling to raise a crop only once in three or lour years. Thy must have suffi-
cient to make a living from one year to another, and consequently the investment
must be such that there can be sufficient water every year to keep th.-s-.- people on
the land, and when water can only be conserved once in every three to live years
there must be provision for carrying over water or the people can not live. It is a
question of population as well as investment. The population has to exist and stay
on the ground. From standpoint of investment, conservation of flow such as extreme
flow of 1884 would be impractical to the extent that it exceeded the ordinary high
year. Of such character would be [also] the floods of 1885, 1900, and 1900, three
[four] years in thirty." The witness further said: "Aside from reasons which I have
given why reservoirs designed to catch only these rare high water flows of Poudre
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
43
River are not feasible, it is a fact that no farmer would be able to anticipate the high
flow and therefore could not depend at all upon water for irrigation until it reached
him. If he undertook to so divert water, it would become a gamble rather than a
safe guide for living."
Another of her witnesses .-aid:
"The present storage capacity in the Poudre Valley is such that in some years
the reservoirs are not all filled, while in some years they are filled and water runs to
waste. * * * It would not be possible to inaugurate a scheme in the Poudre Valley
to construct reservoirs to store water from one year of high flow to another where such
water is the only source of supply, for the reservoirs would have to be constructed
to hold the maximum amount, and if the water has to be carried over for three years
the average diversion from the reservoir would be only one-third of its capacity,
making the cost per acre prohibitive."
And still another of her witnesses, referring to the unused waters of the Poudre
in years of hi<rh flow and also to what is contemplated by the defendants is respect
of the Laramie, said:
"The really dependable water supply of the district : will come from the Laramie
River, the amount secured from the Poudre River fluctuating greatly and being used
to augment the supply from the Laramie. There will be years when the supply from
the Poudre River and its tributaries will be practically nothing. Our plans contem-
plate taking all the water that it is possible for us to take from the Laramie River
each year. It is possible to get only a certain amount from that river, and I do not
believe that we can absolutely depend on more than half the required amount from
the Laramie River. The very great floods on that watershed we can not consider
because we can not construct works to take care of them."
In accord with these statements, bearing on what is susceptible of use in actual
practice, is further evidence coming from Colorado's witnesses and exhibits to the
"effect that, notwithstanding the great need for water in the Poudre Valley and the
returns obtained from its use, large amounts of water pass down the stream without
use or impounding in the years when the flow exceeds what is termed the average.
With the high state of irrigation development in that valley the full capacity of the
reservoir system there provided when the proof was taken was 146,655 acre-feet
an evidence of the limitation inhering in the practical storage of water from such
streams.
The Cache la Poudre River heads in the same mountain range as does the Laramie
and the conditions which make for a pronounced variation in the natural flow are
largely the same with both. The following table compiled from data relating to the
Cache la Poudre, furnished by Colorado, will be helpful in illustrating the view of
the witnesses, and also ours. We add the third and fourth columns.
in annual net discharge of Cache la Poudre River, April to October, both
inclusive, for 30 years.
[Taken from Colorado's Exhibit 124.]
Year.
Run-off
in
acre-feet.
Variance
from
average
of all.
Variance
from
average
of all
but 4.
Year.
Run-off
in
acre- feet.
Variance
from
average
of all.
Variance
from
average
of all
but 4.
1884
666 466
+369 144
1899
388 591
+91 269
+ 126 008
4'>."i. 47.1
1900
i7i 57 ;
+ 177 251
+ 211 990
. .
1901
1887
-10 482
4-24 ".".7
1902
- 1 10, 947
1888
1889. . . .
IVi W>
-141.35-'
I!'- '(!'
-77 B2S
1903
1904
31 o 437
- 17. V.N
+ 18 115
+ 82,567
1890
To >99
41 .KU>
1905
: ;t;i li.V
+ 99 069
IV.tl.
.1 :-!47
1906
279 974
+ 17 391
1892
1907 ...
386. 224
1908
-11 I7'i
9 740
IV.)}
309,444
J-ll? li!.'
r> vii
1909 . .
}vi IK)'
- I.SS. I'.VI
1895.
:-'41 .vxi
-47 17^
191(1
1.17 ">1 1
H't;
-100 24!
1911
-91.711
1897
1912
1,898
-90,29$
1913
L'17. 9.V.I
79.363
Average 297.322, including all years.
Average 362,583, omitting 1S84, 1885, 1900, and 1909.
1 The ref .renre is to the Grieley-Poudre ir.igalion diflrict, one of the defen :
44
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVKR BASIX.
This table shows that during 30 years 1884 to 1913 the yearly flow of the Cache
la Poudre ranged from 15l.*i;;ii to 666,466 acre-feet, that in 16 of the 30 it fell below
the average, and that S of the Hi were in immediate succession. Obviously.it is
not financially practicable, even by means of reservoirs, to equalize the flow of a
stream subject to such variation so that it will have a fairly constant and dependable
flow at the average of all years. For further illustration we have taken the average
of the 23 years remaining after excluding the 4 described by the witness as extra-
ordinary (these being left to take the average of the others) and on that basis have
made a computation of the excess and deficiency, which is shown in the fourth
column of the table. Even on this basis there were 13 yea is in which the flow \v:is
below the average and of these 6 came in immediate succession. In four the de-
ficiency exceeded 100,000 acre-feet and of the four only one followed a year in which
there was an excess sufficient, if carried over in storage, to cover the deficiency.
This suffices to show thaf the average of all years is far from being a proper or safe
measure of the available supply. An intending irrigator acquiring a water right
based on such a measure would be almost certainly confronted with drought when
his need for water was greatest. Crops can not be grown on expectations of average
flows which do not come, nor on recollections of unusual flows which have pas-r-d
down the stream in prior years. Only when the water is actually applied does the
soil respond .
We have dealt with the matter of the average flow at this length because throughout
Colorado's evidence and in her briefs it is treated as if it were a proper measure of
the supply available for practical use. It is there applied to the Laramie not only
directly, but indirectly by increasing the gauged flow for a particular year or period
by percentages derived by comparing the How of the Poudre for that year or period
with the average for the 30 years, including those in which the flow was so extra-
ordinary that concededly much of it neither was nor could be used. Thus, water
which is not part of the available supply is counted in measuring that supply.
When the evidence was taken, in 1913 and 1914. the Laramie had not been gauged
so thoroughly nor for so long a period as had the Cache la Poudre. Such gauging as
had occurred had been done at different places in different periods, paitly by the
United States Geological Survey, partly by Colorado and partly by Wyoming. Some
of the gauging stations were in Colorado, but most were in Wyoming. The latter
included Woods, 9 miles north of the State boundary, and the Pioneer Dam, 4 miles
north of Woods. The evidence centered largely around the flow and gauging at
these places. Colorado's chief witness prepared and presented a table based on data,,
drawn from various sources, and bearing on the flow at Woods from April to October,
both inclusive, for several years and made this table the principal basis of his te.-ti-
mony concerning the flow of the stream in that vicinity. We here reproduce the
material part of the table, the third and fourth columns being ours:
Discharge of Laramie River, Woods, Wyo., April to October, both inclusive, for 9 years.
[Taken from Colorado's Exhibit 127.]
Variance
Variance
Variance
from
Variance
from
Year.
Acre-feet.
from
average
Year.
Acre-feet.
from
average
average.
of all
average.
of all
but 1899.
but 1899.
1895. . .
220.239
+21,694
+45, 730
1900...
LMs. lie,
+49,560
+73,596-
1896
108 022
-90,523
66 487
1911
IMS 240
-60,305
36 269
1897
251,074
+ 52,529
+ 76,565
1912
213, 407
+ 14,862
+38,898-
1898
117,765
-80,780
-56,744
1913
99, 221
-99,324
-75,288.
1899
390,730
+ 192,185
+ 216,221
Average, 198,533, incluling all years.
Average, 174,509, excluding 1899.
The data covered two widely separated periods, one of six years and the other of
three. The witness took the average of the nine years, which he gave as 198,545
acre-feet, and made this the basis of further calculations. He estimated that the
usual flow for the other months was one-tenth of that for the full year, or, putting it
in another way, one-ninth of that from April to October, both inclusive, and on this
basis he added to his average 21,945 acre-feet, making 220,490. Consulting the Cache
la Poudre table, set forth above, he concluded that the nine years, in combination, fell
below the'full average for the 30 years covered by that table, and to bring the 9 years
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 45
m> to a 30-year average he added 9,510 acre-feet, making 230,000. Some water from
Wyoming enters the river between the State boundary and Woods, and for this he
deducted 13,000 acre-feet, leaving 217. "00. Then, making a reservation as to Sand
Creek, to be considered presently, he concluded that 217,000 acre-feet was the average
yearly flow in that section of the river. He called it the "normal" flow, an evident
misnomer. Thi* did not include water diverted in Colorado, under recognized Col-
orado appropriations, which does not reach Wyoming.
Even if the computation was to be made along the lines of something approaching
a general average, we think the witness's computation and conclusion are subject to
objection in particulars which we proceed to state.
The table shows that the flow for 1899 was extraordinary, so much so that it should
have been excluded in computing the average and left to take the general level of
the others. Its flow was 2 Hi. 221 acre-feet in excess of their average. The excess
added nothing to the available supply that which in practice could be used. The
flow for the next year was such that it required no augmentation from 1899. So
the inclusion of 1899 in the computation was, in effect, taking what was not available
as a measure of what was. The error raised the average of the other years 24,036 acre-
feet and was carried into the ultimate conclusion.
We do not doubt that it was admissible to compare the data relating to the Laramie
with that relating to the Cache la Poudre and to give effect to such conclusions as
reasonably were to be drawn from the comparison, but we think there was no justifi-
cation for the addition which was made to bring the nine years up to the standard
of an average year among the 30 covered by the Cache la Poudre table. The addition
tended to distort rather than to reflect the available supply. Looking at the Cache la
Poudre table, it is evident that the 9 years, in combination, would not have appeared
short in flow had the 4 extraordinary years in the 30 been excluded, as they should
have been. Besides, a comparison of the two tables shows that the variation in yearly
flow in the two streams is not the same and that the difference is such as to preclude
a nice calculation such as was here made on the basis of an assumed uniformity. To
illustrate: According to one table the flow of the Poudre from April to October, both
inclusive^ in 1900 was 85,982 acre-feet in excess of that for the same months in 1899,
while according to the other the flow of the Laramie for those months in 1899 was
142,625 acre-feet in excess of that for the corresponding period in 1900; and according
to one table the flow of the Poudre for those months in 1913 was 73.2 per cent of that
for the same part of 1912, while according to the other the flow of the Laramie for those
months in 1913 was 46.5 per cent of that for the same part of 1912.
Assuming that 13,000 acre-feet enter the river from Wyoming between the State
boundary and Woods, and are put of the river at the latter point, we think this water
should not have been deducte:!. It is part of the supply available to satisfy appro-
priations from the stream in Wyoming.
The witness treated the flow irom April to October, both inclusive, in 1912 as
being 213.407 acre-feet, and the flow in the same months in 1913 as being 99.221 acre-
feet. In this we think he erred. The evidence establishes that the flow in the first
period was not more than 191,820 acre-feet and in the second was not more than
94,369. Even with the year 1899 excluded, this error increased the average 3.305
acre-feet.
If we exclude the extraordinary flow of 1899. make the needed correction in the
flow of 1912 and 1913. and assume the accuracy of the other data, the average becomes
171,204 acre-feet, instead of 198,545. as given by the witness. This requires that the
21.945 acre-feet which were added to cover the flow for the five other months be
reduced to 19.023.
When these corrections are made in the witness's data and computation, the result
is changed from 217.000 acre-feet to 190.227.
But we are of opinion that the computation and conclusion of the witness, even
when revised in the way we have indicated, are based too much on the average flow
and not enough on the unalterable need for a supply which is fairly constant and
dependable, or is susceptible of being made so by storage and conservation within
practicable limits. 15y this it is not meant that known conditions must be such as
give assurance that there will be no deficiency even during long periods, but rather
that a supply which is likely to be intermittent, or to be matoii.'lly deficient ;it rela-
tively short intervals, does not meet the test of practical availability. As we under-
stand it. substantial stability in the supply is essential to successful reclamation and
irrigation. The evidence shows that this is so. and it is fully recognized in the litera-
ture on the subject.
The same witness prepared and submitted another table embodying all the data
he was able to secure from records of past paging and measurements at Woods. This
included three years not shown in the nine-year table. They and their recorded
46
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN".
flow from April to October, both inclusive, were: 1899, 132,349 acre-feet; 1890, 168,406
acre-feet, and 1891, 207,146 acre-feet. The witness pronounced the data for these years
less accurate than that for the others, and, while his reason for doing so does not clearly
appear, we shall assume he was right. Had the three years been included in the nine-
year table that would have reduced the average from 198,545 to 189,371 acre-feet,
counting all years, and from 174,509 to 171,066 acre-feet, counting all but 1899. It.
however. w r ould not have shown another year with a flow as low as that of 1913, nor i
as low as that of 1896.
Colorado presented other evidence in the way of general estimates, results of very
fragmentary gaging, and opinions based on rough measurements of snow-drifts in the
mountainous area about the head of the stream; but we put all of this aside as being of
doubtful probative value at best and far less persuasive than the evidence we have
been discussing.
Wyoming's evidence was based on the same recorded data that were used by
Colorado, and also on actual gaging and measurements by an experienced hydrographer
covering the period beginning April 1, 1912, and ending April 30, 1914. Shortly
stated, her evidence was to the effect that the actual measured flow at the Pioneer
Dam, four miles below Woods, was 198,867 acre-feet from April to December, both
inclusive, in ]912. was 109,593 acre-feet for all of 1914 and was 19,181 acre-feet for the
first four months of 1914; that the flow for 1912 was somewhat above the average.
counting all years; that the flow for 1913 was somewhat more than fifty per cent .of
the average, and that the average at Woods and in that vicinity, counting all years,
was approximately 200,000 acre-feet. Wyoming's chief witness, the hydrographer.
submitted the following table, giving the results of his gaging and measurements at
the Pioneer Dam:
Discharge of Laramie River at Pioneer Dam, near Woods, Wyo, (incln<lii/rj f/lnrsion just
above dam by Pioneer Canal) in acre-ful .
1912
1SJ13
1914
January
2 6.50
3 2-:S
February . .
2. 356
3,088
March . .".
3,296
4,003
April . . . .
.'. "Mi
rj 'in
8,807
Mav. .
40,643
38,307
June. .
91 874
"li .V.i-
July
:u ->;:;
r, 825
August
7 809
3 130
September... . . ...
1 :\\\
3,023
October
6 4.Vi
:', si.'
November ... . . .
I 4(
'.<> 077
December
3,246
Total ....
198, 867
109. 593
19, LSI
The evidence does not permit us to doubt the accuracy of these data. They were
obtained by work which is shown to have been painstakenly and conscientiously
done by one fully competent to do it. The place at which it was done was well
adapted to obtaining accurate results, and the observations were continuous, not
merely occasional or intermittent.
As the gauging did not cover the first three months of 1912, it is necessary to arrive
at the flow for those months. The proof shows that the flow for the same months in
1914 fairly may be taken for the purpose. That was 10,374 acre-feet, the addition
making 209,241 acre-feet for 1912. The flow for 1913 was 109,593 acre-feet. Both
should be increased 4,000 acre-feet to cover water diverted between Woods 'and the
Pioneer Dam and not returning to the stream above the gauging station. This Drives
a total of 213,241 acre-feet for 1912 and 113,593 acre-feet for 1913. Tested by the flow
of these years, the available supply would be 163,417 acre-feet; that is to say, on that
basis the excess in 1912 would match the deficiency in 1913. But a survey of more
than two years is essential in arriving at a fair conclusion respecting the available
supply. A year of low flow is not always preceded by one of high or moderate flow as
was the case with 1912 and 1913.
In diverting and applying water in irrigation there is a material loss through evapo-
ration, seepage, and otherwise which is inavoidable. The amount varies according
to the conditions chiefly according to the distance the water is carried through canals/^
and ditches and the length of time it is held in storage. Where the places of use are*
in the same watershed and relatively near the stream, as is true of the lands on the
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 47
Laramie Plains served by the greater part of the Wyoming appropriations, a substantial
amount of water percolates back into the stream from irrigated areas and becomes
available for further use lower down the stream. This is called return water. The
amount varies considerably, and there is no definite data on the subject. As respects
irrigation on the Laramie Plains above the Wheatland diversion, the evidences
es us that the return water will certainly more than counterbalance the loss
throughout evaporation and otherwise when the period of storage is not more than from
one year to the next.
What has now been said covers the substance of the evidence, as we regard it, bear-
ing on the available supply at Woods and in that vicinity: that is to say, the supply
remaining after the recognized Colorado appropriations are satisfied.
We already have indicated that, as to such a stream as this, the average flow of all
years, high and low. can not be taken as a proper or reasonable measure of what is
available for practical use. What th^n is the amount which is available here? Ac-
cording to the general consensus of opinion among practical irrigators and experi-
enced irrigation engineers, the lowest natural flow of the years is not the test. In
practice they proceed on the view that within limits, financially and physically
feasible, a fairlv constant and dependable flow materiallv in excess of the lowest may
generally be obtained by means of reservoirs adapted to conserving and equalizing
the natural flow; and we regard this view as reasonable.
But Wyoming takes the position that she should not be required to provide storage
facilities in order that Colorado may obtain a larger amount of water from the common
supply than otherwise would be possible. In a sense this is true; but not to the extent
of requiring that the lowest natural flow be taken as the test of the available supply.
The question here is not what one State should do for the other, but how each should
exercise her relative rights in the waters of this interstate stream. Both are interested
in the stream and both have great need for the water. Both subscribe to the doctrine
of appropriation, and by that doctrine rights to water are measured by what is reason-
ably required and applied. Both States reco?nize that conservation within practi-
cable limits is essential in order that needless waste may be prevented and the largest
feasible use may be secured. This comports with the all-pervading spirit of the doc-
trine of appropriation and takes appropriate heed of the natural necessities out of
which it arose. We think that doctrine lays on each of these States a duty to exercise
her right reasonably and in a manner calculated to conserve the common supply.
Notwithstanding her present contention. Wyoming has in fact proceeded on this
line, for, as the proof shows, her appropriators, with her sanction, have provided and
have in service reservoir facilities which are adapted for the- purpose and reasonably
sufficient to meet'its requirements.
There is one respect, requiring mention, in which Colorado's situation differs ma-
teriallv from that of Wyoming. The water to satisfy the Colorado appropriations
is, and in the nature of things must be. diverted in Colorado at the head of the stream;
and because of this those appropriations will not be a/fected by any variation in
the yearly flow, but will receive their full measure of water in all years. On the
other hand, the Wyoming appropriations will receive the water only after it passes
down into that Stale, and must bear whatever of risk is incident to the variation in
the natural flow. Of course, this affords no reason for underestimating the available
supply, but it does show that to overestimate it will work particular injury to Wyo-
ming.
The lowest established flow was that of 1913. There is no claim or proof that in
any other year the flow fell so low. Had there been others some proof of it doubtless
would have been presented. This is also true of the very low flow of 1896. There-
fore we think it reasonably may be assumed that the flow of those years was so ex-
ceptional that it is not likelv to recur save at long intervals.
We conclude, in view of all the evidence and of the several considerations we have
stated, that the natural and vardn-r flow of this stream at Woods, which is after the
recogized Colorado appropriations are satisfied, is susceptible by means of prac-.
ticable storage and conservation of being converted into a fairly constant and depend
able flow of 170,000 acre-feat per year, but not more. This we hold to be the avail
able supply at that paint after the recognized Colorado diversions are made. The
amount may scorn large, but, considering what naav be accomplished with practicable
storage f i -ilitie-, such a* are already prodded, and the use which may be made of the
return water, we are persuaded that the amount, while closely pressing the outside
limit, is not too lar.
131G 22 PT! 4
liKVKLOP.MEXT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
The problem to be worked out in obtaining a fairly dependable supply in that
amount is measurably illustrated by the following table covering all the years for
which the evidence supplies the requisite data, the flow during the missing months
being fairly estimated:
Year.
Acre- feet.
Variance
from
average
of all.
Variance
from
average
of all
but 1899.
Variance
from
170,000.
1889
151,349
56,893
-38,576
-18 651
1890
187,406
-20.836
-2, 519
+17,408
1891
226,146
+ 17,904
+36,221
+56, 146
1895
239. 239
+30,997
+ 49,314
+69,239
1896
127, 022
-81,220
-62,903
-42,978
1897 .
270,074
+61,831
+ 80,149
+ 100.074
1898
136, 765
-71.477
-53, IfiO
-33,235
1899 '
409, 730
+201,488
- 219,805
+239,730
1900
267, 105
+ 58,863
+ 77,180
+97, 105
1911
157, 240
-51,002
-32,685
-12,760
1912
213 241
+ 4,999
+2}, 316
+ 43,241
1913
113,593
-94, 649
-76,332
-56,047
Average 298.242, including all years.
Average 189,925, including all years but 1899.
It of course is true that the variation in the flow will not always be just what it
was in the years covered by the table, and yet the data obtained by the gaging and
measurements in those years show better than anything else what reasonably may
be expected in the future. We recognize that the problem which the table is in-
tended to illustrate is not a simple one and that to work it out will involve the exer-
cise of both skill and care. But in this it is not unlike other problems of similar
moment. Our belief gathered from all the evidence is that, with the attention which
rightly should be bestowed on a problem of such moment, it can be successfully solved
within the limits of what is financially and physically practicable.
As to Sand Creek. Colorado's witness regarded it as a tributary of the river and
estimated its yearly flow at 17.000 acre-feet. The creek rises in Colorado, extends
into the Laramie Plains in Wyoming, and discharges into Button Lake, a few miles
from the river. In exceptional years about one in five the waters of the creek
overflow the lake for a short period and find their way over the prairie into the river,
Otherwise the river receives no water from the creek. The proof of this is direct
and undisputed. The creek is nominally a tributary of the river, but only that.
Besides, its flow does not appear to have been measured. The witness merely esti-
mated it at what he thought would be the natural run-off of the adjacent territory.
Other evidence suggests that the estimate is too high, but this we need not consider.
A substantial part of the flow is diverted, through what is known as the Divide Ditch,
for use in irrigating lands in Colorado, and the evidence suggests, if it does not estab-
lish, that existing appropriations in the two States take the entire flow. For these
reasons the waters of this creek can not be regarded as a factor in this controversy.
After passing Woods, and while traversing the territory wherein are the Wyoming
appropriations with which we are concerned, the Laramie receives one large and
some very small additions to its waters.
The large addition comes from the Little Laramie. a stream whose source and
entire length are in Wyoming. Its natural now is a little more than one-half of that
of the main stream at Woods and is subject to much the same variations. Part of its
flow is used under appropriations along its course and the remainder passes into the
main stream. Including what is appropriated along its course, and excluding minor
contributions by small creeks after it gets well away from its headwaters, we think
the amount available for practical use is 93.0CO acre-feet per year.
None of the small tributaries, whether of the Laramie or the Little Laramie. adds
much to the available supply. Their natural flow is small. As to some it is all used
under old appropriations: as to some it is partly used under such appropriations;
and as to some it is only seasonal, the channels being dry much of the year. Some
creeks spoken of in Colorado's evidence as tributaries are otherwise shown not to be
such, but to deliver their waters into lak( s or ponds not connected with either of the
principal streams. Colorado's evidence also takes into account some tributaries which
discharge into the Laramie below the points of diversion of all the Wyoming appro-
priations with which we are concerned. One, of which much is said in the evidence,
is the Svbille. It reaches the Laramie below the diversion for the Wheatland Dis-
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 49
trict ''the lowest diveision we are to consider;, but in its course passes through that
district. A small part of its flow is used in that district and it is not practicable to
use more. What is used should, for present purposes, be treated as if it reached the
Laramie above the \\hcatland diversion. Wyoming contends that none of these
small tributaries, other than the Sybille. contributes any dependable amount to the
available supply. We think there is in the aggregate a fairly dependable contribu-
tion of 25.000 acre-feet, but not more.
It results that, in ovir opinion, the entire supply available for the proposed Colorado
appropriation and the Wyoming appropriations down to and including the diversion
for the Wheatland district is 288.000 acre-feet.
In contending for a larger finding, Colorado points to the issue by Wyoming's State
engineer of permits, so-called, for appropriations in excess of that amount and insists
that these permits constitute solemn adjudications by that officer that the supply is
adequate to cover them. But in this the nature of the permits is misapprehended.
In fact and in law they are not adjudications but mere licenses to appropriate if the
requisite amount of water be there. As to many nothing ever is done under them by
the intending appropriators. In such cases there is no appropriation; and even in.
others the amount of the appropriation turns on what is actually done under the
permit. In late years the permits relating to these streams have contained a pro-
vision, saying: "The records of the State engineer's office show the wateis of [the
particular stream] to be largely appropriated. The appropriator under the permit is
hereby notified of this fact, and the issuance of this permit grants only the right to
divert and use the surplus of waste water of the stream and confers no rights which
will interfere with or impair the use of water by prior appropriators." It therefore
is plain that these permits have no such probative force as Colorado seeks to have
attributed to them.
Colorado also comments on the amount of water stored in Wyoming reservoirs in
1912 and seeks to draw from this an inference that the available supply was greater
than we have indicated. But the inference is not justified, and for these reasons:
First, a part of what was stored wa* dead water: that is. was below the level from which
water could be drawn off and conducted to the places of use. This is a matter com-
monly experienced in the selection and use of reservoir sites. Secondly, the flow of'
1912 wa* above what could be depended on and prudence required that a substantial
part be carried over to meet a possible shortage in the succeeding year. And, thirdly,
the evidence shows that in 1912 the storing process was improvidently carried to a
point which infringed the rights of small appropriators who were without storage
fa'ilities.
The available supply the 288,000 acre-feet is not sufficient to satisfy the Wyoming
appropriations dependent thereon and also the proposed Colorado appropriation, so
it becomes necessary to consider their relative priorities.
There are some existing Colorado appropriations having priorities entitling them to
precedence over many of the Wyoming appropriations. These recognized Colorado
appropriations are, 18,000 acre-feet for what is known as the Skyline Ditch and 4.250
acre-feet for the irrigation of that number of acres of native-hay meadows in the Lara-
mie Valley in Colorado, the 4,250 acre-feet being what Colorado's chief witness testifies
is reasonably required for the purpose, although a larger amount is claimed in the
State's answer. These recognized Colorado appropriations, aggregating 22,250 acre-
feet, are not to be deducted from the 288,000 acre-feet, that being the available supply
after they are satisfied. Xor is Colorado's appropriation from Sand Creek to be
deducted, that creek, as we have shown, not being a tributary of the Laramie.
The proposed Colorado appropriation which is in controversy here, is spoken of in
the evidence as the Laramie-Poudre Tunnel diversion and is part of an irrigation
project known as the Laramie-Poudre project. Colorado insists that this proposed
appropriation takes priority, by relation, as of August 25. 1902, and Wyoming that
the priority can relate only to the latter part of 1909. The true date is a matter of
importance, because some lanre irrigation works were started in Wyoming between
the dates mentioned, were diligently curried to completion, and are entitled to priori-
ties as of the dates when they were started.
The Laramie-Poudre project is composed of several units, originally distinct, which
underwent many changes before they were brought together in a single project. In
its final form the project is intended to divert water by means of a tunnel from the
Laramie River into the Poudre watershed, there to unite that water with water taken
from the Cache la Poudre River and then to convey the water many miles to the lower
part of the Poudre Valley, where it is to be used in reclaiming and irrigating a body
of land containing 125.000 acres. It is a large and ambitious project whose several
parts, as finally brought together, are adjusted to the attainment of that purpose.
The parts were separately conceived, each having a purpose of its own. The project
now is intended to draw on two independent sources of supply, each in a separate
50 DKYKLOP.MKXT OF LOWER COLORADO UIVF.K P.ASIX.
watershed. 1 The appropriations are necessarily distinct. Neither adds anything to,
nor subtracts anything from, the status of the other. We are concerned with only one
of them.
The proposed tunnel diversion from the Laramie was conceived as a possibility by
Wallace A. Link in 1897 and was explained by him to Abraham I. Akin in the spring
of 1902. Later in the year they visited the headwaters of the two streams, looked over
the ground, and agreed that Link's idea was a good one, that the undertaking was
large, and that they Avere without the means to carry it through. They concluded to
promote the project together, and, thinking their chance-; of success would be im-
proved by it, they also concluded to construct a ditch, known as the Upper Rawah,
from the Laramie \ 'alley to a connection with an existing ditch, called the Skyline,
and to take water through these ditches into the <'a<-he la Pmidre Valley and there
sell it. By this they hoped to demonstrate that water wa< obtainable from that
source and to obtain money to be used in promoting their project. The' Skyline was
a fair-sized ditch leading over a low part of the divide to a branch of the Poudre, and
they arranged with its owner for the carriage, on a percentage l>u-is, of water from
their ditch when constructed. They also conceived that the ditch could be used
advantageously in collecting and carrying water to be sent through the tunnel if and
when the tunnel diversion was effected. In 1902, beginning August iT>, they surve;, ed
the line of the Rawah, and in October of that year filed a statement of claim under
it in the State engineer's office. In the statement they said nothing about a tunnel
diversion and made claim only to the amount of water expected to be carried through
the Rawah and to the use of certain lakes or natural reservoirs for storage purj'
No work was done on the ditch that year. In 1903 they cleared some of the land over
which it was to run, but did no excavating. In 1904 they constructed (>,000 feet of the
ditch and did more clearing. No work was done on it in 1905 or 1906. Further work
was done in 1907, and some washouts were repaired in 1903. That was the last work
on the Rawah. Much more than one-half of the ditch was left unconsinicted. Xo
water was delivered through it to the Skyline, nor was any sold or used. Nothing
appears to have been done with the lakes or natural reservoirs.
. In 1903 Link and Akin gave to each of three others a one-fifth share in their
project, in return for which the new partners were to carry on solicitations to get
capitalists interested and to raise money. The results of the solicitations were disap-
pointing, but some investors were brought in and became concerned about the pre-
liminary plans. Differences of opinion arose and had to be dealt with. The plans
were examined and reexamined, alternative modes and places of diversion were
considered and investigated, particular features were eliminated and others added,
and in 1909, but not before, the project was definitely brought into its present form.
A short reference to some of the details will serve to make this plain.
In the upper Rawah filing of October, 1902, nothing was said about the proposed
tunnel diversion, but a claim was made to the use of certain lakes or natural reser-
voirs described as having an aggregate capacity of 325,000,000 cubic feet. The
tunnel diversion was merely a mental conception until 1904. In March of that year
a survey was made of a tunnel site, a ditch from the west fork of the Laramie to the
east fork, and a channel reservoir on the east fork above the tunnel site; and in May
following a statement of clain under them was filed, in which the estimated cost of the
tunnel and ditch was given as $189,200 and that of the reservoir as $20,000. Later in
1904 a survey was made of a tunnel site, three collecting ditches, and two pipe lines,
and in October of that year a statement of claim under them was filed, in which
the estimated cost of the tunnel, ditches, and pipe lines was given as ?375,000. The
location and dimensions of the tunnel in the second survey differed from those in the
first. The difference was not pronounced, and yet was a real change. In September,
1906, another statement of claim was filed covering the upper Rawah ditch, the lakes
connected therewith, and the tunnel. This statement declared that the lakes were
to be so enlarged that they would have an aggregate capacity of 1.2-">0,000.000 cubic
feet, instead of 325,000,000 as stated in the filing of 1902; and if again changed the loca-
tion and dimensions of the tunnel this time more than before.
In 1905 and 1906 surveys were made to find a route for an open canal from the
Laramie around the mountains, through a portion of Wyoming and back to Colorado,
which would avoid the construction of a tunnel and the maintenance of ditches in
the higher mountain levels; and in 1908 a statement of claim covering such a canal
1 An eiv-il'ieer who had been cwnccte 1 with the work and was a witness tar the defendants, said: ''This
svUem hi it .vo distinct, an lin lep.'nient s mrc-os of supply; that from the Laramie River and that from the
Poudre River Basin an i the tributaries of the South Plalte. and it was sode-igncd thai the Poudre Valley
Canal couH divert water from the P.uidre River and also from the northern tributaries of the Poudre inter-
c 'pie 1 by the canal ani from the tributaries of the South PIu' ti as Crow Creek and intercepted
by the canal wherever there was surnlus water. We estimated that the amount of water available out side
of the Laramie River source would be between so.000 and 100.000 acre-feet per annum as an average. "
DE\ 7 ELOPMEXT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 51
was filed, as was also a claim covering a large channel reservoir nine miles down the
stream from the tunnel site. The estimated cost of the canal was given as $1,000,000
and that of the reservoir as $200,000. The plan evidenced by these filings was that
of impounding the water in the reservoir and liberating it in an equalised flow into
the canal, which was to carry it into the Poudre watershed without the aid of a tunnel.
Late in 1908 and in the fore part of 1909 another survey along the same general line
and with the same purpose was made at a cost of $15,000. Early in 1909 a statement
of claim was filed covering a proposed reservoir near the tunnel site, the cost being
estimated at $200,000.
In 1907 the Laramie-Poudre Reservoirs and Irrigation Co. succeeded to whatever
rights the promoters had acquired up to that time, and all subsequent surveys, in-
vestigations, and filings were made by it. In April, 1909, the Greeley- Poudre irriga-
tion district, within which the water is intended to be used, was organized. At
that time sufficient capital had not been obtained to carry the project through in any
form. In September following the irrigation company and the irrigation district the
entered into a tentative contract, under which the company was to consummate the
project in its present form, and, after doing the construction work, was to transfer the
property to the district. Payment therefor was to be made in interest-bearing bonds
of the district. By a vote taken the next month, the district ratified the contract and
authorized the issue of the bonds. About the last of that month the work of boring
the tunnel and making the diversion was begun.
It is manifest from this historical outline that the question of whether, and also
how, this proposed appropriation should be made remained an open one until the
contract with the irrigation district was made and ratified in 1909. Up to that time
the whole subject was at large. There was no fixed or definite plan. It was all in an
inceptive and formative stage investigations being almost constantly in progress to
del ermine its feasibility and whether changes and alternatives should be adopted
rather than the primary conception. It had not reached a point where there was
fixed and definite purpose to take it up-and carry it through. An appropriation does
not take priority by relation as of a time anterior to the existence of such a purpose.
It no doubt is true that the original promoters intended all along to make a large
appropriation from the Laramie by some means, provided the requisite capital could
be obtained, but this is an altogether inadequate basis for applying the doctrine of
relation.
Xo separate appropriation was effected by what was done on the upper Hawaii ditch.
The purpose to use it in connection with the Skyline was not carried out, but aban-
doned. This, as Link testified, was its "principal" purpose. The purpose to make
it an accessory of the large project was secondary and contingent. Therefore the work
on it can not be taken as affecting or tolling back the priority of that project.
Actual work in making the tunnel diversion was begun as before shown, about the
last of October, 1909. Thereafter it was prosecuted with much diligence and in 1911,
when this suit was brought, it had been carried so nearly to a state of completion that
the assumption reasonably may be indulged that, but for the suit, the appropriation
soon would have been perfected. We conclude that the appropriation should be
accorded a priorty by relation as of the latter part of October, 1909, when the work
was t>egun.
Applying a like rule to the Wyoming appropriations, several of them must be
treated as relating to later dates, and therefore as being junior to that appropriation.
Some of the projects in that State are founded on a plurality of appropriations, a part
of which are senior and a part junior to that one.
The evidence shows that the Wyoming appropriations having priorities senior to
the one in Colorado, and which are dependent on the available supply before named,
cover 181,500 acres of land and that the amount of water appropriated and reasonably
required for the irrigation of these lands is 272,500 acre-feet. A much larger amount
is claimed, but our finding restricts the amount to what the evidence shows is reasona-
bly required, which is one acre-foot per a< re for the larger part of the lands, two acre-
feet per acre for a part and two and one-half acre feet per acre for the remainder.
As the available supply is 288,000 acre-feet and the amount covered by senior
appropri-.il ions in \Vyoming is 272,500 acre-feet, there remain 15.500 acre- fed which
ore subject to this junior appropriation in Colorado. The amount sought to be diverted
and taken under it is much larger.
A decree will accordingly lie entered enjoining the defendants from diverting or
taking more than 15,500 acre-feet per year from the Laramie River by means of or
through the so-called Laramie-Poudre project-
It is so ordered.
A t rue copy.
Test: ,
Cleric, Supreme Court, U. S.
52 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
COMMITTEE ox IRRICATIOX OF AI:II> LAXDS,
HOUSE OK RKPKKSKXTATTVES.
Junt !1. 198*.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.. Hon. Nicholas J. SinnoU presiding.
Mr. SIXXOTT. This meeting was called this morning for the purpose of hearing
Mr. Hoover, who is chairman of the Colorado River Commission that examined into (
the matter we are considering. We will be glad to hear you. Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT C. HOOVER, SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE.
Secretary HOOVER. Mr. Chairman, I assume the committee is quite familiar with
the physiographic character of the river, the topography, and the problems that are
presented.
Mr. SINXOTT. We have had considerable testimony on those points.
Secretary HOOVER. It can be expressed in very few words, that the Colorado River
drains portions of seven States: that the volume of flow of the river varies seasonally
during the year from somewhere between five to six thousand second-feet up to
200,000 second-feet, while it. varies in total quantity of discharge from fl.OCO.CI acre-
feet per annum up to 26.COO.OCO acre-feet in different years. The irrigation work now
in progress in the lower river has absorbed the whole flow of the river at low water,
and therefore further extension of irrigation is estopped, unle.-s sioiage of the flocd
flow is undertaken. From the storage point of view the river is unique. The amount
of additional acreage in the United States that can be brought under irrigation in the
upper and lower river can be extended by between four and six million acres, a
against perhaps under 3.COO.OOO acres now under irrigaticn. Furthermore, the spring
floods now endanger the land under irrigation, and the problem is also one of storage
for control purposes.
The Colorado River Commission, of which I am the chairman, and on which I
represent the Federal Government, was established by legislation in the seven States
and by the Federal Government looking in the first instance to an agreement that
would prevent legal conflict between the different States in the basin over the use of
water. The legislation establishing the commission in some of the States also implies
that the commission should give consideration to a definite plan for the development
of the river as a whole, both from the legal and economic phases and also from the
engineering point of view. But whether that is expressed or not it is implied, because
there can be no settlement of the legal rights of the different States that did not embrace
the contemplation of storage along the river. The only hope of securing further devel-
opment and the application of the waters to their maximum use is through storage.
Therefore it is impossible to discuss the question of interstate water rights without
discussing it in the phase of storage.
The commission is endeavoring to develop an adjustment of the interstate rights
to the water, and will probably offer some recommendations as to a long-view program
for the development of the river.
On the legal side it is proposed that an agreement should be entered into between
the seven States and the Federal Government establishing the rights of the seven
States to their participation in the water, and that that agreement, if it meets the
approval of the legislatures of the seven States and the Federal Government, will
become statutory law with respect to the basin.
There are no agreements yet reached in that phase of the matter. The commission
reassembles to consider it fdrther on the 1st of August at Santa Fe. In the meantime
the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court has considerably advanced
the whole conception of interstate water rights.
Mr. SINXOTT. You speak of the Wyoming-Colorado case'. 1
Secretary HOOVER. Yes: the Wyoming-Colorado case. That decision, perhaps,
simplifies the issues, because it fairly definitely establishes interstate rights to the
water by priority of beneficial use.
In the considerations by the commission of this question, which has lasted over
some months and has involved public hearings at various points in the basin, the
engineering problems, of course, have been constantly in the minds of the commission
and the public generally who have appeared before the commission.
The most pressing of these problems is the control of the annual freshets on the
river, not only from the point of view of storage but from the point of view of safety />
to the people of the lower river. The Imperial Valley and the Arizona districts are {
in great danger at the present time, and it becomes vital that control of the freshets
shall be established. Almost at any moment in one of these freshets the Imperial
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER 'COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 53
Valley may be drowned out by the breaking of the river into the Salton Sea. So
imminent has the danger become to the valley that the people in that area are now
having difficulty in obtaining mortgages and other loans to carry on their business.
The banks throughout the southern part of California have become fearful that action
may not be taken by the Government in time to assure the safety of the large invest-
ment3 already mada, and the paople are finding a groat deal of difficulty to finance
themsalves.
I mention this as an indication of the pressing emergency of the situation and the
necessity for early action.
In the various discussions before and in the commission, consideration has been
given to the question of at what pirticular point storage should be first established,
so as to fall into any plan of a Ion ,' view program that might extend over two centtiri.-s,
for whatever is done in this situation should be done in the long view. We have in this
river the advantage of a practically virgin situation that can be considered from the
point of view of broad mtional development with a definite, well-considered program .
Although there may be many views as to secondary steps in development, they can
be neglected at the pro-nut time. However, without the commission having gone on
to any particular record in the matter, I think all of the members of the commission
are in agreement that tha first step is the construction of a large storage dam somewhere
in the neighborhood of Boulder Canyon. There may be some questions of founda-
tions that may shift the site of that dam 15 or 20 miles. I believe the great majority
of engineering and public view does not question that this is the first step.
The reasons for coming to this conclusion are, first, the immediate importance of
control of flood flow, the large and cheap storage provided at this site, and the prob-
ability of an early development of a power market. The location of the dam at or near
Boulder Canyon, as against projected dams farther up the river, has been disputed by
some, but inasmuch as Boulder Canyon is some 150 miles nearer to a power market,
and as the sale of power will be ultimately necessary in order to establish a substratum
to finance the operation, that reason alone would seem convincing as to the location of
the dam at that point .
Mr. LITTLE. How far from the Boulder Canyon is the first extended area of land that
would be irrigable?
Secretary HOOVER. I should think probably 130 or 150 miles below.
Some who have advocated a dam at the next practical site, some 250 miles farther
up the river, look at it solely from the engineering point of view rather than from the
point of view of the economics of the problem. I do not know whether it is necessary
to go into that question in any detail; if so. the engineers of the Irrigation Service can
no doubt inform the committee with a great deal more detail than I can .
Mr. SIXXOTT. What do you mean by the economics of the problem?
Secretary HOOVER. The availability of the power market, and the fact that the dam at
the lower site would control a larger degree of possible freshet than dams farther up the
river, and that that location of a dam below does not at all interfere with the subsequent
development of other dams above. There is a legal phase in the problem in the devel-
opment of the river that must be taken into consideration. That is the fact that the
lands which are likely first to come into irrigation, on the present return from irrigated
lands, the ones most easily financed are those in the lower part of the basin. A larger
amount of land in the upper basin will no doubt be brought into irrigation at later
limes. Therefore, the States in the upper basin have been anxious that there should
be no water rights established by storage or prior beneficial use in the lower basin that
will interfere with their ultimate development above. In other words, that as a result
of the works in the lower basin there should be no limitations of the possibilities of
bringing their land into fruitful development.
Mr. BANKHEAD. What do you mean by the lower and upper basins?
Secretary HOOVER. We generally speak of California and Arizona as the lower basin,
as distinguished from Colorado. Nevada, I" tali. New Mexico, and Wyoming in the
upper basin. These lands in here [indicating on map lands in southern California
and Arizona], will come into play first being the easier of development. The ultimate
earnings of the land farther north may be equal to those below, but their development
will be slower. That has been the history of most streams, so far as I know, that is, the
first lands to be brought into irrigation are the lands in the lower river. I raise this
matter because it is a very pressing question to the Stales in the upper basin.
Mr. RAKER. Is the controversy pending among iho seven States as to the division
of the water and the location of the dam?
Secretary HOOVER. I do not think there is division of opinion that the most urgent
dam is needed in the neighborhood of Boulder Canyon.
Mr. RAKER. Then the only question is as to the division of storage water?
54 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Secretary HOOVER. The question in llie minds of the upper ha t sin is that the con-
struction of a dam below them at Boulder Canyon would establish a water right under
the practice of the Western States that the actual storage of water creates the right to
use the water. That is, they might by such a beneficial application be compelled
to allow the flow of the water into the dam at the sacrifice of their own lands. The
commission is endeavoring to solve that problem.
Mr. SINNOTT. They want to save this question of prior right?
Secretary HOOVER. They think there might be established a prior right limiting
the development, of their lands.
Mr. RAKER. In other words, I gather from your first statement that this water can
not be used now, but it must be in process of storage either in the upper part of the
river or below.
Secretary HOOVER. The problem of the retention of a right to the water by the States
in the upper basin is not insoluble, because the total flow and storage possibilities of
the river along its entire course are probably sufficient to irrigate all of the land that
can ever be brought under irrigation.
Mr. RAKER. Then is it your view in that connection that this legislation should go
forward, notwithstanding the fact that the commission has not finally determined,
or that the States have not acted upon whatever recommendations the commission
has agreed Upon?
Secretary HOOVER. I think the legislation should go forward, because the emer-
gency of the situation in the Imperial Valley requires almost immediate action in
the control of the river and distinguishes it from any other question.
Mr. RAKER. It would not in any way affect the adjustment of the matter before
the commission.
Secretary HOOVER. I do not think the States of the lower basin would raise any
objection to a provision in the. bill that the creation of this storage in itself created no
water rights as against the upper States. I believe that the feeling in the upper States
could be relieved by a provision that the erection of the dam did not create the water
rights as against them, with full provision for their protection. Some such action
should remove any legitimate objection to immediately proceeding with the con-
struction.
Mr. RAKER. That being the case, the Government proceeding to construct the
Boulder Creek dam, under the law applicable to the first appropriation of the water
in the Western States, would that in any way permit or authorize a larger construction
if, eventually, the water was taken above?
Secretary HOOVER. No; I think we are all pretty well agreed that there is a suffi-
ciency of water for the whole basin, even in long-view development.
Mr. HERRICK. The point is to impound the whole backwater at flood stage, is it
not?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes, sir.
Mr. HERRICK. When the gates to the dam are closed, to what extent would it protect
the flow of the river?
Secretary HOOVER. The capacity of the projected dam would be equal, I think,
to the flow of the entire river for a period of something less than two years.
Mr. HERRICK. It would hold practically the entire river?
Secretary HOOVER. For a period of two years, if you wanted to do it.
Mr. HAYDEN. You spoke of inserting a provision in this bill which would safe-
guard the rights of the States upstream by abrogating the law of appropriation as it.
now exists in so far as the Boulder Canyon dam is concerned, bo you not find
difficulty in now determining what the ultimate irrigation possibilities are within
the seven interested States?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes; the several States are not in any very close agreement as
to what the actual acreage is that they will be able to ultimately develop. Taking
the view of the Reclamation Service, there is apparently, with a careful development
of the river, enough water for all.
Mr. HAYDEN. It has been suggested that an agreement should be made among the
States of the Colorado River Basin that for the next 20 or 30 years any irrigation
development, which takes place on that stream shall not create a prior right to the use
of water. In other words, that the doctrine of priority would not apply as between
all lands brought under irrigation during the period thus agreed upon, but that all
appropriations of water should be considered as of even date. At the end of this
period of years each State would be better able to determine j ust how much land ( ould
be irrigated and they could then agree upon an equitable division of the water.
Secretary HOOVER. The commission has come to no conclusion as yet. The theme
that seems to meet with more general approval than any other is that each State could
proceed with its development up to the absorption of a certain number of acre-feet
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 55
per annum, leaving a considerable residue of the river unappropriated ; that at some
future period, 25 or 50 years hence, they should again assemble and discuss what
would be done with the remainder, thus <ji\ing an ample period to work out the rela-
tive participation of the different States, based upon the relative amount of land
which they could bring into irrigation.
.Mr. HAYDEN. Is there any conflict, not only as to the area of land that may be
irrigated, but as to the allocation among the States of power developed on the Colorado
River?
S ( -c ret an 1 1 o < > \ K H . I do not think there is any intrinsic dispute about that question,
because there is a general realization that power must be sold where it can bring a
return. There is also the realization that the river at its maximum development,
perhaps will produce five or six million horsepower, so the production of five or six
hundred thousand horsepower at Boulder Canyon is not the ultimate end or limit
of what can be secured. I do not believe you will find there is much anxiety about
that question. What there was anxiety about is a matter which will undoubtedly
be established in the agreement of the commission, and this is, that there shall be a
priority of agriculture over the use for power.
$Ir. LITTLE. Is it intended that- Federal legislation shall cover that?
Secretary HOOVER. My feeling about the present Federal legislation is that it needs
to be confined purely to the question of the erection of storage works at Boulder
Canyon.
Mr. LITTLE. I thought you said a little while ago that there should be some Federal
enactment in connection with the rights arising from the use of the water.
Secretary HOOVER. Pending the completion of the work of the commission the
only need is legal reservations in respect to the construction of this particular dam.
I believe that under the law of Colorado, for instance, the erection of storage gives.
a right to the use of the water of that storage as against subsequent claimants for water
from the stream above the dam so far as it might deplete storage. Necessarily there
is some alarm in the minds of the States above that the erection of this particular
storage might give the lower basin States the right to call on the upper States to allow
the river to flow into the dam without reference to their own needs, and this might
apply even were all of the water in storage not used for many years.
Mr. LITTLE. Has the commission reached the conclusion that a Federal enactment
would settle the question as to whether the lower States should have priority on the
Boulder Canyon water?
Secretary HOOVER. No; I do not think the lower States want a priority at all.
Mr. LITTLE. I thought, from what you said that the bill should probably contain a
provision that no special rights should arise to the Southern States, as against the
others, by reason of the building of the dam, and the question in my mind was whether
you had reached a conclusion that. Congress could probably make such a law.
Secretary HOOVKR. My advice was that Congress could, in the bill authorizing the
construction of this dam, make such a provision as would relieve the upper States of
danger upon this particular point.
Mr. LITTLE. Have you had the law examined sufficiently so that you feel sure of
your position?
Secretary HOOVER. I would want to take further advice about it, especially in
view of the late decision of the Supreme Court.
Mr. LITTLE. You also spoke of agreements possible between the States. Has it been
settled legally that the States can make agreements about that water that would bind
anybody?
Secretary HOOVKR. Yes; I am advised that this is a fully established right under
the Constitution. It has been very seldom taken advantage of. In other words, it
has been established that a treaty can be entered between the States, and if the
treaty is ratified by the Congress it becomes statutory law.
Mr. SINNOTT. The States of Oregon and Washington entered into an agreement in
reference to the Columbia River which was ratified by Congress.
Mr. LITTLE. Does that bind any'nodv. in reference to the respective rights?
Secretary HOOVER. I assume it is binding.
Mr. LITTLE. Suppose there were no such agreement, what would be the effect of a
Federal law of that kind?
Secretary HOOVKR. I suppose that if the dam is erected by the Federal Government,
the Federal (Jovernnient would be the poss.-s-or of any rights applicable to that dam -
you will need legal instruction upon many of these quest ions.
Mr. SINNOTT. Is that a navigable stream, Mr. Secretary'.'
Secretary HOOVKR. The Colorado has been navigated above the mouth of the Cilu
River; it is not navigated at the present time.
Mr. SINNOTT. Is it navigable at the Boulder Dam?
56 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Secretary HOOVER. Xn.
Mr. SIXXOTT. How far from there is it navigable above and below?
retary HOOVER. Navigation was once carried up to a point some 25 miles below,
but systematically say to 100 miles below that canyon.
Mr. HAYPEX. Years asro steamboats went from the mouth of the Colorado River
up to and above Fort Mohave. That was before the transcontinental railroads were /
constructed. Since that time there has been but little navigation on the river. ^
The effect of the construction of the Laguna Dam was to prevent navigation, although
the river is declared to be navigable by a treaty between the United States and Mexico
and is so considered by the \\'ar Department.
Mr. SIXNOTT. Is there any public land at that dam site?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes. sir; it would all be built on public land, and from the
S-actical point of view I assume that every dam that could be built on the Colorado
iver at any point would involve the use of public land, so that the Federal Gov-
ernment has a very considerable voice in the entire matter.
Mr. SMITH. What is the length of time that would be required to construct the
Boulder Dam?
Secretary- HOOVER. From 8 to 10 years.
Mr. SMITH. In view of the emergency in the Imperial Valley is there any other
relief that could be more speedily applied than the holding back of the water?
Secretary HOOVER. It is possible to get relief to the people in the Imperial Valley
at some intermediate stage of the construction of the dam at Boulder Canyon. I
think it ought to be possible to get relief in there in three or perhaps four years.
Mr. SMITH. Has any other plan been contemplated that would obviate the possi-
bility of danger to the property interests there?
Secretary HOOVER. There are a number of engineering suggestions that have been
made. I doubt whether most of them will hold water, however, when put to the test .
One of those suggestions is to blast in the canyon and make a dump in the river that
would create a sufficient holdback to give some relief. But I doubt whether any
serious engineer would contemplate placing the lives of ultimately from three to four
hundred thousand people under the dangers of such construction.
Mr. SMITH. A couple of years a?o we had under consideration a proposition to build
an all-American canal. Could that work go on more speedily than the plan of im-
pounding the water?
Secretarv HOOVER. That work could go on coincidentally with the work on the da m
if it were desired.
Mr. LITTLE. Does your commission favor that all-American canal?
Secretary HOOVER. We have never discussed that subject because it was one
purely local to California.
Mr. LITTLE. Have you an opinion on it personally?
Secretary HOOVER. I think it ought ultimately to be done. There are many
reasons why the United States should be independent of Mexico in the distribution
of the Colorado River. At the present moment the Imperial Valley is dependent on
the flow through Mexico, and it means constant concessions must be given to Mexico
in respect to these waters.
Mr. HAYDEX. Is the Colorado River Commission giving any consideration to water
rights in Mexico in making the proposed apportionment?
Secretary HOOVER. I have assumed that whatever rights Mexico may have in the
matter will be amply satisfied by the residue of the flow after everybody else is finished.
Mr. HAYDEX. That view is entirely satisfactory to me because I do not believe
that Mexico has a legal right to any part of the flow of the Colorado River. With
respect to the matter of power, I understand that there are a number of applications
pending before the Federal Power Commission, one in particular at Diamond Creek,
above Boulder Canyon. The applicant. Mr. James B. Girand, of Phoenix, initiated
a claim to this power site some years prior to the passage of the Federal water power
act and is very insistent that this right be accorded to him. Mr. Girand claims that
he has fully complied with the terms of the Federal water power act and is ready to
proceed with construction. I understand, however, that some representation was
made by the Colorado River Commission to the Federal Power Commission by which
the approval of his application has been withheld. Do you know anything about the
facts in the matter?
Secretary HOOVER. The Colorado River Commission made only the suggestion to
the Federal Water Power Commission that none of the rights on the river should be
given away that did not fall into mesh with a properly considered national plan for f
this development and did not protect the irrigation rights. We might conceivably t
have power rights given all along the river that would jeopardize its agricultural
development. We muct give agriculture priority. So far as that {articular power
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 57
>ite is concerned, on investigation I do not believe it would be found that it would
affect the agricultural question more than a reservation that is established no right
of continuous flow. IT has no storage importance. The governors of some of the
States and the Department of the Interior did protest against this permit temporarily.
The Colorado River Commission has no authority in the matter and, so far as I know.
made no sugire-M ions l.eyond the above. The Federal Government has a serious prob-
lem to consider as to the finance of construction of the dam at Boulder Canyon. It
would involve a large sum of money, and the recovery of that sum of money will be
dependent considerably upon the development of power. It has been contended
that to admit a competitor in the sale of that power at once diminishes the return to
the Federal Government upon the great burden that it must assume in providing
storage. The Diamond Creek Dam would be cheaply constructed and provides no
storage of consequence. We must consider that the raver belongs to the people, and
that they have a right to develop their river in such fashion as to give them a maxi-
mum return in power, storage, and control of floods. I have the feeling that the
Boulder Canyon Dam will require a number of years for completion. It will require
10 years before it can be brought in as a large power unit, and during that period
there will be a large development of a market for power, and it is possible, on a careful
study of that situation, that the Diamond Creek power development would not inter-
fere with the ultimate market of the Boulder Canyon. But both the Department of
the Interior and some of the individual members of the Colorado River Commission
considered it was wise to hold that application up until the subject was fully inquired
into.
Mr. SWING. May 1 add. in fairness to the commission, that I personally know that
a great number of protests were tiled with the Federal Power Commission, many of
them from California, and I know some in Colorado.
retary HOOVEK. There was some feeling that Congress might be less inclined to
a'ct'in saving this emergency situation in the Imperial Valley if the power develop-
ment was not held up until Congress had all the factors before it.
Mr. RAKER. I understand then that at the present time there are no prior rights
granted, although there are some applications on file, that would in any way affect
the Government construction of the Boulder Canyon dam to its highest capacity.
retary HOOVER. Xo: I do not think there are any power rights that amount to
anything. There are some rights in the upper river but they are of no importance
in consideration of the Boulder dam.
Mr. RAKER. It seems to be the policy to grant no rights until the right of the
Government is fully established as to the capacity of the dam at Boulder Canyon
and the amount of water that would come there to create a supply for power purposes
as well as irrigation.
Secretary HOOVER. I have felt that Congress ought to have the right to consider
this situation before any portion of it was disposed of.
Mr. RAKER. Then as I understand it, as far as determination by the Reclamation
Service and the Colorado Jliver Commission has gone, it is that there is sufficient
water, flood and otherwise, to justify btiilding the Boulder Canyon dam?
Secretary HOOVER. Certainly.
Mr. RAKER. Then, in the second place, the Government acting as an individual
would act in constructing the dam. would make its filing, just as anybody outside of the
Government would do. for this water right, and then when the dam was constructed
and ready for use its right would date back to the time of its tiling so it would know
what it originally started in for and believed it had. a sufficient water right, it could
maintain at the completion of the dam in order that there would be no interfering
with any subsequent rights acquired by virtue of prior construction necessary after
filing notice by the Government.
Secretary HOOVER. We have put it in a different way. I do not believe the Gov-
ernment requires any water right. It does not need to go through any process of
establishing a water risrht. The actual situation will solve that for itself. The flow
of water will. I believe, keep the dam full even with full development above. But
I believe that it is well to relieve the anxiety of the upper States by declaring that the
Government would exercise no claims in respect to it.
Mr. RAKER. In that connection would we not be met with the contention that if
other dams were constructed, even alter the Government had started, thai they had
complied with the law and that they might have a prior right over the Government,
and therefore it. would lie better for the < iovernment to lay its foundation permanently
so there could be no question of the loss of its rights u!'t'"- it had .-\ jn-tiiled an oMnniimin
amount for the construction of the dam?
Secretary iloovKR. We thought that c-nild he better safeguarded \ty providing that
any water rights given on the river for power purposes should not constitute any claim
58 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER J'.ASIN.
against agricultural users. In the discussion of the Diamond Creek water right I
think it was agreed by all sides that if and when granted it should contain a provi-
that the dam could not establish any water ri'_rht. not even a right to th-> continued
ilnw of the river. In other words, that the person who erected the dam took all the
ri-ks. I do not think those applicants could have any objection to it because they
know the water will flow with sufficient certainty for a century or so.
Mr. LITTLE. Could any private individual acquire any better rights if the Govern- J|
ment declared it would take them as a result of this dam?
.etary HOOVER. I would want to make further inquiry as to the effect of the
recent decision of the Supreme Court upon the question. That is whether an indi-
vidual below the dam by applying the water to beneficial use which arose through
storage in the dam. would thereby create a right as against later application of the !
of water above the dam. That question would have to be inquired into in the Ik lit
of the new decision. Ar the time this bill was discussed it was the view of the solici-
tors for the department that the Congress could, by a provision in this act, remedy the
fears of the upper States.
Mr. LITTLE. They could fix private individuals' rights?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes. This discussion, however, was before the recent decision.
Mr. LITTLE. As I understand you now. the purpose of the commission is that this bill
shall contain provisions by which the Government is not obliged to accept any water
rights at all?
retary HOOVER. Xo; that it contain a provision that will, to the satisfactior
the upper States, protect them as' against any prior water rights created by the con-
struction of the dam its<-lf.
Mr. LITTLE. By the Government?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes.
Mr. LITTLE. But not against the individual: as to that you have not reached a final
decision?
Secretary HOOVER. Xo.
Mr. HAYDEX. That no prior right is to be created by the construction of this dam?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes: if it can be made to apply to that.
Mr. LITTLE. May I ask whether it is the idea that the same character of legislation
shall appear in the bill with regard to power rights, too?
Secretary HOOVER. Xo.
Mr. LITTLE. Certain power will be developed. Is there any provision put into this-
bill as to that?
Secretary HOOVER. Xo; I do not think there is any feeling that there needs to be
any provision as to the distribution of power.
Mr. SMITH. The Government has no power to provide that individuals would have
no right under the law to make any claim on it. Every man would have the right to-
create this power.
Mr. HAYDEX. With reference to the provisions of the first section of the Swing bil! r
Mr. W. S. Xorviel. a member of the Colorado River commission, who is also the Ariz-
ona State water commissioner, has written me a letter in which he says:
"In the.first section, beginning with line 8 to the end of the section, the languap
objected to for the reason that it takes out of the control of the State of Arizona 01.
her largest undeveloped resources, and one to which we have long looked to be of very
great benefit to our State when developed. It would appear from the language that all
persons, municipal corporations, private corporations or States would be prevented
from constructing or owning any dams or diversion works in the Colorado River below
the mouth of the Green River. I personally object to this presumed reservation on the
part of the United States of the exclusive right to construct, etc.. because, as I deem it.
the United States has no authority to make any such reservation, nor can such author-
ity be granted by Conirr-
I am sure that the committee would be pleased to have the benefit of your views.
as to the necessity for such legislation as is proposed in section 1 of this bill.
Secretary HOOVER. It seems to me it was an unnecessary provision from many
points of view. It does raise a serious question in the minds of the States, but as a
matter of fact there can be no building of dams without permission of the Govern-
ment.
Mr. HAYDEX. Anyone now has authority under the water power act to make
application for a power site on public land and may obtain a permit to develop it.
Secretary HOOVER. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAYDEX. If section 1 was enacted as it stands, it would practically amount ^^.
to a repeal of the water power act so far as the Colorado River below it junction f .
with Green River is concerned.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BAS1X. 59
Mr. SIXXOTT. An applicant has the right to apply under the water power act, but
he has no vested right.
Mr. HAYDEN". I suppose that the Federal Water Power Commission naturally con-
sults the other Government departments before acting, but this section proposes to
absolutely prevent the Water Power Commission from granting a permit, because
all rights on the lower river are to be reserved to the United States.
Se -ret.iry HOOVER. I have never S'vn any particular value in that provision. It
iMH'-s a very contentious question. The States are maintaining thein rights to a voice
in the assignment of power privileges so that even when a power right is granted by the
I-',- i.'i'al I'o.'.vr < o'umission rhe possessors of that right must go back to the States and
lieir permits. I doubt whether any State will want to sacrifice its own rights in
matters, and I have never seen any real reason for introducing it here. The
primary question here should be simply the construction of storage works that will
give relief to the emergency situation in the Imperial Valley and increase the possi-
bilities of irriga ion.
Mr. SivNorr. How long will it take to construct the necessary works to remove that
e:n Tgent situa f io:i?
retary HOOVKR. I think it is the feeling of the reclamation engineers that at
Borne perio 1. say ihree or four years after the commencement of the construction, they
will be in a position to remove the major danger.
Mr. SWIN ; . llH' "Tin , r to the questions previously asked, assuming, as I do, that
you think the V>esi possible development of the Colorado River calls for a unified
project for development upon a harmonious, comprehensive plan, is there any other
agency, other than the Government, that. can work that out as a unified project?
Secretary HOOVKR. Xu: the Government must preserve the unity in the develop-
ment. It has the powers through control of the public lands and the Federal Power
Commission and various other agencies.
Mr-. RAKER. That being the fact, if the Government spends $40,000,000 to construct
the Boulder dam the testimony is that that would supply the entire territory. Would
it be advisable for the Government to yield this right and permit others to construct
dams for hydroelectric power purposes and then have the two competing for cus-
tomers?
Secretary HOOVER. If it was a question of preventing the return of the Govern-
ment investment, I would say no. But it is my impression that the demand for
power in that territory will ultimately far exceed that which will be supplied by
this particular development. I do not know that it is any objective of the Federal
(iovernment to go into power development per se. The Government is concerned
to secure a control works with irrigation storage erected at the least outlay. The
Diamond Creek development is entirely a power development and would " have no
influence on agriculture or flood control.
Mr. RAKER. My point was and I got my impression from your answers that the
two could be constructed and still there would be a demand for the power generated
by both of them.
Secretary HOOVKR. Yes: and I think for even greater amounts, eventually. The
whole problem is one of time. At this moment there is probably an immediate need
of, say, 200,000 horsepower; 10 years hence there is a possibility of a need of a million
horsepower.
Mr. Hrnsi'ETH. You spoke of the construction of the all -American canal for the
immediate relief of the people in the Imperial Valley. How long would it take to
const met that canal?
Secretary HOOVKR. The ail-American canal will not control the flood waters. I
have not looked into it in any detail, and I could not give you any reliable statement
as to the time required.
Mr. RAKER. Do I correctly understand your statement, Mr. Secretary, in regard to
the water supply, that even if the Flaming Gorge dam, the Dewey Gorge dam, and
the Glen Canyon dam were put in by private individuals or otherwise, and the Boulder
Canyon was <tarted and finally completed, there would be no diminution of water to
interfere with the full complement for the supply of that dam?
Secretary HOOVER. Xo: it is our conviction that there is enough water to lill ulti-
mately every one of those dam-.
Mr. RAKER. So we will not have to worry about the Boulder Canyon dam being fully
supplied, irrespective of the contemplated dams that have been discussed?
Secretary HOOVER. Xo: I do not think so.
Mr. SMITH. The whole scheme contemplates that the (iovernment shall be reiin-
Nbursed for the entire expenditure?
i Secretary HOOVER. Ultimately.
Mr. SMITH. What proportion of the expense will probably be charged to agriculture?
60 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVKR 1JASIX.
Secretary HOOVER. That is a very difiicult question to answer, because it would
depend on the power market which is not yet created. It is to sorne extent a bet on
the future development of the territory and a safe bet.
Mr. SMITH. In apportioning the cost per acre to the land it would necessarily be
limited to an- amount that would make the investment attractive to the settler, so it
seems to me it is important to determine in advance whether the land could be profit-
ably reclaimed.
Secretary HOOVER. There is, perhaps, some hazard as to some portion of this capital
outlay, but I would not be able to say how much. We may look at it from a broader
point of view than the return of the whole capital outlay. I believe the Government
would be entirely justified in spending a large sum on flood control alone, in preserva-
tion of a large community and wealth, without considering that the whole cost be
levied upon the land.
Mr. BAXKHEAD. How much is it estimated that this dam at Boulder Canyon will
cost?
Secretary HOOVER. The estimates vary from forty to fifty million dollars. Perhaps
in the neighborhood of $40,000.000.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Has any estimate been made on the other improvements that are
contemplated above to carry out the whole project?
Secretary HOOVER. My offhand impression is that 200 years hence, when we have
developed all the land that can be developed by the river, we will have spent $400,-
000.000.
Mr. BAXKHEAD. No immediate development other than the Boulder Canyon dam
is in contemplation?
Secretary HOOVER. There are some reclamation projects on the upper river that
would involve dams at Dewey and Flaming Gorge, but they are much less expensive.
Mr. LITTLE. What other dam or dams are in prospect before the proposition is finally
completed?
Secretary HOOVER. There probably will be dams at Boulder Canyon. Diamond
Creek. Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Dewey. and there are several other subsidiary
dams. So far as storage is concerned both of the great dams at Glen Canyon and at
Boulder Canyon would not be required for a century. They might both be required
for power purposes.
Mr. HUDSPETH. You have been speaking about the Boulder Canyon dam?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes.
Mr. HUDSPETH. What do you think of the feasibility of a dam there?
Secretary HOOVER. These canyons on the Colorado are the moat ideal spots in the
world for dams of large storage and power possibilities.
Mr. RAKER. Irrespective of the fact that this dam might be filled up with silt, the
expenditure would justify its being built now, would it not?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes. The silt question is purely academic. It has been
brought forward in criticism. Director Davis estimates that it will require over 200
years to fill the dam. It would still be good for power purposes even then.
Mr. LITTLE. May I inquire what is the history as to filling up with silt? Are they
filled up with silt?
Secretary HOOVER. I have not looked into it.
Mr. LITTLE. I am rather surprised with the statement* of the experts on this silt
business. I have not heard anything of that kind happening, and I have lived
alongside one of these dams for a long time. This is the first time I have heard of
that.
Mr. HERRICK. This will be the first dam built on the river, and the erection of
another is hardly contemplated; so is it not true that this dam will be completed
before the other project would be started?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes; it would be long before that.
Mr. HERRICK. In that event, it would not need the entire flow of the river to obtain
a level; the surplus from the other watershed would probably be sufficient to maintain
the level.
Secretary HOOVER. One has to bear in mind that the average amount of water
that can be put to maximum use below the Boulder Canyon dam will probably be
much less than the average flow of the river over a number of years, no matter how
many dams there are built above.
Mr. HERRICK. That is what was in my mind.
Mr. SixxoTT. Are there any other features of the bill that you desire to present to
the committee?
Secretary HOOVER. No.
Mr. SIXXOTT. Would the building of a number of dams lessen the flow of the silt?
r
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 61
Secretary HOOVEK. Yes; these are dams that will create a large body of still water.
Glen and Boulder Canyons would each create a lake, and that will undoubtedly
result in a deposit of silt. This is a river that carries a good deal of mud. That mud
is now deposited in the lower regions of the river. At the present time it is raising the
bed of the lower end of the river at the rate of somewhat under a foot per annum. So
that the dikes which now protect the Imperial Valley must be lifted every year. If
it is possible to put the silt farther up the river it is going to relieve the problem down
below very materially. That is one of the advantages in having the dams built.
Mr. HERRICK. Would the Boulder Canyon dam back the water up the river to the
Grand Canyon?
Secretary HOOVER. Xo; it is a long way from that. There is no destruction that will
be caused by any of the contemplated work.
Mr. SMITH. Do you think the Director of the National Park Service would admit
that ?
Secretary HOOVER. I think he would be good enough to admit that it would im-
prove the scenery in some of that section.
Mr. BANKHEAD. You said that it was the intention that the Government should be
ultimately reimbursed. That would have to come either from the power generated
or from the distribution of water rights for agricultural purposes?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes.
Mr. BAXKHEAD. Is it contemplated that any interest will be charged or simply the
original investment?
Secretary HOOVER. Under the reclamation act there is a practical abandonment
of interest during a certain stage, as you know. I imagine this development should
have the same consideration. At least that contribution (if it became necessary)
could be made to secure flood control.
Mr. RAKER. Mr. Davis told us last week that none of the expense for the construction
of the Boulder Canyon dam and its accessories would be expected to be charged
against the irrigationist, and that the Boulder Canyon dam would be paid for by the
sale of power alone, and that it ought not to be charged against the irrigationist. What
is your view on that? He thought it would justify construction for power purposes.
Secretary HOOVER. I think you are justified in the conclusion that if the Federal
Government now advances money in some form by which this project can be carried
forward, it will ultimately recover the money it puts into it. But to go fuither than
to express sueh an opinion is very difficult, because qne gets into calculations of the
power market and power rates, and the period at which the power could be de-
livered, etc.
Mr. RAKER. But it is your view that, irrespective of the returns that may come
from water or from power or from irrigation there is a sufficient demand to fully justify
the Government in constructing it, with the assurance that it will be reimbursed",
with a reasonable rate of interest.
Secretary HOOVER. I rather feel that the Government ought to make up its mind
on one thing, and while I believe it could be reimbursed with interest, yet there is
here a Federal function of establishing flood control in the protection of citizens,
in which the Federal Government has, as an established policy, always contributed
something from the people at large, and that we ought to be prepared to believe that
some sacrifice may be made by the Ferderal Government in that respect. I do not
think you need to contemplate it now, but I would not want to say that some item
of this sort does not deserve consideration. If the power market comes up to expecta-
tions the Government might over a long term of yeais make a profit from the whole
transaction on power alone.
Mr. HEKUICK. When the Government builds a battleship that costs $40,000,000, at
the end of 12 or 15 years that battleship is obsolete and its value to the Government
has gone down to almost nothing, whereas if you build this dam with the expenditure
of this money at the end of fifteen yeais its value is intact.
Secretary HOOVER. And not only that, this dam will be for all time a source of
direct income, and beyond that it will have created new homes for many citizens and
will have protected many thousands of them that are now in danger.
Mr. RAKER. M.r. Secretary, the bill before the committee has in it some very im-
portant provisions in regard to the cost, and other features which are important, and
I would like to have your views, and I think the committee would, too, on some of
those features of the bill, if you care to give them.
Secretary HOOVER. I have not gone into the details of the bill far enough, and I
did not want to do that until I had a chance to discuss it with the coiuiiiisi--i<.n and
ascertain whether they have any views: in other words. I would rather that the States
express their own views on that, and they no doubt will.
62 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. RAKER. Will you come back later and give us the benefit of your views, that
is. after you have fully matured them?
retary HOOVER. If you like, but T prefer that you get those views from each
individual State: in other words. I hesitate to express any views because I am sitting
as chairman of their commission. You can get an expression from them because they
will no doubt be before you soon.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. In your consideration of this proposition has there been
brought to your attention from any authoritati :t definite and roncret.-
proposition to buy this power; that is. from the city of Los Angeles or from any other
local power market?
Secretary HOOVER. Yes: there are three or four groups interested in this power
question. It is one of the most contentious parts of the whole business, hut it did not
seem to me that it is vitallv necessary to make up our minds now as to what we should
do three, five, or ten years hence. The power will be wanted even more then than now.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. When this matter is presented to Congress it is very important
that we have some definite assurances as to how the Government is be reimbursed.
because that is the problem that confronts us in connection with every irrigation
project we suirg -st. namely, when will the Government get its money back?
Mr. RAKER. In addition to that, the public will want some definite assurance
through legislation that no one particular individual, if authority is given to dispose
of it. will get hold of this power for 40 or 50 years and monopolize it. That phase of it
must be carefully considered.
Secretary HOOVER. But you have a double protection there because all the power
in the United States is now distributed subject to public utility control as to rates and
everything else.
Mr. SIXNOTT. If there are no more questions to be asked of Mr. Hoover, we thank him
very much. Mr. Secretary, your statement has been very illuminating.
PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS
HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIVES
SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H. R. 11449
By Mr. SWING
A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
PART 2
JUNE 21, 1922
WASHINGTON
GOVKIINMKNT 1'HINTING OFFICB
IMG 1922
COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.
MOSES P. KINKAID, Nebraska, Chairman.
NICHOLAS J. SINNOTT, Oregon. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona.
EDWARD C. LITTLE, Kansas. C. B. HUDSPETH, Texas.
ADDISON T. SMITH, Idaho. JOHN E. RAKER, California.
JOHN W. SUMMERS, Washington. HOMER L. LYON, North Carolina.
HENRY E. BARBOUR, California. WILLIAM B. BANKUEAD, Alabama.
E. O. LEATHERWOOD, Utah.
WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, South Dakota.
SAMUEL S. ARENTZ, Nevada.
MANUEL HERRICK, Oklahoma.
A. R. HUMPHREY, Clerk.
II
PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER
BASIN.
COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Wednesday, June 21, 1922 Continued.
Mr. SWING. I would like to present Professor Durand, of Stanford University.
Professor Durand is a graduate of the Annapolis Academy and has served in the United
States Xavy. He has been engaged in research work for the Government on water
propellers and more recently on air propellers. He was professor of marine engineering
at Cornell University and at present is professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford
University. During the war he was chairman of the Advisory Committee for Aeronau-
tics and was later scientific attache at Paris. He was the connecting link between
the United States Government and the Allies on war research. He is a member of
the -board of consulting engineers of San Francisco on the Hetch Hetchy project and
has been a member of the Los Angeles Hydro Electric Consulting Board since 1909.
STATEMENT OF PROF. W. F. DURAND.
Professor DURAND. I should, perhaps, explain that the reason I am appearing before
this committee (my primary connection being as a professor in Stanford University)
is due to the fact that during the entire period of the development of the municipal
power system of Los Angeles I have been in association with those undertakings in
a consulting capacity and have, therefore, had an opportunity of becoming familiar
with the power problems of Los Angeles as a city and, in a considerable degree, with
those affecting the southern part of California, and, of course, in some lesser degree
the entire section of the Southwest.
Mr. LITTLE. Were you employed by the city?
Professor DURAND. By the city, yes. Perhaps I should also say that my contact with
these problems has been chiefly technical and the subjects which I might naturally
discuss before this committee have already been generally covered by the Director of the
Reclamation Service. Any detailed discussion of these phases of the subject would
therefore lead to a repetition, in considerable degree, of a part of the testimony already
presented before the committee. This I believe to be unnecessary and I shall, there-
fore, endeavor to restrict my comments to certain features which were not so fully
dealt with by the Director of the Reclamation Service and to certain other points
which may be of interest to the committee.
Evidence has been shown, in the questions which members of the committee have
asked, regarding the very keen interest which they take in the problem of financial
reinbursement, the problem of the practicability of the scheme as a financial and
economic undertaking, and I wish to speak to that point briefly that is, regarding
the question of the prospective market for pow r er as we see it in the southern part of the
State of California and generally throughout the Southwest. It is known, I take it, to
most members of the committee, that the city of Los Angeles has already developed
power along the line of the aqueduct to the extent, in round numbers, of about 100,000
horsepower; the remaining capacity of the aqueduct and of the streams immediately
tributary thereto represents something like 150,000 horsepower more, so that the ulti-
mate development of the power immediately along the line of the aqueduct thinking
merely now of Los Angeles as the single customer will be represented by something
like 2oO,000 horsepower. The present demand for power in the city of I.os Angeles
far outruns its present development and it is itself at the present time a large purchaser
of power i rom the private power companies. The business agent of the city of I os
Angeles in recent years has been compelled to decline discussion with large prospective
power users regarding power for industrial purposes and representing an aggregate of
something like 100,000 horsepower. That is to say. there exists at prosMit a ^oid
which might be immediately filled or filled at a very early date represented by some
such figure.
63
64 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER C'OLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Mr. LITTLE. One hundred thousand horsepower?
Professor DURAXU. Yc.v
Mr. RAKER. What is being done to develop this other 150.000 horsepower?
Professor DURAND. They are proceeding as rapidly as circumstances will permit.
Mr. RAKER. And expect in due course to develop it to the entire limit?
Professor DURAND. Yes. sir; I am coming to that point immediately. The annual
increase in power demand in the city of Los Angeles in recent years has run at about
20 per cent, so that looking forward into the future it is a 20 per cent compound interest
program.
Mr. LITTLE. Annually?
Professor DURAND. Annually, yes. sir; for the increase of power. And what is
true of Los Angeles is likewise substantially true for the other communities in the
southern part of the State, as well as for the whole Southwest in a general way. At this
rate of increase for the city of Los Angeles the entire capacity of its aqueduct power
system will be required some time in 1925. That is to say. if Los Angeles is able to
proceed promptly with the further development of these resources, it will in 1925 have
reached the limit of their capacity and will immediately thereafter be in the market
actively for other blocks of power.
Mr. RAKER. About what is the estimated amount now required by the cities in
southern California outside of Los Angeles?
Professor DUKAND. The demand for power in southern California outside of Los
Angeles is such as to require an active working installation of something over 400,000
horsepower capacity, with, or course, a reasonable excess installed capacity to insure
continuity of service.
Mr. RAKER. They are now short too, are they not?
Professor DURAND. There is a definite power shortage throughout the entire southern
part of the State. Ihis is especially the case in Los Angeles, and what is true of Los
Angeles is, I am confident from my own contact with the situation in the southern
part of the State, likewise true of other municipalities and of the entire section, and
it is likewise true with regard to contiguous States and, in a general way, the entire
section which would be related to the Colorado River as a source of power. In fact,
what I believe to be a conservative estimate covering the probable increase in power
demands during the future period of yeaie seerrs to indicate that if there were no
further supply in the meantime, the shortage within a pericd of seven or eight years,
certainly by the time the Boulder Canyon Dam was completed and ready for service,
would be sufficient to immediately absorb the entire amount, and by the entire amount
I mean 600,000 continuous horsepower.
Mr. RAKER. What is your view as to the construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam by
the Government rather than by private individuals?
Professor DURAND. I think the Government is the only agency which should un-
dertake the construction of the dam.
Mr. HAYDEN. Is it not true that the city of Los Angeles has not only developed
power along the aqueduct but is also seeking to obtain permission to develop power
sites in the Sierra Xevadas north of Tehachapi Pass, Calif. , with the purpose of bringing
the power down to the city of Los Angeles?
Professor DURAND. I do not know to what extent the city is actively interested
in the actual development of those sites but I know it has made some surveys and has
estimated certain possibilities. Those possibilities, however, were not included
in the figures which I gave a moment ago.
Mr. HAYDEN. I also understood that there was objection on the part of those north
of the Tehachapi Pass to Los Angeles invading their territory and developing the
power which they would ultimately need, feeling that Los Angeles should be con-
fined, as to its source of power, to southern California, and that the power resources
of northern California be ultimately developed and used for the development of
that section of the State.
Professor DURAND. That is quite true.
Mr. HARBOUR. I can testify to that. too. Mr. Hayden.
Professor DIRAND. But I should also state, as far as I can speak for the city of Los
Angeles, that she would much prefer to insure in some way an adequate supply of
power from the Colorado River rather than from these other sources referred to.
Mr. RAKER. Has Los Angeles an application now pending for power privilege* on
the Colorado River, I mean, before the power commission?
Professor DURAND. I think there were certain applications filed some time ago
simply for the purpose of insuring what might be called a hearing for Los Angeles
when the question of the allocation of power should arise or in case the Federal Gov-
ernment should not proceed with the undertaking of securing for the city an oppor-
tunity of developing such power for herself.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN. 65
Mr. RAKER. Then, so far as you know, California. Nevada, Arizona, and that country
are sort of a unit in favor of the Government commencing on this Boulder Canyon
p!>sver project?
Professor DURA.ND. Yes; I so understand, and I know furthermore that the com-
munities Lrcnerally in that section of the country are in immediate need of additional
power and are desirous of its prompt development from the Colorado Ri\ er. To come
back to the point I was speaking of
Mr. liARBoru i interposing). Before you leave that, could you give us any state-
ment as to the amount of horsepower, or electric energy in horsepower, that is now
used by the city of Los Angeles?
Professor DURAND. The present developments in its own plants, as I said a moment
ago, represent 100,000 horsepower.
Mr. l.ARnoru. And that is all along the aqueduct?
Professor DURAND. Yes, sir. It is, furthermore, a purchaser of power to a large
degree and I am sorry I am unable to give those figures. I should, perhaps, state foi
the benefit of the committee that I am appearing here in some small way representing
Mr. Seattergood, the electrical engineer of the city, who is, unfortunately, ill in the
hospital and is unable for that reason to appear before the committee. I have myself
just returned from Europe and was caught by a telegram when I landed in New York
and asked to come over here to assist in presenting this situation before the committee.
I have been quite familiar with certain phases of these problems but the chief elec-
trical engineer of the city would have all of these figures at his fingers' ends while
unfortunately I have not. Subsequent examination develops the figure of about
160,000 horsepower capacity as representing the present total requirements of the
city of Los Angeles, with proper reserve in addition to insure reliability of service.
I was about to say a moment ago, with regard to the aggregate amount of power
which will be developed on the Colorado River at Boulder Canyon, 600,000 horsepower,
that unquestionably the interests in the territory to be served from that site will not
remain without some further power development in the meantime, but it is very
sure, as far as we can in any way humanly forecast the situation, that the future power
developments within the next six or eight years are going to run far short of the require-
ments in that period, so that at the time the Boulder Canyon project shall be com-
pleted and ready for service there will be a very large void for power ready to be filled
up promptly from that source, and I am satisfied in my own mind that within a very
short period of time after the completion of that project the entire output of the plant
will be required and can be marketed at figures which, as I shall show in a moment,
will represent an economic security for the money invested.
Furthermore, I believe that the communities interested in this power will be ready,
on the completion of the project, to become immediately responsible not only for such
an amount of power from the Boulder Canyon plant as shall represent their immediate
deficits, but also for such further amounts as will anticipate to some extent their
future, and that in this manner the section of the country interested in this power
will be ready to assume responsibility for the entire output of the plant and thus
relieve the Government of all carrying charges. I believe that I am justified in say-
ing that the city of Los Angeles is ready to assume such responsibility to an extent
far beyond its presumable deficit of power at the time the Boulder Canyon project is
ready for service, and I am confident that other communities will in like manner
wish to safeguard against their future growth. I believe that on a conservative esti-
mate, from one-halt to two-thirds of the total output will be immediately required
by the time the project is ready for service and that responsibility for the balance
will he eagerly accepted by communities interested, thus covering the entire carry-
ing charges as already stated .
Mr. RAKER. Through what means and from what source are you going to secure the
power you say you need between now and the time the Boulder Canyon dam is
completed?
Professor DURAND. The private power companies in the southern part of the State
have still other projects in contemplation and in progress of development. These
projects, by and large, will cost more per unit than will the power at t he IJoulder Can-
yon Dam, but the customers will not wait; there will be a market for power which
will justify the development of some considerable amounts in the meantime but I
can not undertake to say how much.
Mr. RAKER. Is it your view that the private individuals and concerns that are now
developing power arid will have developed it by eight years from now, if the Boulder
( 'anyon Dam is completed in eight years, will, at the time the Boulder Canyon Dam
is working, lose their customers?
Professor DURAND. Xo. I mean, they will not be able to develop power enough
to supply the market.
66 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. RAKER. In the meantime?
Professor DURAXD. Yes.
Mr. RAKER. When the Boulder Canyon Dam is completed and 600.000 horsepower
is developed will these private indiduals and concerns be put out of business?
Professor DVRAXD. Xo: I take it they will not be put out of business, but there
may be required some readjustment of rates.
Mr. RAKER. Of course, that would be one of the things to be adjusted, but Mr.
Hoover says that all of those things are now adjusted by commissions and, therefore,
we do not have to worry about them, but if in the next 8 or 10 years there was a large
development outside of Los Angeles by these private concerns and private individuals
to supply the demand that is increasing all the time, I was wondering whether or not
by the construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam they would thereby be put in the
position that their property would be practically worthless?
Mr. HARBOUR. Would not the developments in the other parts of the State result
in the consumption of all that power? Even though Los Angeles did not use it other
sections would be developing and thus result in a demand for more power in those
s?ctions.
Mr. RAKER. I was trying to get the professor's view on that.
Professor Di HAND. My opinion as to that point is this: That there will possibly
be required some careful consideration of rates on the part of the rate-making power
at that period of time, but I do not foresee the putting out of business of any of these
present or even immediately prospective power plants. I believe, furthermore, it
is a fact that certain of these power companies are looking forward with considerable
care to the projects which they propos? undertaking in the immediate future, having
an eye on the possibilities of the developments at Boulder Canyon Dam: they are,
in other words, discounting to some extent the possible developments at Boulder
Canyon Dam.
To develop this thought in a little further detail, I should consider that by the time
the Boulder Canyon project is ready for power service, the actual deficit or void await-
ing to be filled will amount to one-third of the total output or more, and this without
counting on more than the normal growth in present modes of power use. Additional
or new industrial uses of hydropower, stimulated by favorable rates, will undoubtedly
be planned for operation concident with the completion of the project. Among such
uses mention may be made of irrigation pumping, mining and chemical industries and
the electrification of railroads in the section within economic reach of this source of
power. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Sante Fe Railroad is already
manifesting an active interest in the possibilities of power from this source. Those new
or extended uses, over and above what may lie termed normal growth, will easily carry
the total demand at the completion of the project to the amount of one-half or two-
thirds the total output, as stated at an earlier point.
This would leave say one-third of the output only, as reserve against future growth,
an amount representing only a moderate provision against the future and certainly in
nowi-e justifying the scrapping of any of the earlier existing plants.
Furthermore there are certain areas served by these existing companies which would
not so readily come within the scope of service from Boulder Canyon and normal growth
within such areas would aid in furnishing an outlet for their power product.
Again, it is common practice with power companies, as the time approaches for
bringing in a new station or a new block of power, to allow the margin of reserve power
(power capacity over and above that normally required and serving as an insurance
against interruptions in service) to gradually decrease, thus diminishing the margin
intended to secure reliability and continuity of service. This policy will undoubtedly
be followed in the case of the Boulder Canyon project and all power companies will
thus anticipate service from this source by a continuous decrease in the desirable
margin of reserve power and in a correspondingly increased use of their steam plants.
This is what was referred to a moment ago as an anticipation of or a discounting of the
future with reference to the influence of Boulder Canyon on the general power situa-
tion. It thus results that a considerable block of the Boulder Canyon power, when
brought in. may be considered as no more Jhan restoring the proper margin of reserve
power desirable in order to insure continuity .and reliability of service.
Taking these various considerations into account, it seems clear that there need
be no apprehension that the advent of Boulder Canyon power will result in putting
out of business the earlier and smaller plants. There will be use for all the hydro-
power which we shall be able to develop.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you know whether or not the city of Los Angelee is in a
position or is inclined to make a proposition to the Government to take over and use a
certain amount of this power in the event the Boulder Canyon Dam is constructed,
so that we might have some idea as to when the Government will be reimbursed for
its expenditure?
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 67
Professor DURAND. I can say yes to that question. I believe the city of Lcs
Angeles is ready to make an immediate proposition. Just what the tours of that
proposition might be, of course, I am not prepared to state, but I do know that she
is so anxious to insure for herself an adequate supply of power in the future as to
be quite ready to enter into an immediate understanding with regard to the point
you have mentioned.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. It has been represented in the newspapers that at least cne-
half of the expense of constructing this dam would be taken care of by power sold
to the city of Los Angeles, and that is a question which will have to be worked out
before the matter comes up on the floor of the House.
Professor DUHAXD. Whether it will be one-half or some other fraction, of couree,
I could not tell offhand at the present time, but I am sure that the city of I cs A ngelcs
is very desirous of entering into some understanding in regard to these matters.
Mr. HARBOUR. Mr. Creswell, I understand, intends to discuss that feature of the
matter.
Mr. RAKER. Possibly I did not make myself plain. Taking your statement as to the
demand for power during the next 10 years, and assuming that the Boulder Canyon
Dam will not be completed and ready for 10 years, and these private concerns and
private individuals proceed to develop their present projects, at the end of 10 years
will there be a demand for the power created by the Boulder Canyon Dam, in addi-
tion to the developments of the private concerns and private individuals I have
spoken of, that will justify the private concerns and private individuals in con-
tinuing in buisness and getting a fair return from the power they sell to the public
&s .well as from the energy to be taken from the Boulder Canyon Dam?
Professor DURAND. Yes. sir; I think there will be; I think the demand for power
will l)o :--o in-oat that within a period of seven or eight vears it will absorb the output of
the Boulder Canyon project and at the same time let these other projects continue
on a reasonable business basis.
Mr. RAKER. So that the contemplated construction and completion of the Boulder
< 'an von Dam v.ith an ultimate capacity of (100,000 horsepov er. will not. in your view,
interfere with the general development now contemplated by the private concerns
and private individuals for the purpose of building up the countrv generally?
Professor DURAXD. Xo. sir; it will not. I wiD now pass to the next point which
I had in mind.
A 'r. SINXOTT. Would you prefer to go on and not be interrupted until you complete
what vou have to say?
Professor DUKAXD. Xot at all; I am perfectlv willing to be interrupted at any point.
T v ill now s-.'v a T'ord ith regard to the possible figures at which this pov- or might be
sold. Of course-, it "ill be understood that any such estimates are entirelv tentative
in character, especially go far in advance of the realization of any part of the project;
sti'l ( an be made which will apparently indicate the order of figure at. which
such power might be sold.
I have taken the estimates of the Director of the Reclamation Service as to the cost
of the dam, and I have made other estimates v.ith regard to the cost of the power plant
and machinery: I am applying fixed charges of 9.V per cent which, I take it, will be
sufficient to cover an interest charge of 5 per cent: depreciation on such part of the
entire plant as will be subject to depreciation and provision for the retirement of the
bonds at 2J per cent: this, together with a reasonable operating charge, would result
in a total annual charge of -about $8, 000,000. The total annual output of the plant,
operated as the equivalent of 600,000 horsepower continuous throughout the year.
would be 3. <>20. 000. 000 kilowatt hours, and this works out nlni".-< exactly to one-fifth
of a cent per kilowatt hour that is to say, this power could apparently be generated
and delivered at the plant with a fixed charge, which would insure the in1<'iv<!
depreciation where required and retirement of bonds at a charge of about one-fifth
of a cent per unit or kilowatt hour.
Mr. SINXOTT. It is now 12 o'clock. What is the wish of the commit)'
Mr. S \vixc. Professor Durand must leave to-night.
Mr. SINXOTT. Ilmv much more time do you wish?
Professor DURAND. I can finish very promptly and it would be a great privilege to
me if I might he permitted to do so.
Now. with regard to the cost of this power at distant points. Such cost will depend
entirelv on how much is taken and how far it is transmitto 1. 1 have simply taken
an illustrative case. I have assumed one-third of this total amount of power trans-
mitted a distance of 280 miles, which would lay it down substantially in what might
be called the center of gravity of the power market of the southern part of the State
of California: and under those circumstances, allowing similar charges, etc.. i) could
be laid down at this point in the southern part of the State of California for about
68 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
four-tenths of a cent per kilowatt-hour. It would then, of course, remain to distribute
it in further detail. Those wlv> are familiar with the cost of power will see that there
is here a very attractive possibility f;>r p.nver users and at the same time at rates
which should provide a safe economic basis for the return of the investment, and not
only the return of the investment but of the interest charges at the same time.
In this connection and in answer to a question asked of Mr. Criswell I would state,
on behalf of the chief electrical engineer of the city of Los Angeles, that the losses
in transmission over a distance of 250 to 30Q miles and at a voltage of 220,000 volts
will average not far from 10 per cent and such loss has been assumed in the illustrative
case assumed. With somewhat higher voltages which may be looked for in the future
it is to be anticipated that this loss may, perhaps, be somewhat reduced.
The only further point I have had in mind and which I do believe is of impor-
tance is that with regard to the significance of this power at Boulder Canyon Dam in
reference to our soil reserves. Last week while here I had a conference with Director
Smith of the Geological Survey and was provided by him, as set forth in authorized
public information, with the latest estimates which have been made by a special
commission entrusted with the duty of determining, as far as was humanly possible,
the amount of our oil reserves. The amount of such reserves is represented by a
figure of about 9.000.000.000 barrels, according to the best estimate which can humanly
be made at the present time.
Mr. SINNOTT. Does that include the shale oils?
Professor DURAND. Xo: I believe it does not include the shale oils; it is basically
the oils which are recoverable by methods at present approved and in use.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is that in the entire United States or just in California?
Professor DURAND. That is in the entire United States. The amount of the re-
serves correspondingly on the Pacific coast, or in the State of California, is 2.000.000.000
barrels.
Mr. RAKER. How does your estimate as to what this power could be produced for
at the Boulder Creek Dam compare with the cost of power per kilowatt hour now?
Professor DURAND. It is distinctly cheaper.
Mr. RAKER. About how much?
Professor DURAND. The present cost, of course, is extremely variable, depending
on circumstances.
Mr. RAKER. Well, on the average?
Professor DURAND. I should say perhaps 60 per cent of the average cost under other
conditions.
Mr. RAKER. This would be 60 per cent cheaper?
Professor DURAND. Xo: 40 per cent cheaper.
Mr. RAKER. Forty per cent cheaper from the Boulder Canyon Dam than it is now
produced for?
Professor DURAND. Yes. sir. However, understand that that is a very general
statement.
Mr. RAKER. I understand.
Mr. SINNOTT. Do the figures you have give the length of time it would take us to
exhaust the 9.000.000.000 barn-is.'
Professor DURAND. I was just coming to that. Our present rate of production is
a little under 500.000,000 barrels per year and the consumption a little over 500.000.000
barrels, which means that we have to go abroad for the balance. If these various
conditions should continue about as they are we should, exhaust these resources in
about 20 years.
Director Smith points out. however, that, taken by itself, this statement might be
misleading, because conditions are not going to remain as they are. Our production
is apparently going up a little more; it is progressing toward a peak and then it will
gradually and neceeaarily decline. On the other hand, the future alone can determine
as to where our consumption may go in the meantime. This will involve questions of
world supply, of our representation in foreign fields, of the cost of imported oil and
other economic and industrial factors. But as Director Smith states, we shall go on
producing for some years to an increasing extent and then the production will gradually
decline, so that the total oil reserves in the United States will last beyond the 20-year
period. That is to say. there will be some oil of the reserves above referred to 'still
available 20 years hence and some 30 years hence.
Mr. Swixc;. lint importations will have to greatly increase?
Professor DUKAXD. Absolutely, and I was about to emphasize that very poin-t.
Importations will have to increase in order to balance the increased consumption.
Xow. if we equate the power at Boulder Canyon into fuel oil we find that the 600.000
horsepower a year equated into terms of oil represents something like 23.000,000
barrels.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 69
Mr. BARBOUR. And the supply is inexhaustible?
Professor DURAND. And the supply is inexhaustible. That brings me to another
point, and I am glad you emphasized it in that way, because I had it especially in mind
to point out this fact: That when we are using oil we are using a deposit which was
made by nature by the sun primarily thousands or millions of years ago. and so
far as we know, nature is not engaged in the program of making oil at the present time.
Here is a bank deposit which lay untouched through geologic ages until a few years
ago, when we found out how to use it. We are now using up our principal, and when
anyone constantly draws on his bank principal, and there is no interest accruing, there
is only one end to the program. If instead, however, we utilize present day sun
power which, of course, water power is we are drawing on and living on an interest
account, and there is going to be just as much next year as there was last year, and so
on through an indefinite period of years. It; therefore, seems of the most fundamental
and serious importance that we should do our utmost to conserve the use of fuel oil
wherever possible by substituting therefor this interest-bearing account represented
by water power.
Mr. RAKER. Not to be facetious, but really for information, when did old nature
cease to produce this oil?
Professor DURAND. Petroleum oils have apparently been formed in all geologic ages
from the Devonian through the CarboniferoOs down to the Pleocene and Pleistocene,
but presumably not in significant quantities since the latter period.
Mr. RAKER. That was before my time, so I do not care to go into it.
Professor DURAND. There is one further point in this connection to which, I think,
attention should lie drawn.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. It seems to me the facts you are stating should be the basis of
a very good argument in favor of this legislation, because it would save the consump-
tion of fuel oils.
Professor DURAND. Quite so, and I feel that it is a very important argument. And
there is a further point, which relates to the same fundamental question. Petroleum
furnishes a wide range of products: thus the lighter products, such as gasoline, kero-
sene, engine distillate, etc., then heavier fuel oils, and again that mcst important series
of products, the lubricating oils. Indeed it is not too much to say that industrially
the entire world is lubricated by these special petroleum products.
Mr. SWING. I will ask that Professor Durand be permitted to file later a written
statement amplifying the remarks he has made to-day.
Mr. SINNOTT. Without objection, that may be done.
Professor DURAND. In that connection let me add that water power represents a
practicable and effective substitute for fuel oil used for power purposes. This is not
true for the lighter petroleum products, and especially for the lubricating oils. It is
thus clear that there are certain products which we derive from petroleum and which
are fundamentally necessary in our modern civilization and which can, so far as we
can see, be derived from no other source. This serves to further emphasize the serious
import of this entire question of the use of our petroleum oil and points to the absolute
importance of substituting water power for oil fuel power wherever humanly possible
to do so, thus conserving pur petroleum reserves as far as possible for those uses for
which no substitute is available.
Mr. RAKER. Is it your view that the construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam
would be justified for the generation of power alone?
Professor DURAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. What is your view as to whether or not the Government should under-
take the enterprise or private individuals or corporations undertake it?
Professor DURAND. Are you speaking of the dam?
Mr. RAKER. The Boulder Canyon Dam and all this development.
Mr. SWING. You mean from a power point of view?
Mr. RAKER. I am speaking about power. He said it would justify its construction
for power. I am asking for the professor's point of view as a man of great experience,
as to the relative advantage of having the Government construct it, or having it con-
structed by private enterprise.
Professor DURAND. As I see it, Mr. Raker, the only agent which could adequately
proceed with the construction of such engineering work is the National Government,
having in view particularly the interrelation of the problems of irrigation, flood
control, and the settlement of the various questions in controversy among the several
States that will arise not only in connection with the construction of the work, but
later on in connection with trie operation of the reservoir. I believe that the Federal
Government is the only agent which could undertake this proposition, especially
having in view this particular aspect of the situation.
70 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
I would further point out, however, that in my opinion it is most desirable and most
important, both for the Federal Government and for the communities or political
subdivisions interested, that provision be made, as in section 5 of the pending bill,
for time payments on the capital cost of the project, thus constituting in a way these
communities or political subdivisions as partners with the Federal Government in
the enterprise and greatly reducing the capital outlay required from the Federal
Treasury.
Mr. HARBOUR. Have you made any estimate of the time when the Government
would be fully reimbursed by the sale of power?
Professor PURAND. An annual charge of 2i per cent invested on a sinking fund basis
at 5 per cent interest would provide for the retirement of the bonds in a period of about
23 years. Section 5 of the pending bill provides for distributed annual paymen's
covering capital cost in 25 years. I believe that the territory interested in this project
will be eager to take power from this source at figures which v\ill insure the repayment
of the capital expenditure in a period of 25 or 30 years, and including as well, all
interest charges on the same.
Regarding the matter of oil reserves I would like to mention one further point, and
that is that there is in that section of the country, immediately tributary to the Colo-
rado River, a consumption of oil annually of something like 13,000.000 barrels by the
railroads. That is one item which apparently could be wiped off the slate of con-
sumption, once we bring about the utilization of electrical power by the railroads
which, of course, is contemplated as one of the definite features of the market for this
power. In addition to that something like 4,000.000 barrels are being burned under
boilers in miscellaneous ways, making at the present time an aggregate of 17,000.000
barrels that could be immediately saved. This figure of 23,000,000 barrels per year
represents therefore a very definite and important item of saving, having in view our
total California reserves of something like 2,000,000,000 barrels.
Or again, looking beyond the Boulder Canyon project to the total power possibilities
of the Colorado River, we should have a total fuel oil equivalent of some 10 times as
much or 230,000,000 barrels per year, which is something more than one-tenth of the
entire reserve of fuel oil in the California region at the present time.
All these things drive home, it seems to me, the very great importance of realizing
at the earliest practicable moment this vast undertaking of national conservation.
There are many other points of which mention might be made, but I will not take
up the time of the committee further.
Mr. SWING. I will ask permission that the statement of the Geological Survey be
made a part of the record.
Mr. SIXNOTT. Without objection, that may be inserted in the record.
We are very much obliged to you, Professor, for your very interesting and instruc-
tive statement.
(The statement of the Geological Survey is as follows:)
THE OIL SUPPLY OF THE UNITED STATES ESTIMATES MADE BY THE COUNTRY'S
FOREMOST OIL GEOLOGISTS.
A review of the producing, probable, and possible oil-bearing regions in the United
States by a joint committee composed of members of the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists and of the United States Geological Survey has resulted in an
inventory estimate that 9,000,000,000 barrels of oil recoverable 'by methods now in
use remained in the ground in this country January 1. H)22.
Unlike our reserves of coal, iron, and copper, which are so large that apprehension
of their early exhaustion is not justified, the oil reserves of the country, as the public
has frequently been warned, appear adequate to .supply the demand for only a limited
number of years. The annual production of the country is now almost half a billion
barrels, but the annual consumption, already well beyond the half billion mark, is
still growing. Tor some years we have had to import oil, and with the growth in de-
mand, our dependence on foreign oil has become steadily greater, in spite of our own
increase in output. It is therefore evident that the people of the United States should
be informed as fully as possible as to the reserves now left in this country, for without
such information we can not appraise our probable dependence upon foreign supplies
of oil, on the expanding use of which so much of modern civilization depends.
Fortunately estimates of our oil reserves can be made with far greater completeness
and accuracy than ever before. During the last eight years a large part of the territory
in the United States that may possibly contain oil has been studied in great detail by
oil ge-i!ii,';-is: wildcatting has spread through "prospective" into many regions of
"possible" and locally even into regions of "impossible" territory; old fields have
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 71
been definitely outlined and new ones discovered; and finally, improvement in
methods and special training in the calculation of oil reserves and of the depletion of
oil properties have been developed to meet the requirements of the tax laws. Ac-
cordingly, in order that the public may get the fullest benefit of this newly available
information, the United States Geological Survey in March, 1921, invited the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists to cooperate with it in a review of the producing,
probable, and possible oil territory of the United States and in the compilation of an
estimate of the petroleum remaining in the ground and recoverable by present methods.
This invitation was promptly accepted by the association, which designated a number
of its ablest members of well-known wide experience, good judgment, and high pro-
fessional standing to serve with the oil geologists of the survey as members of a joint
committee.
The committee responsible for the original preparation of the estimates and finally
for the adjustment and revision of the results in joint conference comprised F. W.
DeWolf, State geologist of Illinois: W. E. \V rather, of Dallas, Tex. ; Roswell H. Johnson,
of Pittsburgh, Pa.: Wallace A. Pratt, of Houston, Tex.; Alexander W. McCoy, of
Bartlesville, Okla.; Carl H. Beal, of San Francisco, Calif.: C. T. Lupton, of Denver,
Colo.; Alexander Deussen, of Houston, Tex.: K. C. Heald, of Washington, D. C.;
and G. C. Matson, of Tulsa, Okla., all representing the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists: and, for the Federal Survey, David White, chief geologist,
chairman: W. T. Thorn, jr., A. E. Fath, Kirtly F. Mather, R. C. Moore, State geologist
of Kansas, and K. C. Heald. Mr. Heald represented both the survey and the asso-
ciation. These men were assisted in subcommittees by a large number of the leading
oil geologists of the'country, including oil-company geologists, directors of State geo-
logical surveys, and consulting geologists, who were especially familiar with the
regions considered. All these cooperated whole-heartedly in the canvas of our oil
reserves, and many oil companies also furnished confidential data for use in the
preparation of estimates.
The calculations of the oil reserves in the proved and discovered fields are reasonably
reliable, and those for regions regarded by the geologists as embracing "probable"
future oil fields are based on all the available data and are entitled to high respect,
but the committee wishes it most clearly understood that the estimates of oil in
"possible" territory are absolutely speculative and hazardous and that, although
they represent the best judgment of the geologists, they nevertheless may be, at
least in part, wildly erroneous. The questions involved are not only how much a
particular doubtful region will yield, but whether it will furnish any oil whatever.
On the whole the estimates are undoubtedly the best that have ever been made for
the United States and better than have hitherto been prepared for any oil country
or district of the world .
The estimates for local areas, fields, or districts have been consolidated by States,
groups of States, or broad regions in the case of nonproductive States.
Estimated oil reserves of the United States, by States or regions.
Barrels.
New York 100, 000, 000
Pennsylvania 260, 000, 000
West Virginia 200, 000, 000
Ohio 190, 000, 000
Indiana and Michigan 70, 000, 000
Illinois 440, 000, 000
Kentucky, Tennessee, northern Alabama, and northeastern Mis-
sissippi 175, 000, 000
Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota 40, 000, 000
Kansas 425, 000, 000
Oklahoma 1, 340, 000, 000
Northern Louisiana and Arkansas 525, 000, 000
Texas, except Gulf coast (i70, 000, 000
Gulf coast, Texas, and Louisiana 2, 100, 000, 000
Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona 50, 000, 000
Wyoming 525, 000, 000
Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota 100. ()0<). 000
Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho 80, 000, 000
California 1, 850, 000, 000
Eastern Gulf, Coastal Plain, and Atlantic Coast States 10, 000, 000
Total 9, 150, 000, 000
72 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
The New England States are regarded as top unpromising to deserve considera-
tion. Most of the northern peninsula of Michigan and the State of Minnesota are
placed in the same category. The small quantities allocated to some other States
indicate how little hope these geologists have of finding extensive oil fields in them.
Some of these very doubtful regions will give no oil, but others will make good the
deficiencies. The estimates are as a whole distinctlv conservative.
Of the total estimated oil reserves of the United States, amounting in round num-
bers to 9,000,000,000 barrels, 5,000,000,000 barrels may be classified as oil in sight
and 4,000,000,000 barrels as prospective and possible. Rather more than 4,000,000,000
barrels should be assigned to the heavy-oil group. These oils will be recovered
mainly in the Pacific Coast, Rocky Mountain, and Gulf States. The contents of
the Lima-Indiana region, which yields oil of a distinctive type, are estimated at
40,000,000 barrels. In general, the so-called paraffin oils of moderate and high
grade, as contrasted with the heavier oils, amount in all to about 5,000,000,000 barrels.
The estimated reserves of high-grade oils of the Appalachian States are about
725,000,000 barrels.
The estimated reserves are enough to satisfy the present requirements of the United
States for only 20 years, if the oil could be taken out of the ground as fast as it is wanted .
Should these estimates fall even so much as 2.000.000,000 barrels short of the actual
recovery, that error of 22 per cent would be equivalent to but four years' supply, a
relatively short extension of life. However, the committee expressly decries the too
frequent assumption that inasmuch as the estimated reserves appear to be sufficient to
meet the needs of the country at the present rate of consumption for 20 years, therefore
the reserves will be exhausted at the end of that time or, at most, a few years later.
This assumption is absolutely misleading, for the oil pools will not all be found that
length of time, drilling will be spread over many years., as the pools are found, and the
wells can not be pumped dry so quickly. Individual wells will yield oil for more
than a quarter of a century and some of the wells will not have been drilled in 1950.
In short, the oil can not all be discovered, much less taken from the earth, in 20 years.
The United States is already absolutelv dependent on foreign countries to eke out
her own production, and if the foreign oil can be procured, this dependence is sure to
grow greater and greater as our own fields wane, except as artificial patroleum may be
produced by the distillation of oil shales and coals, or some substitute for petroleum
may be discovered.
All the estimates except those for one region, noted below, include only the oil
recoverable from the ground by present methods, but it is practically certain that the
percentage of oil to be recovered from the American oil fields will be vastly increased
by the application of new and improved methods of recovery. At present, however,
this phase of production may be regarded as in the experimental stage. Little has benn
definitely determined as to the applicability of "air pressure," "water drive," "gas
pressure," "vacuum extraction," and other new methods to different regions, with their
variation in conditions, or to the increase in production to be counted on from the use
of these methods. The committee therefore feels that at present any estimates of such
possible additional recoveries would probably contain errors enormously greater than
those inherent in the estimates made on the basis of methods now in use. In only one
region are the geologic conditions so well known and the experience with improved
methods on a commercial basis so extensive and so long continued as to justify the
formulation of estimates based on the results obtained. This is the region in north-
western Pennsylvania and southwestern New York where the "water drive" is now
employed to obtain oil from the Bradford sand, which was supposed to be largely ex-
hausted. Under the peculiar conditions there the use of this method will result in the
recovery of a large quantity of oil that can not be recovered by ordinary methods of
production. Allowance for the additional oil thus recovered has therefore been made
in the estimates. It has already been found, however, that this method is not appli-
cable to some other districts, and accordingly no allowance has been made for possible
additional recovery through its use where its suitability to the local conditions has not
been actually demonstrated.
In the light of these estimates as to the extent of our supplies of natural petroleum,
the joint committee points out the stern obligation of the citizen, the producer, and
the Government to give most serious study to the more complete extraction of the oil
from the ground, as well as to the avoidance of waste, either through direct losses or
through misuse of crude oil or its products.
(Thereupon the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow. Thursday, June 22, 1922,
at 10.30 o'clock.)
X
PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
/
ON
H. R. 11449
By Mr. SWING
A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
PART 3
JUNE 22, 23, 24, 1922
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
131(i 1922
COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.
MOSES P. KINKAID, Nebraska, Chairman.
NICHOLAS J. SINNOTT, Oregon. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona.
EDWARD C. LITTLE, Kansas. C. B. HUDSPETH, Texas.
ADDISON T. SMITH, Idaho. JOHN E. RAKER, California.
JOHN W. SUMMERS, Washington. HOMER L. LYON, North Carolina.
HENRY E. B ARBOUR, California. WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD, Alabama.
E. O. LEATHERWOOD, Utah.
WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, South Dakota.
SAMUEL S. ARENTZ, Nevada.
MANUEL HERRICK, Oklahoma.
A. R. HUMPHREY, Clerk.
PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER
BASIN,
COMMITEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, June 22, 1922.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward C. Little presiding.
Mr. LITTLE. Gentlemen, the committee will please come to order. I under-
stand that Mr. Bacon is to speak first this morning.
Mr. RAKER. Before you proceed with that, Mr. Chairman, there has been so
much said about the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case of the State of Wyoming versus the State of Colorado, the Greeley-Poudre
irrigation district, and the Laramie-Poudre Reservoirs & Irrigation Co., that
I would ask that the decision in that case, No. 3. original. October term, 1921,
'be printed in the record, so as to have it at the beginning here. fc
Mr. LITTLE. Is there any objection? If not, that will be done.
Mr. RAKER. I have the decision here.
Mr. LITTLE. Might I suggest. Judge, that probably you do not want to put
it all in? You might designate the parts that you wish to insert.
Mr. RAKER. No ; there is nothing that you can leave out in reading it.
The decision referred to by consent of the committee is to be printed follow-
ing the statement of Director Davis.
Mr. LITTLE. Now, Mr. Bacon, will you address the committee? Please state
your name, residence, and sufficient of your antecedents to shed light upon the
reason for your appearance here.
STATEMENT OF MB. JOHN L. BACON, MAYOR OF SAN DIEGO, CALIF.
Mr. BACON. My name is John L. Bacon, mayor of the city of San Diego, and
representing the Southern Branch of the California League of Municipalities.
Some time ago the matter of Boulder Canyon was brought to the attention
of the organization in California which represents all of the municipalities of
the State of California that is, the League of California Municipalities. We
had not realized the gravity of the situation and knew very little about it. This
matter was brought up about a year ago. Some information was given at that
meeting and later a meeting was called of the southern branch of this organiza-
tion, known as the Southern Branch of the California League of Municipalities,
and action was taken at that meeting to get further information and to see
what could be done to relieve this serious situation in the Imperial Valley. We
went into it at some length, and about that time various Government reports
were coming in ; various investigations had been made and Mr. Swing introduced
his bill before the House which you are now considering.
When it was known that this bill was coming up the organization got further
information and then requested that some representative be sent on to Washing-
ton to lay this information before the committee.
The one thing that appeals to us most strongly is the imminent danger of flood
in the Imperial Valley. We did not even realize it out there until we com-
menced to investigate. You see, California is a State of magnificent distances,
and we do not always realize our neighbor's difficulties.
Before coming out here I took a trip down into Mexico on this project to be
sure that I had the facts. There was some feeling of apprehension before, and
after going down there there was a feeling of actual terror in connection with
it. It is pretty hard to point out I did not realize it, and I realize that it is
infinitely harder to give any idea here of the awful danger that threatens that
valley.
To go back a little ways, this map here I think will show more clearly than
anything else the situation. There is a peculiar condition existing here that I
73
74 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
do not think exists anywhere else in this country. It was not very long since
that the ocean beach line followed this line up around through here [indicating
map of Imperial Valley and vicinity] and came up through here. This was all
ocean. When I say " not very long since." I am speaking from a geological
standpoint. That was only a few hundred years. Imperial Valley was all under
water at that time. This was part of the ocean [indicating Imperial Valley
and vicinity].
The Colorado River, coming down here [indicating], as it follows down its
channel brings more or less silt with it dirt. There is not a man here but
what has watched perhaps these little spring freshets that come in every part
of the country, where a groove or a gulley will be washed down the side of the
hill, and then when you reach your lowland at the bottom, where it is flat, the
dirt that has been brought down from that gulley will spread out and form
sort of a little triangular mound. The dirt washing down the side hills makes
this mound and builds up the lowland. You have probably seen some lowlands
built up 3 or 4 feet. That is exactly what took place here. The mud which
came down this river built up a sort of a delta here until gradually it built up
a mound out here [indicating], and the river was diverted and came out through
here where these dotted Tnes are [indicating]. This water then evaporated and
left a great deep basin 300 feet below sea level, and there is no way to drain it;
it is simply a basin there down below the level of the ocean.
Now, in the course of time this river repeated its process, and instead of
filling up over in here [indicating], it has filled up this portion, with the result
that the river n*>w is attempting to break back into irs old basin [indicating].
It did break through in 1905. and it took a year and a half to stop the break.
In the meantime the Saitoh Sea was gradually filling up. S'nce that date this
whole delta has filled up about 13 feet.
You can get some idea of the amount of mud brought down that river when
from a rough calculation it is found that that mud. if dumped on the District
of Columbia, would raise the level of the land in the District of Columbia about
3 feet every year. In other words, there is enough mud ; n that river to put a
layer of mud 3 feet deep over the entire District of Columbia every year.
Now. here is the situation : A series of levees were put in here in an effort
to control the river. Each year the river has brought down this mud and
built up the delta on the river side of the levee. It is getting higher and higher
all the time. We checked that up last week. Mr. Swing telegraphed back to
get the actual elevation, and we found that since 1908 the point right there
at Volcano Lake levee [indicating] has risen 16 feet higher than it was. That
river bed has raised 16 feet since 1908. This point is about 35 feet lower
than the point right here at Bee River and Pascadero Cut where the river is
now [indicating].
Mr. LITTLE. Will you say that again, please?
Mr. BACON. About the elevation?
Mr. LITTLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BACON. This map to-day is not correct, because the land is changing so
fast. It may be correct to-day, and this i< as dose an approach to correctness
as we can get. That just shows you how the river changes.
Mr. LITTLE. In what way is it not correct?
Mr. BACON. Because the river bed is constantly changing. A tree may come
down there, lodge against the side of the levee, and the current may scour out
and break the levee, simply from a tree coming down. That could happen in
half an hour, and has happened in half an hour.
Here is a map gotten out by the United States Geological Survey in 1908.
It is not quite the same scale as that map is [indicating], but you can see what
that is, as shown on the map here. Now, that map was correct in 1908. To-day
all of this land down in here has been filled up. with the result that that
river has been forced, as you can see. off to the left toward Imperial Valley.
This year an effort was made to control the river and force it through here
at Pascadero Cut. It was successful, but from an engineering standpoint I
can not see how it can last over three or four years. It is a race against time
to keep the river out of that valley. If it ever breaks in, I don't see how they
can ever stop it. When the river broke here in 1905, it washed a great deep
u r ull\ . starting here at Salton Sea. and gradually it is. working back across the
border into Mexico beyond Calexico way up to this point. Now. that gully
only has about 35 miles farther to go to hit the river this time. That time it
cut over 40 miles. Once it cuts that gully, they tell us it will scour right back
up here and probably take out the Yuma Bridge, part of the town of Yuma,
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 75
and will work back pretty well up toward Laguna Dam. Laguna Dam is built
on bed rock, so it can not scour out. It will probably be a century and a half
before any of tbat valley can ever be used again if that happens. It will not
fill up over night, but it will fill up in a series of years. You can not stop the
river once it breaks through.
Mr. RAKER. Now, take Volcano Lake and the dam from the western point.
From where the dam begins what is the elevation of that as compared with the
Gulf of Mexico?
Mr. BACON. To-day this land [indicating] is 40 feet above sea level. This is
about 250 feet above sea level.
Mr. RAKER. But I just wanted to get before the committee the relative eleva-
tion along Volcano Lake, where the embankment is, and the Gulf of Mexico.
You say it is about 40 feet elevation?
Mr. BACON. About 40 feet. This is 40 feet above sea level right at that point
there [indicating]. It is 76 feet above sea level at this point here at the Vol-
cano Lake levee, and the top of this levee is 28 feet below the water level at
Pasoadero Cut and the Bee River.
Mr. RAKEK. Please designate that levee so that we can refer to it later in the
record.
Mr. BACON. The Volcano Lake levee?
Mr. RAKEK. That commences from the west, or on the west, near by the rail-
road and runs on across to the point how is it marked there?
Mr. BACON. Black Butte.
Mr. RAKER, About what is the size of Volcano Lake now?
Mr. BACON. I do not know. I do not want to give you that information,
because I do not have it correct, and Mr. Nickerson can give you that far more
accurately than I can.
Now. in order that you might have some idea of the magnitude of this I took
some photographs down there. These photographs are less than a month old,
so that they are fresh. They will give you an idea of the condition. This was
taken right up there at the point marked Bee River and shows the levee at that
particular point.
Here is another photograph, which show T s it a little more clearly, and a third
photograph shows the intake to the canal.
Now. just to show some of the difficulties that the Imperial Valley people
are meeting with I want to say in explanation that as far as San Diego and
some of the cities are concerned we have very little to gain or very little to lose
in connection with this, excepting as Imperial Valley gains or loses. That is
the feeling in San Diego, but we feel that the situation there is so serious that
it is our neighbors problem, and we are trying to do everything we can to help
them solve it.
Mr. RAKER. Do you not go farther than that? You have got a wonderful
valley, producing almost everything on earth, with a wonderful State boulevard,
a highway across the mountains, and also a railroad. All those things are
concerned.
Mr. BACON. Yes ; but we consider that the seriousness of our neighbor's posi-
tion there the serious difficulty that faces them is the thing we are really
worried about. If that river should break, it would wipe out the Southern
Pacific Railroad down here, take out the canal system, and flood the valley; it
would take out the Southern Pacific Railroad up through here along the Salton
Sea [indicating] : it would wipe out that region there absolutely.
Mr. I'ARKori:. About how large is that region you have just referred to that
would be practically destroyed?
Mr. BACON. It would destroy over half a million acres of as fertile land as
there is in this country.
.Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you know the population there and the assessed
valuation of the property that is in jeopardy?
Mr. BACOX. The assessed value of the property is between seventy-live
and one hundred million dollars, and the population between 50,000 and
75,000.
Air. RAKER. That is all on the California side?
Air. BACON. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. How much is there on the Mexican side?
Air. BACON. I do not know.
Mr. RAKER. Now. I am not at all squeamish on this matter. I think you
people ought to be open and aboveboard and give us the entire territory
involved and how much it affects, not only as to ourselves, but the other fellows.
76 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
because you people are dividing that water now, and while we are for the
United States I believe that it is the proper thing to plan out the whole
question involved relative to what we are working on, and I hope you will not
just leave out the other fellow's interests, because the whole railroad to
Yuma until it gets across the California line is involved also, is it not?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. And we ought to see the whole picture at once, ought we not?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BARBOTTB. How would you determine the assessed valuation of land
in Mexico?
Mr. BACON. I would not determine it, because I do not have the information.
I am not trying to withhold any figures, but I do not have them.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Can you give the area under cultivation and the num-
ber of people on the farms?
Mr. RAKER. I did not mean the assessed valuation. The only thing I was
asking or speaking of was that this not only involves the railroad which
brings traffic from the East, from this great valley on into San Diego. Los
Angeles, and the West generally, but there are a great many interests and
people South that are now using part of that water.
Mr. NICKERSON. I can not answer that question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LITTLE. As Mr. Nickerson is to speak later, I believe, he can state it
then.
Mr. HAYDEN. That data, I might say, is all included in the Davis report.
Mr. BACON. Yes ; on page 20 you will find that matter laid out. It would
mean simply quoting figures from the map if I gave them to you.
Mr. RAKER, Well, it does not matter.
Mr. LITTLE. Will you please mark these figures before you go, so that we
will know just what they are?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LITTLE. What is your profession. Mr. Bacon?
Mr. BACON. Engineeer.
Mr. LITTLE. Civil engineer?
Mr. BACON. No, sir; I have had general engineering practice largely on
construction work out in California, but I would not want to pose as an
expert in connection with this matter, because this is a specialized branch
of engineering that you have had expert advice on already from your Recla-
mation Department. Our feeling is just this in connection with this project:
We realize the danger ; we are in actual fear, almost terror, in connection
with it. We do not want to even suggest how it should be corrected. We
believe that the Government departments have investigated and determined
how the dangers there in that valley can be righted, and we are simply ac-
cepting the Government reports and say that we indorse them in every way.
In connection with this, this matter has been taken up and there has not
been one single dissenting voice among the California cities so far as I know.
The widest publicity that we can give in a short time has been given to it, and
I have original indorsements and resolutions that have been passed by some
20 cities in California, adopted since the 1st of May. in support of the pro-
position. I want to say a little further that we have not always been unani-
mous in our opinions out there. We have had our local disputes. There has
been a little jealously sometimes between the cities, but in this particular in-
stance all of that end of California is working solidly together.
Mr. RAKER. What is the attitude of the railroad company relative to this
project, so far as it affects their property, do you know?
Mr. BACON. They are anxious to see it go through, so far as I know. I
know very little except just general hearsay. I believe these is a feeling of
anxiety on their part.
Mr. RAKER. What is the attitude of the Californians who own the Mexican
land, land on the Mexican border? Do you know?
Mr. BACON. I do not know. It would simply be hearsay, anything that I
could say. Mr. Xickerson can give you exact figures in connection with that.
Mr. RAKER. Very well.
Mr. BACON. I do not want to give you figures that I am just guessing at.
Mr. LITTLE. How much time have you spent recently in Imperial Valley and
in this adjacent country?
Mr. BACON. This last time?
Mr. LITTLE. Yes.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIST. 77
Mr. BACON. This last trip I was only down there three days. I have been
there going to and from the Imperial Valley, I presume, for six or eight years.
I own a little property over there, but not tery much.
Mr. RAKER. Just tell us. if you can, how the expense of the new diversion
dam is allocated between those various parties, in a rough way. Part of the
water is used in California, part is used across the Mexican border, and the
railroad company has its property there. Do you know offhand what that
division is?
Mr. BACON. All I can do is to give you the information I got from their
engineers. The engineers told me that all of the protective work here, every
cent that is spent on these levees, every cent that is spent in protecting this
property, and every cent that is spent in keeping the river out, is paid for by the
land in Imperial Valley on the American side of the border; that the Mexican
lands bear no share whatever in this protective work.
Mr. BARBOUB. And all of that protective work that you refer to lies in Mexico?
Mr. BACON. It all lies in Mexico. They told me that last year here is a
very interesting thing that shows you some of the difficulties they are working
under they told me that last year they spent approximately $60.000 in duties
which were paid to the Mexican Government on material which went down into
Mexico and was used on Mexican soil to protect this land ; that over half a
million dollars was spent on this protective work, and that the $60,000 had to
be paid in duties.
Mr. RAKER. That tract of land lying north and west of this embankment is
on the Mexican side, and the necessity for its protection is the same as that
on the California side?
Mr. BACON. Yes. sir.
Mr. RAKER. And you say those people in Mexico have paid nothing towards
the $60.000 that you have been talking about?
Mr. BACON. It is more than $60,000; $60,000 was simply the duty. About a
half million dollars was spent on the work and they have not paid one cent for
this.
Mr. RAKER. They made these people pay a duty, and then they paid nothing
for putting the work in?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. Here is another example : There was a minor break
in the levee, which it was very necessary to close. Men were sent down there
hurriedly ; supplies were sent down ; a train was made up carrying emergency
supplies for these men and carrying additional men, and through the officious-
iiess of some under-official in Mexico that train was held up for 11 hours at
the boundary line until word could be gotten to the higher Mexican officials to
release the train and allow it to go down into Mexico. That is just one of the
difficulties that is met with in that connection.
Mr. RAKER. I may seem a little peculiar in my questions, but I think all of
these matters throw light on why you people are figuring for the ail-American
canal.
Mr. LITTLE. Do you favor this all-American canal project?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir ; it does not seem right that the American farmers here
in this district should be at the mercy of the Mexican Government, which is
here to-day and gone to-morrow. The Mexican Government changes almost as
often as the river does.
Mr. LITTLE. Are there any more questions to ask of Mr. Bacon?
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Has the question been discussed among the people in
southern California as to the advisability of negoti.-iting with the Government
of Mexico for the transfer of that section to the United States?
Mr. BACON. I do not think anything could be done by the Federal Govern-
ment that would be hailed with greater joy than the acquiring of that land
down in Lower California by this Government.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Might it not be a good idea for the people interested
to initiate a proposition of that kind and have it presented to the Secretary of
State?
Mr. SWING. Let me observe that the legislature of the State of California
memorialized Congress to purchase that land several years ago, but nothing
has been done and nothing can be done, because the constitution of Mexico
prohibits the alienation of any territory of Mexico.
Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you just a couple of questions. You have some in-
terest in Imperial Valley and I suppose you have met their chambers of com-
merce and landowners and prospective landowners. This all-American canal
is estimated to cost about $30,000,000.
78 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. It is the view of your people that you are ready and willing to
reimburse the Government if intrusted construction to reimburse the Govern-
ment for the money expended in building this all-American canal?
Mr. BACON. That is my understanding.
Mr. RAKKR. With a reasonable rate of interest?
Mr. BACON. I have not been actively enough connected with affairs down in
the valley to be sure about that.
Mr. RAKER. Who is ready to present those facts to the committee?
Mr. BACON. Mr. Nickerson can give you all those facts. I do not want to
duplicate what he will say. He is president of the Imperial irrigation district
and is thoroughly conversant with the valley. He is one of the pioneers of the
valley and understands absolutely the entire problem from start to finish.
Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Bacon, would the city of San Diego be directly interested
in this power development as a prospective purchaser of a portion of the power?
Mr. BACON. I think not only the city of San Diego but every city in Cali-
fornia that could possibly come in under this project would be glad to get all
the power it can.
Mr. BARBOUR. Can you, as mayor, now give us any definite assurance that the
city of San Diego will purchase part of the power and pay a reasonable price
for it?
Mr. BACON. No; not absolute assurance, outside of a guess as to what would
be done, because, as you understand, it would mean a bond issue, and until
the bond issue was carried you are not sure of anything. But I will say we
are as sure of that as we are of anything that is to take place in the future
in connection with the municipality.
Mr. BARBOUR. But it is your opinion that they will take a certain amount
of that power and will be willing to pay a reasonable price for it?
Mr. BACON. Yes. sir.
Mr. BARBOUR. That is a question, of course, that we will have to meet, as to
what will become of this power and whether there will be really a market for
it sufficient to enable the Government to reimburse itself for this cost of con-
struction.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Does the city of San Diego own its own power plant
now. or does it purchase from private concerns?
Mr. BACON. We own our water plant. We have our own water system, but
we do not own a power plant. But I think when it came to the qxiestion of
the distribution of power the difficulty would not be to dispose of the power;
the difficulty would be in allocating the power among the people who will
want it.
There is just one other thing I would like to submit in connection with this.
Just as I was leaving my office to come East, the May 1 issue of the Journal
of Electricity and Western Industry was dropped on my desk, and in it I
find an article by Mr. C. E. Grunsky, who was one of the engineers that had
to do with the building of the Panama Canal, containing an airplane photograph
of this district, which probably will show more graphically than anything else
just what those conditions are. This photograph carries this caption : " The
major argument for immediate action on the Colorado." This shows the sec-
tion immediately south and east of the Volcano Lake Levee and will fit on the
map just about like that [indicating], with the upper left-hand corner of the
picture fitting against the Volcano Lake Levee. That shows how the river
comes down there and breaks out when it hits this heavily underbrushed sec-
tion down here [indicating], and then after spreading out and dropping its
silt, it comes back and gathers into more or less of a stream and goes down
into the ocean. This whole section here is just building up [indicating]. It
is interesting as showing about how that river looks ; it looks like a great
big devilfish reaching out for something, and I think that just about describes
the condition of the river, it is a great big devilfish reaching out over into
the valley and trying every way to get there.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Could that be reproduced for the record. I wonder?
Mr. BACON. If you see fit.
Mr. BARBOUR. Those resolutions that you said you had, do you want to intro-
duce those in the record?
Mr. BACON. I should like to ; yes. I have the original copies here.
Mr. RAKER. For 40 or 50 years before there was any development of the
Imperial Valley, and when the railroad was built down through the Imperial
Valley on the west side, where the Salton Sea is now, there was no water run-
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 79
ning in there and no one was making any pretense of keeping the water out.
What brought about the change?
Mr. BACON. Simply this: There was a pretty well denned delta built up
there with the river running along this eastern edge. Now the silt kept coming
down. There is a high line of hills here, a mesa [indicating]. That silt gradu-
ally tilled up this marshy land at the mouth of the river, and the river gradually
came back here. Each year that added quantity of silt filled that up until the
delta was raised to such a point that the river started breaking off in this direc-
tion toward the valley. Now this was down in Mexico. If you have ever
been over in that country you know you know it dosn't look as though there
ever could have been a drop of water in it. Naturally there was no apprehen-
sion felt at all by the railroad people when they built that railroad, but within
the last few years there has been great apprehension. The change has been
taking place so gradually that nobody noticed it. but now it is getting up to
the danger point. Probably in prehistoric times it was 100 feet deep there,
but the silt gradually filled up this whole delta. You have exactly the same
situation on the Delta of the Nile and the Delta of the Mississippi. It forms
a cone pretty well defined by these little branches of the river [indicating],
and then it breaks on one side or the other of the cone and keeps breaking, and
each year the silt adds that much more mud to the river bed and it breaks
again, and now it is attempting to break each time over toward the valley, be-
cause all this land here has been filled up [indicating].
' Mr. RAKER. Then, none of the works that have been put in the river in an
attempt to divert the water have had any effect relative to this water breaking
over west and north? It just comes naturally?
Mr. BACON. It just comes naturally. The works tend to keep it east try to
force it east but the constant tendency of the river is to break over west.
Every time it has broken it pushes its way farther toward the valley, until if
that river had been left alone in 1908 it would to-day be flowing right down
tlirouu'h here, down through the valley here [indicating]. There would be the
course of the river and it would continue to flow there until this entire area was
scoured out.
Mr. HAKKK. Let me ask you this question. In the protection of the Imperial
Valley, would we be doing this for American citizens?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. I think it would be the greatest calamity of modern
times for that river to break into that valley.
Mr. RAKKR. I hope you got my question. I am asking you now if this develop-
ment would be entirely for the benefit of American citizens?
Mr. P>A>.\. Entirely?
Mr. RAKER. Yes.
Mr. BACON. No ; Mexico is bound to reap a little benefit from it.
Mr. RAKER. Well, then, in California and in Imperial Valley, we would be
doing this improvement and protecting the homes and farms of the American
citizens?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir ; absolutely.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Has any estimate been made of the length of time that
it would take the Salton Sea basin to fill up if the entire river were deflected
into it?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir; I have had an estimate made of that kind and checked
it myself before I came out here. It would require approximately 15 years
to fill up completely, and it would require approximately, if it filled up, prob-
ably five or six years more to silt up here so that you would commence to get
an evaporation process again. It would probably take 7. r > or 100 years to
evaporate.
It will continue to run into here until this is silled up again. You will
have duplicated the process you had several hundred years ago and then it
will break over on this side again, and it will just keep alternating back and
forth through periods of 300 or 400 years.
Mr. RAKER. I am always in favor of protecting any of our people. Is there
anything in the statement that has been going around that Imperial Valley is
practically being colonized by Japanese and .Mexicans?
Mr. BACON. I do not think there is a thing in it. Now. here is probably
what that statement is founded on : This section in here
Mr. LITTLE (interposing). In Mexico?
Mr. BACON. In Mexico. This section in here in Mexico [indicating] is
being worked by foreign labor entirely and there is where the danger to the
American farmer comes from.
80 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. LITTLE. Where is most of that land owned? Who owns it?
Mr. BACON. I understand that a good share of that land is owned by a
Los Angeles man, Mr. Harry Chandler.
Mr. LITTLE. Owned by capitalists?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LITTLE. And they have the work done by Japanese largely?
Mr. BACON. That is what I understand, by Japanese and Mexicans.
Mr. RAKER. Is it or is it not a fact that in the last two or three years the
Imperial Valley people have rented out their lands and have practically Japan-
esed that entire valley?
Mr. BACON. No, sir.
Mr. SWING. There has been a law against it, Judge Raker. You know that.
Mr. RAKER. I was asking about the facts, irrespective of the law.
Mr. SWING. We are law-abiding citizens down there.
Mr. BACON. There is a colonization scheme starting in here [indicating] for
'.\-stTvice men, and I believe the only successful one in this country. Some
of those men went in there and started from nothing and paid for the land in
the last two or three years.
Mr. LITTLE. Went in where?
Mr. BACON. Right here, up near Brawley.
Mr. LITTLE. That is the northern end of the Imperial Valley ?
Mr. BACON. That is about the center. There were some 150 men in there at
one time. I believe that there are 50 there now. That is a pretty good average,
I think, to make.
Mr. RAKER. Now, you have been in Imperial Valley, and you think I am safe
in saying that the farmers there, during the last three years have not been and
are not continuing there to practically leave the land and rent it to the Japanese?
Mr. BACON. Oh, no. But here is where the farmers are awfully handicapped :
No bank is lending money on land there on account of this flood menace. The
Federal farm loan bank has refused to make, loans. They say that this danger
is so great that they do not consider they are justified in making loans on that
property.
Mr. RAKER. So that handicaps you?
Mr. BACON. Very much. They are working under an awful handicap.
Mr. LITTLE. Are we to understand that by reason of this menace of the inflow
of the Colorado River the farm loan banks decline to loan money to these farm-
ers in the valley?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LITTLE. How long has that been the case?
Mr. BACON. That was brought out at the hearing held before this committee
about two years ago.
Mr. LITTLE. It was brought out then, but how long has it been the case?
Mr. BACON. I know it has been the case for two years ; how much longer I
do not know.
Mr. RAKEB. That would practically apply to private individuals loaning on
ranches, too. would it not?
Mr. BACON. Yes ; of course, when a bank refuses to loan, the private individual
with little capital does not consider he is safe in loaning.
Mr. RAKER. So you are handicapped in getting money enough to keep im-
provements going, and you are handicapped with this danger always before you
that this might destroy all you have?
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir ; they are handicapped decidedly. Here is another pe-
culiar phase of the situation : You have down here in Mexico land colonized
by Japanese
Mr. RAKER (interposing). Where?
Mr. BACON. Below the line in Mexico. You have this area in here in Cali-
fornia [indicating] populated by the American farmer.
Mr. RAKER. That is in California?
Mr. BACON. In California. Now the California American citizens are being
assessed to-day about half a million dollars a year through their irrigation
project. This money is sent down into Mexico and spent on levees which protect
this Mexican land that is raising produce to compete with the American farmer
on the American side of the line. You are penalizing the American farmer about
$500,000 a year, which helps out this man in Mexico.
Mr. RAKER. Then in addition to that, on the Mexican side just below Mexicali,
you maintain a Monte Carlo to take the rest of his money.
Mr. BACON. I would not say that was maintained for the American farmer.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWEE COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 81
Mr. RAKER. I did not say the American farmer; I said there is maintained.
Mr. BACON. There is, I believe. I am not advised on that.
Mr. RAKKR. I did not make such an assertation as to the American farmer.
Mr. BARBOUR. I understood your question to Mayor Bacon to be that " you
maintained "?
Mr. RAKER. Did I say "you"? I should have said "There is maintained."
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Where is the produce that is raised in Mexican territory
marketed ?
Mr. BACON. In the United States largely. I would not be surprised- if some of
the cantaloupes that you have been eating here in the last week have come
from Mexican territory.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Does the emergency tariff now in force have any effect
upon that?
Mr. BACON. I do not know. It certainly is not prohibitive, because I know I
have seen great quantities of Mexican produce coming into American territory,
and they evidently can stand the tariff and still sell their goods in this
country.
Mr. LITTLE. Are there any more questions to ask of Mr. Bacon?
Mr. BARBOTTR. I was just going to ask unanimous consent, or to suggest, that
the resolutions that Mayor Bacon has be incorporated in the record.
Mr. LITTLE. If there is no objection, that will be done.
(The papers referred to follow:)
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 22, 1922.
COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF PUBLIC LANDS,
House of Representatives.
GENTLEMEN : In submitting the accompanying resolutions of various munici-
pal, civic, and other organizations for your information, it would seem to be
appropriate for me as president of the League of Southern California Munici-
palities and chairman of called conventions of this and associated organizations
to acquaint you with what I believe to be the unanimous sentiment of the people
in southern California regarding the present bill known as H. R. 11449. together
with a brief historical survey of the public movements leading up to such
conclusions.
HISTORICAL.
Immediately after the publication of the Preliminary Report on the Problems
of the Imperial Valley and Vicinity, the Director of the Reclamation Service,
as required by act of Congress approved May 18. 1920. entitled. "An act to
provide for the examination and report on conditions and possibilities of irri-
gation development of the Imperial Valley in California." attention of the people
of southern California became riveted upon the possibilities of a practical
solution of the problem of the flood peril, which threatens the complete and
permanent destruction of a large section of this State.
The pressing necessity for additional electric power resources for the use
of the Southwest by reason of its industrial, commercial, and agricultural
growth immediately suggested to the people of southern California a possibility
of practical financial cooperation on its part with other public agencies, such as
a Federal Government and the States of Arizona and Nevada, in arriving at a
solution of a problem otherwise locally impossible and nationally difficult of
accomplishment.
Somewhat spontaneously, therefore, a convention of the cities and districts
of southern California was held at Pasadena, Calif., on July 22, 1921. This
first meeting effected a permanent organization, known as the League of
Southern California Municipalities. Members in attendance, representatives
of all of the larger and most of the smaller communities, thereupon adopted
resolutions urging action by Congress and the Federal Power Commission which
would exclude private interests in the development of Boulder Canyon project
and permit its immediate construction and control by the Federal Government.
Other conventions were subsequently held, namely, at Ontario, Alhambra.
and Santa Ana, and delegations presented the collective sentiment of the people
of southern California to the convention of the League of the Southwest at
Riverside and the official hearing called at San Diego by the honorable Secre-
tary of the Interior. A. B. Fall. December last.
Official representatives were present at Phoenix, Ariz., in March on the oc-
casion of the hearing of the Colorado River Commission, Secretary of Com-
merce, Hon. Herbert Hoover presiding.
82 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
On no occasion has there been anything hut a unanimous and insistent demand
for the principles expressed in H. K. 11449, bill now before the Committee on
Irrigation of Arid Lands.
H. K. 11449 INDORSED.
After the introduction of the bill providing for the protection and develop-
ment of the lower Colorado River Basin (H. R. 11449) a meeting of the League
of Southern California Municipalities, in conjunction with irrigation and farm
districts, was called by its president, John L. Bacon, mayor of Santa Diego, to
consider the measure. At this meeting held at Santa Ana. Calif., on May 4,
1922, the aforesaid bill was carefully considered and unanimously indorsed by
resolution attached hereto. A committee was appointed to take proper steps
to apprise Congress of the sentiment in southern California in way of its
speedy passage.
Subsequently a large number of cities, districts, and other bodies indorsed
this or passed appropriate resolutions, a number of which are likewise attached.
STATEMENT OF LEAGUE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITIES.
Southern California, as represented by this organization, now desires to make
the following statement of its position and understanding of H. R. 11449,
authorizing the construction of the Boulder Canyon project.
We understand that it is proposed that the Federal Government construct a
dam on the lower reaches of the Colorado River, in Boulder Canyon, and
develop, regulate, and control the flow of the river and prevent disastrous flood
conditions as a part of the project.
It is proposed to construct certain irrigation canals which will permit of
the irrigation of large tracts of arid land as an incident to the construction of
the dam. There will be created power rights. The cost of the dam project
will be charged against these power rights which are to be fairly allocated to
the States and districts.
The cost of irrigation canals and works is to be charged against the land
to be brought under irrigation.
COLORADO RIVER LONG A PROBLEM.
The Colorado River, with its tremendous watershed, has long been a terri-
fying agent of destruction. The melting snow from the mountains through
which it runs creates flood conditions of unmanageable proportions. At the
same time its great flow of water and its rapid fall makes it a great poten-
tiality for irrigation and power development.
Being an interstate and international stream, no State and no private in-
terest can be in a position either to control its floods or utilize its power and
irrigation.
It presents, therefore, a national problem solvable only by Federal initiative.
WHY SOLUTION IS NOW POSSIBLE.
Two circumstances have brought the matter of control and usage of the
Colorado River to the front for action, and likewise permits a practical so-
lution.
The gradual deposit of silt along the lower reaches of the river continuing
through years has served to increase the flood menace. If, while in flood, the
river breaks its banks, the entire Imperial Valley, which is below sea level,
will be flooded and destroyed. When the waters once find their way into the
valley nothing but the evaporation by the heat of the sun through centuries
of time can remove the water. While the Imperial Valley and various interests
there have done everything in their power against floods, such measures are
only temporary and may fail and result in disaster to Imperial Valley any
year. The only thing we can do for this territory is the control of the flow of
the river by storage, and this is possible only by Federal action.
While this Hood peril has been thus growing more acute, the Southwest has
been rapidly increasing in population and its resources commercial, industrial,
and agricultural. The demand for power exceeds the available supply. Thus
there has been created a market for the power which will be produced by a
dam at Boulder Canyon, so that the financing of the project can be made-
feasible.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 83
In brief, the Imperial Valley needs protection from floods. The territory
around the lower reaches of the Colorado River needs the power which will
be created by the agencies which protect the valley from flood.
Furthermore, as an incident to the protection of the Imperial Valley from
Hood, water will be available for irrigation, and it will be possible to open
thousands of acres of the public domain which are now arid and useless. H. R.
11449 gives to the ex-service men preferential right to this land.
PLAN CAREFULLY WORKED OUT.
Southern California appreciates that the plan of the Boulder Canyon project,
as expressed in concrete form in the bill now before Congress, has been
worked out by the Secretary of the Interior and the Reclamation Service after
extensive investigation and as a result of many years and long discussions ;
that it is a carefully balanced scheme ; that its consummation will not affect
the rights or claims of those interested in the upper reaches of the river ; that the
project will, within a reasonable time, finance itself; that the plan recognizes
in a fair and reasonable way the powerful sentiment in the Nation against per-
mitting this, perhaps the Nation's greatest resource in hydroelectric power, to
pass into private hands ; that public agencies are given a preferential right to
the power to be developed ; and that any power passing into private hands is
subject to recapture within a reasonable time, the latter two provisions being
an established national policy written into the Federal water power act.
STRONG SUPPORT TO PROJECT.
Southern California believes that so carefully has the honorable Secretary of
the Interior and the Reclamation Service worked out its plan for this project,
and so accurately has the public sentiment been gauged, that there is a feeling
that the plan is sound in all its fundamental features. City after city in the
Southwest as well as large agricultural organizations have indorsed it. Cham-
bers of commerce and other civic bodies have expressed their approval. At least,
as far as southern California is concerned, sentiment is unanimous.
Respectfully submitted.
JOHN L. BACON,
Mayor San Diego, Calif.,
President League Southern California Municipalities.
RESOLUTION No. 27690.
Be it resolved. By the common council of the city of San Diego, Calif., as
follows : That the following resolution adopted at Santa Ana, Calif., May 4,
1922, at a called convention of representatives of the southern section of the
League of California Municipalities, of the farm bureaus and farm centers of
southern California and of the Imperial irrigation districts, be, and the same
is hereby, adopted as an expression of opinion of the common council of said
city :
" Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the
gr^it Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being
overflowed and flooded by the Colorado River; that the menace of this river
is increasing with the years; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a
year ; that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke
into the valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees
must be built higher each year ; that the only available dirt for levee construc-
tion is very poor material for the purpose ; that should the Colorado River
break through the levees again its destruction would be immeasurable ; and
that the havoc of its deluge would be great and appalling, because it would not
only be immediately destructive but its evil effects would be permanent for
the reason that its waters would not run off or subside, as in floods most
everywhere else, but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below
sea level, as in the formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river
again turns to another outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts
these waters by evaporation ; and
" Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe and the 50,000
people and the millions of dollars' worth of land and other property in this
84 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
valley can be made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river
basin, and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated
and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed; and
" Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, ' To provide for the pro-
tection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin,' introduced in
the House- of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate
by Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplish-
ment of these purposes in the best and most practical manner : Now, therefore,
be it
"Resolved, By the joint convention of the representatives of the southern sec-
tion of the League of California Municipalities, of the farm bureaus and farm
centers of southern California and of the Imperial irrigation districts, duly
assembled in the city of Santa Ana, Calif., on Thursday, the 4th day of May,
1922, pursuant to call and notice regularly made and given, that House of
Representatives bill No. 11449, ' To provide for the protection and development
of the lower Colorado River Basin,' be approved and indorsed ; that we urge
upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the Congress the
imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this bill, that the relief
therein proposed may soon be given ; that we request the Senators and Con-
gressmen from California to give their special attention to this measure and
press its adoption."
And be it further resolved, That this common council urges that all possible
means be taken to expedite the passage of the bill mentioned in the above
resolution ; and
Be it further resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded by the
city clerk to each of the Representatives and Senators from the State of
California.
I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true, and correct
copy of resolution No. 27690 of the common council of the city of San Diego,
as adopted by said council May 15, 1922.
[SEAL.] ALLEN H. WRIGHT,
City Clerk of the City of San Diego, Calif.
Los ANGELES, CALIF., June 7, 1922.
R. L. CBISWKLL.
Hotel Raleigh. Washington, D. C.:
At a meeting of the city council held this day the following resolution was
adopted :
" Be it resolved, That the council of the city of Los Angeles strongly urges
the passage of the companion bills pending in Congress, being Senate bill 3511
and House bill 11449, providing for the construction of the Boulder Canyon
project on the Colorado River and of the all-American canal, connecting Im-
perial and Coachella Valleys with Laguna Dam ; that the council regards these
great projects as of vital importance to the welfare and development of the
whole Southwest, and requests the Senators and Representatives from Califor-
nia in the National Congress to employ their utmost efforts to bring about the
adoption of such legislation ; that certified copies of this resolution be trans-
mitted to Secretary Fall and Secretary Hoover and to our Senators and Mem-
bers of Congress."
ROBERT DOMINGXJEZ, City Clerk.
RESOLUTION.
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the
great Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being
overflowed and flooded by the Colorado River ; that the menace of this river is
increasing with the years; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a year;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke into the
valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea; that its levees must be
built higher each year; that the only available dirt for levee construction is
very poor material for the purpose; that should the Colorado River break
through the levees again its destruction would be immeasurable: and that the
havoc of its deluge would be grent and appalling because it would not only be
immediately destructive, but its evil effects would be permanent for the reason
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 85
that its; waters would not run off or subside, as in floods most everywhere else,
but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in the
formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river again turns to another
outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by evapora-
tion ; and,
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe, and the
50,000 people and the millions of dollars worth of land and other property
in th's valley can be nvade safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the
river basin, and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be
irrigated, and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed; and,
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the pro-
tection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin." introduced in the
House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate by
Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplishment
of these purposes in the best and most practical manner: Now. therefore, be it
Resolved. By the joint convention of the representatives of the southern
section of the League of California Municipalities, of the farm bureaus and
farm centers of southern California, and of the Imperial irrigation districts,
duly assembled in the city of Santa Ana, Calif., on Thursday, the 4th day of
May, 1922, pursuant to call and notice regularly made and given. That House of
Representatives bill No. 11449. " To provide for the protection and development
of the lower Colorado River Basin," be approved and indorsed ; that we urge
upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the Congress the
imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this bill that the relief
therein proposed may soon be given ; that we request the Senators and Con-
gressmen from California to give their special attention to this measure and
press its adoption.
Respectfully sumbitted.
GEORGE L. HOODENPYL,
J. S. NICKERSON,
GBANT M. LORRAINE,
Committee.
I. Grant M. Lorraine, secretary of the joint convention of the representatives
of the southern section of the League of California Municipalities, of the farm
bureaus and farm centers of southern California, and of the Imperial irrigation
d stricts. do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was unanimously
adopted by said joint convention on the 4th day of May, 1922, in Santa Ana,
Calif., as appears in the minutes of said meeting.
Dated, Alhambra, Calif., May 20, 1922.
GRANT M. LORRAINK.
Secretary.
RESOLUTION.
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the great
Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being over-
flowed and flooded by the Colorado River ; that the menace of this river is in-
creasing with the years; that its bed is tilling and rising about 1 foot a year;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke into the
valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea; that its levees must be
built higher each year; that the only available dirt for levee construction is
very poor material for the purpose; that should the Colorado River break
through the levees again its destruction would be immeasureable: and that the
havoc of its deluge would be great and appalling because it would not only be
immediately destructive, but its evil effects would lie permanent for the reason
that its waters would not run off or subside. as in flood most everywhere else,
but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in the
formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the r ; ver again turns to another
outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by evapora-
tion ; and
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe, and the 50,000
people and the millions of dollars worth of land and other property in this
valley can be made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river
basin ; and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated,
and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed ; and
86 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Wliereas House of Representatives bill No. 1149, " To provide for the protec-
tion and development of the lower Colorado River basin,' 1 introduced in the
House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate by
Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplishment
of these purposes in the best and most practical manner; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By the joint convention of the representatives of the southern
section of the League of California Municipalities, of the farm bureaus and
farm centers of the southern California and of the Imperial irrigation districts,
duly assembled, in the city of Santa Ana, Calif., on Thursday, the 4th day of
May, 1922, pursuant to call and notice regularly made and given; that House
of Representatives bill No. 1149, " To provide for the protection and develop-
ment of the lower Colorado River basin," be approved and indorsed ; that we
urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the'Congress
the imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this bill that the
relief proposed may soon be given ; that we request the Senators and Congress-
men from California to give their special attention to this measure and press
its adoption.
I, Otto H. Duelke, city clerk of the city of Inglewood, Calif., do hereliy certify
that the foregoing resolution was unanimously adopted by the board of trustees
of the city of Inglewood. Calif., on the 22d day of May, 1922, as appears in the
minutes of said meeting.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the city of
Inglewood, Calif., this 24th day of May, 1922.
[SEAL.] OTTO H. DUELKE.
City Clerk.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF ORANGE, CALIF.,
MAY 19, 1922.
Whereas to all persons acquainted with the facts that the great Imperial
Valley in California is anually in imminent danger of being overflowed and
flooded by the Colorado River; that the menace of this river is increasing with
the years ; that its bed is filling and rising each year ; that its bottom is now
several feet higher than it was when it broke into the valley several years ago
and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees must be built higher each year ; that
the only available dirt for levee construction is very poor material for that
purpose ; that should the Colorado River break through the levees again its
destruction would be immeasurable ; and that the havoc of its deluge would
be great and appalling, because it would not only be immediately destructive
but its evil effects would be permanent, for the reason that its waters would
not run off or subside, as in floods most everywhere else, but would gather in the
basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in the formation of the Salton
Sea, and remain until the river again turns to another outlet and until the
sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by evaporation ; and
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe and the 50,000
people and the millions of dollars' worth of land and other property in this
valley can be made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river
basin, and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated
and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed ; and
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the protec-
tion and development of the lower Colorado River Basin." introduced in the
Senate by Senator Hiram W. Johnson and in the House of Representatives by
Congressman Phil D. Swing, is a measure looking to the early accomplishment
of these purposes in the best and most practical manner : Now. therefore, be it
Resolved, by the board of trustees of the city of Orange, assembled this 19th
day of May in regular adjourned session in the city of Orange, Calif., that
the House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the protection
and development of the lower Colorado River basin." be approved and in-
dorsed : that we urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and
upon the Congress the imperative necessity of an early report and passage of
this bill, that the relief therein imposed may soon be given ; that we request the
Senators and Congressmen from California to give their special attention to
this measure and press its adoption.
Introduced and adopted by the board of trustees of the city of Orange, May
19, 1922.
O. E. GUNTHER.
Preident of the Board of Trustees of the City of Orange.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER EASIEST. 87
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the board of trustees of the city of Orange at a regular
adjourned meeting of .said board, held on the 19th day of May, 1922, by the
following vote : Ayes. Trustees Ainsworth, Walton, Heniphill, Whit sell, and
President Gunther : noes, trustees, jione ; absent, none.
W. O. WHITE, City Clerk.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOAKD OF TIJVSTEES OF THE CITY OF UPLAND, CALIF.,
AT A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, MAY 19. 1922.
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the great
Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being over-
flowed and flooded by the Colorado River; that the menace of this river is
increasing with the years; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a year;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it wns when it broke into the
valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees must be
l>uilt higher each year; that the only available dirt for levee construction is
\(>ry pror material for the purpose; that should the Colorado River break
through the levees again its destruction would be immeasurable and that the
havoc of its deluge would be great and appalling because it would not only
be immediately destructive but its evil effect would be permanent for the reason
that its waters would not run off cr subside, as in floods most everywhere else,
but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in
the formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river again turns to an-
other outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by
evaporation ; and
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe, and the 50.000
people and the millions of dollars worth of land and other property in this
valley can be made safe by the construction of flcod-control dams in the river
basin and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated
and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed ; and
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the pro-
tection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin," introduced in
the House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate
by Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplish-
ment of these purposes in the best and most practical manner : Now, there-
fore, be it
Resolved, By the board of trustees of the city of Upland, at a special meeting
held in the council chamber of the city of Upland, on Friday the 19th day of
May, 1922, at 7.30 p. m., pursuant to call and notice regularly made and given,
that the House of Representatives bill No. 11449 " To provide for the protection
and development of the lower Colorado River Basin." be approved and indorsed.
That we urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Land and upon
the Congress the imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this
bill that the relief therein proposed may soon be given.
That we request the Senators and Congressmen from California to give
their special attention to this measure and press its adoption.
Approved.
F. C. BUFFINGTON,
President of the Board of Trustees, City of Upland.
Attest :
E. C. MEHL, City Clerk.
I, E. C. Mehl, city clerk of the city of Upland, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was unanimously adopted by the board of trustees of the city
of Upland, at a special called meeting held on the 19th day of May, 1922, as
appears in the minutes of said meeting.
E. C. MEHL, City Clerk.
May 20, 1922.
RESOLUTION No. 1262.
Resolved, By the mayor and common council of the city of San Bernardino,
Calif., in regular session duly assembled on the 22d day of May, 1922, that we
unqualifiedly indorse House Bill No. 1149. now pending in Congress, providing
for the protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin, and
urge that Congress pass said measure at as early a date as possible in order
131& 22 PT 3 2
88 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
that steps may be taken to protect the vast property interests endangered by
the Colorado River ; and
Be it further resolved, That a certified copy of this resolution ' be sent to G.
M. Lorraine, secretary southern section League of California Municipalities,
and also to Herbert Hoover, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the mayor
and common council of the city of San Bernardino at its regular meeting thereof
held on the 22d day of May, 1922, by the following vote, to wit :
Ayes : Pittman, Rogers, Rouse, Stromee, Adkins.
Noes : None.
Absent: None.
[SEAL.] J. A. OSBORN, City Clerk.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino, ss:
I, J. H. Osborn, city clerk of the city of San Bernardino, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of resolution No. 1262,
as appears on the records in my office.
[SEAL.] J. H. OSBORN,
City Clerk City of San Bernardino.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES or THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO,
MAY 22, 1922, RELATIVE TO THE CONTROL OF THE COLORADO RIVER.
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the
great Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being
overflowed and flooded by the Colorado River; that the menace of this river is
increasing with the years ; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a year ;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke into the
valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees must be
built higher each year ; that the only available dirt for levee construction is very
poor material for the purpose ; that should the Colorado River break through
the levees again its destruction would be immeasurable ; and that the havoc
of its deluge would be great and appaling because it would not only be im-
mediately destructive but its evil effects would be permanent for the reason that
its waters would not run off or subside as in floods most everywhere else but
would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in the forma-
tion of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river again turns to another outlet
and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by evaporation;
and
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe, and the 50,000
people and the millions of dollars worth of land and other property in this valley
can be made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river basin,
and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated and im-
mense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed ; and
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the protec-
tion and development of the lower Colorado River Basin," introduced in the
House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate by
Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplishment
of these purposes in the best and most practical manner : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By the board of trustees of the city of San Fernando, that House
of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the protection and develop-
ment of the lower Colorado River Basin," be approved and indorsed.
That we urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the
Congress the imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this bill
that the relief therein proposed may soon be given.
That we request the Senators and Congressmen from California to give their
special attention to this measure and press its adoption.
Respectfully submitted.
F. D. PARKER,
President Board of Trustees City of San Fernando.
I, H. C. Caldwell, city clerk of the city of San Fernando do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was unanimously adopted on the 22d day of May, *
1922, by the board of trustees of the city of San Fernando.
H. C. CALDWELL,
City Clerk of the City of San Fernando.
SAN FERNANDO, CALIF., May 22, 1922.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 89
i
RESOLUTION No. 274, BY THE BOARD or TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF FULLERTON,
URGING THE PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVEK
BASIN.
The board of trustees of the city of Fullerton do resolve as follows :
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the great
Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being over-
flowed and flooded by the Colorado River ; that the menace of this river is in-
creasing with the years; that its bed is tilling and rising about 1 foot a year;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke into the
valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees must be built
higher each year ; that the only available dirt for levee construction is very
poor material for the purpose ; that should the Colorado River break through
the levees again its destruction would be immeasurable and that the havoc of
its deluge would be great and appalling, because it would not only be imme-
diately destructive, but its evil effects would be permanent, for the reason
that its waters would not run off or subside, as in floods most everywhere else,
but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in the
formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river again turns to another
outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by evapora-
tion ; and
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe, and the 50,000
people and the millions of dollars' worth of land and other property in this valley
can be made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river basin
and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated and
immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed ; and
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the protection
and development of the lower Colorado River Basin," introduced in the House
of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate by Senator
Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplishment of these
purposes in the best and most practical manner : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the board of trustees of the city of Fullerton, Calif., that House
of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the protection and develop-
ment of the lower Colorado River Basin," be approved and indorsed.
That we urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the
Congress the imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this bill,
that the relief therein proposed may soon be given.
That we request the Senators and Congressmen from California to give their
special attention to this measure and press its adoption.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and adopted by the board of trustees of the city of Fullerton at its regular
meeting held on the 16th day of May, 1922, by the following vote :
Ayes : Drake, Marsden, Davis, and Coulter.
Noes: None.
Absent : Moore.
Attest : F. C. HEZMALHALCH,
[SEAL.] City Clerk of the City of Fullerton.
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this 16th day of May, 1922.
W. F. COULTER,
President of the Board of Trustees of the City of Fullerton.
I, F. C. Hezmalhalch, city clerk of the city of Fullerton, do hereby certify
that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of the resolution introduced
and passed by the board of trustees of the city of Fulfterton on the 16th day of
May. 1022. and approved by the chairman of the board of trustees on the 16th
day of May, 1922, the original of which is on file in my office.
in witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal
this 22d day of May, 1922.
[SEAL.] F. C. HEZMALHALCH,
City Cleric of the City of Fullerton.
RESOLUTION No. 13-TKV-N. S., TNHOIJSINI; HOCSE OF REPRKSKNTATIVKS BILL No.
11440. "To PROVIDE KOK THK PROTECTION AM) I M VKI.OI'.M KNT OF THE LOWER
('(II OKADO KlVKK."
W]*>rcas it is apparent <"<> a11 persons acquainted with th<- facts that the great
Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being over-
flowed and tlooded by the Colorado River; that the menace' of this river is
90 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOKADO RIVER BASIN.
increasing with the years; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a year;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it \vas when it broke into the
valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea: that its levees must be
built higher each year ; that the only available dirt for levee construction is
very poor material for the purpose; that should the r<il<>rado River break
through the levees again its destruction would be imineasureable and that the
havoc of its deluge would be great and appalling, because it would not only
be immediately destructive but its evil effects would be permanent for the
reason that its waters wou'.d not run off or subside, as in Hoods most everywhere
else, but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as
in the formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river again turns to
another outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by
evaporation ; and
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe, and the 50,000
people and the millions of dollars' worth of land and other property in this
valley can be made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river
basin and the hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irri-
gated and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed ; and
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the pro-
tection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin," introduced in
the House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate
by Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplishment
of these purposes in the best and most practical manner: Now. therefore be it
Resolved, By the joint convention of the representatives of the southern
section of the League of California Municipalities of the Farm Bureaus and
Farm Centers of Southern California, and of the Imperial irrigation districts,
duly assembled in the city of Santa Anna. Calif., on Thursday, the 4th day of
May, 1922, pursuant to call and notice regularly made and given, that House
of Representatives bill No. 11449, *' To provide for the protection and develop-
ment of the lower Colorado River Basin." be approved and indorsed.
That we urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the
Congress the imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this bill
that the relief therein proposed may soon be given.
That we request the Senators and Congressmen from California to give
their special attention to this measure and press its adoption.
Adopted by the council of the city of Berkeley by the following vote :
Ayes : Councilmen Bartlett, Harms, Hey wood, Schmidt, and President Bartlett.
Noes : None.
Absent : None.
Louis BARTLETT,
Mayor and President of the Council.
Attest :
E. M. HANN,
City. Clerk and Clerk of the Council.
Per F. E. TURNER, Deputy.
MAY 19, 1922.
RESOLUTION.
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the
great Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being
overflowed and flooded bj; the Colorado River; that the menace of this river
is increasing with the years; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a
year; that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke
into the valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees
must be built higher each year ; that the only available dirt for levy construc-
tion is very poor material for the purpose ; that should the Colorado River
break through the levees again, its destruction would be immeasurable; and
that the havoc of its deluge would be great and appalling, because it would
not only be immediately destructive but its evil effects would be permanent
for the reason that its waters would not run off or subside as in floods most
everywhere else but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below
sea level, as in the formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river
again turns to another outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts
their waters by evaporation ; and
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN. 91
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe and the 50.000
people and the millions of dollars worth of land and other property in this
valley can he made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river
basin, and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated
and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed; and
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, "To provide for the protec-
tion and development of the lower Colorado River Basin," introduced in the
House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate by
Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplishment
of these purposes in the best and most practical manner: Now. therefore, he it
Reftolrcd. By the city council of the city of Long Beach, Calif., in regular
session held on Tuesday, the 9th day of May, 1922, that House of Representa-
tives bill No. 11449. " To provide for the protection and development of the
lower Colorado River Basin." be approved and indorsed.
That we urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the
Congress the imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this bill
that the relief therein proposed may soon be given.
That we request the Senators and Congressmen from California to give
their special attention to this measure and press its adoption.
I, H. C. Waughop, city clerk of the city of Long Beach, Calif., do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was unanimously adopted by the city
council of the city of Long Beach on the 9th day of May, 1922, as appears in
the minutes of said meeting, by the following vote:
* Ayes : Condit, Downs, Pillsbury, Workman, Beck.
Noes : None.
Absent : Welch. Buffum.
LONG BEACH, CALIF., May 9, 1922.
[SEAL.] H. C. WAUGHOP, City Clerk.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, ss:
' I, H. C. Waughop. city clerk of the city of Long Beach, do hereby certify
that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution that was adopted
by the city council of the city of Long Beach, Tuesday, May 9, 1922, as ap-
pears of record in my office.
[SEAL.] H. C. WAUGHOP,
City Clerk of the City of Long Beach.
RESOLUTION No. 910.
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the
great Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being
overflowed and flooded by the Colorado River ; that the menace of this river is
increasing with the years; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a year;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke into the
valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea; that its levees must be
built higher each year ; that the only available dirt for levee construction is
very poor material for the purpose ; that should the Colorado River break
through the levees again, its destruction would the immeasurable ; and that the
havoc of its deluge would be great and appalling, because it would not only be
immediately destructive but its evil effects would be permanent, for the reason
that its waters would not run off or subside, as in floods most everywhere else,
but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in the
formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river again turns to another
outlet and until the sunshine of the centuries again lift their waters by
evaporation ; and
Whereas relief can be had from this poi'tending catastrophe and the 50.000
people and the millions of dollars worth of land and other property in this
valley can be made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river
basin, and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated
and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed; and
Whereas House bill 11449, " To provide for the protection and development
of the Lower Colorado River Basin." introduced in the House of Representatives
92 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate by Senator Hiram W. Johnson,
is a measure looking to the early accomplishment of these purposes in the best
and most practical manner: Now, therefore, be it
Rcsolri'tl Inj the roin-inixxinn of the citi/ of Alhainbm. Calif., at their regular
meeting held on Monday. Mai/ 1~>. /<>..'>. That House bill 11449, " To provide for
the protection and development of the Lower Colorado River Basin," be approved
and indorsed ; that we urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands
and upon the Congress the imperative necessity of an early report and passage
of this bill, that rhe relief therein proposed may soon be given ; that we request
the Senators and Congressmen from California to give their special attention
to this measure and press its adoption.
Signed and approved this 15th day of May, 1922.
N. W. THOMPSON,
President of the Commission of the City of Alhambra.
Attest:
R. B. WALLACE,
City Clerk.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted
by the commission of the city of Alhambra at its regular meeting held on the
15th day of May, 1922. by the following votes : Ayes. Commissioners Garrison,
Battelle, Bailey, and Thompson ; noes, none ; absent, Commissioner Gibboney.
[SEAL.] R. B. WALLACE.
City Clerk.
I, R. B. Wallace, do hereby certify that I am the duly qualified and acting
city clerk of the city of Alhambra, Calif., and that the attached is a mie and
correct copy of resolution No. 910, which was adopted by the commission of the
city of Alhambra, Calif., at its regular meeting held on the loth day of
May, 1922.
Witness my hand and the seal of the city of Alhambra this 17th day of
May, 1922.
[SEAL.] R. B. WALLACE, City Clerk.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF RIVERSIDE, CALIF.,
ON MAY 16, 1922.
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the great
Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being over-
flowed and flooded by the Colorado River ; that the menace of this river is
increasing with the years; that its bed is rilling and rising about 1 foot a year;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke it into the
valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees must be
built higher every year; that the only available dirt for levee construction is
very poor material for the purpose; that should the Colorado River break
through the levees again its destruction would be immeasurable; and that the
havoc of its deluge would be great and appalling. 1 it-cause it would not only be
immediately destructive but its evil effects would he permanent, for the reason
that its waters would not run off or subside, as in floods most everywhere else,
but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in the
formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river again turns to another
outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by evapora-
tion ; and
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe and the 50.000
people and the millions of dollars' worth of land and other property in this
valley can be made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river
basin, and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated
and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed ; and
Whereas House bill 11449, to provide for the protection and development of
the lower Colorado River Basin, introduced in the House of Representatives
by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate by Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is
a measure looking to the early accomplishment of these purposes in the best and
most practical manner : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That we hereby approve and indorse House bill 11449, to provide
for the protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin ; that
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN". 93
we urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the Congress
the imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this bill that the
relief therein proposed may soon be given ; that we request the Senators and
Congressmen from California to give their special attention to this measure and
press its adoption.
I, C. B. Burns, clerk of the city of Riverside, Calif., do hereby certify that the
foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the mayor and
common council of said city of Riverside at its meeting held on the 16th day of
May, 1922.
[SEAL.] C. B. BURNS, City Clerk.
RESOLUTION INDORSING THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT A MEETING HELD IN SANTA
AXA. MAY 5, 1922, URGING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO PASS BILL
No. 11449.
Whereas there is now pending in the House of Representatives of the
United States a bill " To provide for the protection and development of the
Lower Colorado River Basin," the same being No. 11449 ; and
Whereas at a public meeting of the League of California Municipalities,
held in Santa Ana, Calif., on the 4th day of May, 1922, a resolution was
adopted by said meeting urging the passage of said bill; and
.Whereas every city and property owner in southern California is vitally
interested therein : Now, therefore, be it
RexoU-ed by the Council of the City of Santa Barbara, That the sentiment
expressed in said resolution be, and the same is hereby, indorsed.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Santa Barbara, ss :
I, J. E. Sloan, mayor of the city of Santa Barbara, hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was read in full at a regular meeting of the council of
the city of Santa Barbara, held on the 18th day of May, 1922, and was adopted
by the following vote on roll call :
Yeas: Councilman S. L. Buck, F. W. Cole, H. L. Hitchcock, Geo. M. Mc-
Guire, J. E. Sloan.
Nays : None.
Absent : None.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official
seal to be affixed this 19th day of May, 1922.
J. E. SLOAN, Mayor.
Attest :
[SEAL.] S. B. TAGGART, City Clerk.
I hereby certify the above to be a true and correct copy of the resolution
passed by the city of Santa Barbara at its meeting on May 18, 1922.
[SEAL.] S. B. TAGGART, City Clerk.
RESOLUTION No. 4321. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY
OF PASADENA INDORSING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BILL No. 11449,
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the
Great Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being
overflowed and flooded by the Colorado River: that the menace of this river
is increasing with the years ; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a
year; that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke
Into the valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees
must be built higher each year; that the only available dirt for levee construc-
tion is very poor material for the purpose; that should the Colorado River
break through the levees again its destruction would be immesasurable ; and
tluit the havoc of its deluge would be great and appalling because it would
not only be immediately destructive but its evil effects would be permanent
for the reason that it waters would not run off or subside, as in floods most
everywhere else, but would gather in the basin of the valley which is below
sea level, as in the formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river
94 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
again turns to another outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts
these waters by evaporation: and
Whereas relief can he had from this portending catastrophe, and the 50,000
people and the m'llions of dollars worth of land and other property in this
valley can he made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river
basin, and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can he irrigated^
and immense amounts of hyroelectric power can be developed: and
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11440. "To provide for the pro-
tection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin." introduced in tin-
House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate by
Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplishment
of these purposes in the best and most practical manner: Now, therefore, be ic
Renoir fd btt th< tionnl of directors of the city of Pasadena:
SECTION 1. That House of Representatives bill No. 11449, "To provide for
the protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin," be ap-
proved and indorsed. That the city of Pasadena urges upon the Committee
on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the Congress of the United States the
imperative necessity of an early report and passage of said bill that the relief
therein proposed may soon be given, and further requests and urges that the
Senators and Congressmen from California give their special attention to this
measure and press its adoption.
SEC. 2. The city clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
cause copies thereof to be prepared, certified, and forwarded to Grant -M. Lor-
raine, secretary southern section of the League of California Municipalities for
transmission by him to the Members and committees of Congress herein men-
tioned.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the board of
directors of the city of Pasadena at its meeting held May , 1922.
Clerk of the City of Pasadena.
Signed and approved this - - day of May, 1922.
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the City of Pasadena,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Angeles, City of Pasadena, ss:
I, Bessie Chamberlain, clerk of the city of Pasadena, do hereby certify that
the attached document is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution of the
city of Pasadena, which same was adopted at its meeting held May 19, 1922.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate
seal of the city of Pasadena this 19th day of May, 1922.
Clerk of the City of Pasadena, Calif.
RESOLUTION No. 788. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA, CALIF., INDORSING AND RECOMMENDING THE PASSAGE OF BILL
No. 11449 Now BEFORE CONGRESS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION AND DE-
VELOPMENT OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
The board of trustees of the city of Santa Ana, Calif., resolve and declare
as follows :
Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the
great Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being
overflowed and flooded by the Colorado River ; that the menace of this river
is increasing with the years; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a
year; that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke into
the valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees must
be built higher each year ; that the only available dirt for levee cons ruction is
very poor material for the purpose ; that should the Colorado River break
through the levees again its destruction would be immeasurable : and that the
havoc of its deluge would be great and appalling because it would not only be
immediately destructive, but its evil effects would be permanent for the reason
that its waters would no" run off or subside, as 1 in floods most everywhere else,
but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in the
formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river again turns to another
outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by evapora-
tion; and
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 95
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe and the 50,000
people and the millions of dollars' worth of land and other property in this
valley can be made safe by the construction of flood-control dams in the river
basin and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be irrigated
and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed ; and
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the pro-
tection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin," introduced in
the House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate
by Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplish-
ment of these purposes in the best and most practical manner : Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, by the Board of Trustees of the City of Santa Ana, Calif., That
House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the protection and de-
velopment of the lower Colorado River basin," be approved and indorsed ;
that we urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the.
Congress the imperative necessity of an early report and passage of this bill
that the relief therein proposed may soon be given ; that we request the Sena-
tors and Congressmen from California to give their special attention to this
measure and press its adoption.
Adopted and approved this 15th day of May, 1922.
J. G. MITCHELL,
President of the Board of Trustees City of Santa Ana, Calif.
. Attest:
[SEAL.] E. L. VEGELY, City Clerk.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL INDORSING
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BILL No. 11449.
The Board of Trustees of the City of San Gabriel do resolve as follows :
W'hereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the Great
Imperial Valley in California is annually in imminent danger of being over-
flowed and flooded by the Colorado River ; that the menace of this river is
increasing with the years ; that its bed is filling and rising about 1 foot a year ;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke into the
valley several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees must be
built high each year; that the only available dirt for levee construction is very
poor material for the purpose; that should the Colorado River break through
the levees again its destruction would be immeasurable ; and that the havoc of
its deluge would he great and appalling, because it would be not only im-
mediately destructive, but its evil effects would be permanent, for the reason
that its waters would not run off or subside, as in floods most everywhere
else, but would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as
in the formation of the Salton Sea. and remain until the river again turns to
another outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these w r aters by
evaporation : and
Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe and the 50,000
people and the millions of dollars worth of land and other property in this
valley can be made safe by the construction of flood dams in the river basin,
and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional land can be irrigated and
immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed ; and
Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449. " To provide for the pro-
tection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin." introduced in
the House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate by
Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early development and
accomplishment of these purposes in the best and most practical manner : Now.
therefore, be it
ResoJretl inj xaiil Board of Trustees of the City />f Xan Ualtrid. That House of
Representatives hill Xo. 11440. "To provide for the protection and development
of the lower Colorado River Basin," be approved and indorsed; that the city of
San Gabriel urges upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon
the Congress of the United States the imperative necessity of an early report
and passage of said bill that the relief therein propose.] may soon be given ; and
further requests and urges that the Senators and Congressmen from California
give their special attention to this measure and press its adoption.
96 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
The city clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and cause copies
thereof to be prepared and forwarded to Grant M. Lorraine, secretary southern
section of the League of California Municipalities for transmission by him to
the Members and committees of Congress herein mentioned.
I, Ira H. Stouffer, city clerk of the city of San Gabriel, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the
board of trustees of the city of San Gabriel, held on the 23d day of May,
1922, by the following vote:
Ayes : Brownrigg, Dake, Fisk, Lettler, and Lugo.
Noes : None.
Absent : None.
IRA H. STOUFFER.
City Clerk of the city of San Gabriel.
Signed and approved this 23d day of May, 1922.
[SEAL.] GEO. D. DAKE,
President of the Board of Trustees of the city of San Gabriel.
RESOLUTION No. 327.
Whereas the President has introduced in the House of Representatives of
the present Congress House bill No. 11449, which said bill provides the means
whereby the lower basin of the Colorado River may be protected from floods
and additional lands further developed ;
Whereas during periods of every year the people who have, with com-
mendable courage and great expenditure of money, reclaimed a trackless
desert into one of the most productive sections of our Nation are threatened
with the loss of their lives and their entire investment by reason of the un-
controlled waters of > the Colorado River ; and
Whereas the bill above mentioned if passed will not only provide security
for these people, but will also reclaim hundreds of thousands of acres of addi-
tional lands now valuless : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the council of the city of Santa Monica, That the said bill be,
and the same is hereby, indorsed, and its passage in the House and Senate
and approval by the President urged, and, further, that the clerk of the city
of Santa Monica be authorized to communicate by wire with Hon. H. Z.
Osborne. our Representative in Congress, requesting that he use every en-
deavor to procure that result, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded
to the following : Hon. Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce ; Hon. H. Z.
Osborne, Representative in Congress ; Committee of the House of Representa-
tives on Flood Control.
I, Frank A. Helton, commissioner of finance, ex officio clerk of the city of
Santa Monica, do hereby certify that the above is a copy of a resolution duly
nnd regularly adopted by the council of the city of Santa Monica at its meet-
ing held in said city on the 19th day of May, 1922.
F. A. HELTON,
Commissioner of Finance,
Ex-offlcio Clerk of the City of Santa Monica.
CORONADO, CALIF., July 2, 1922.
JOHN L. BACON,
Care Congressman Phil D. Swing, Washington, D. C.:
Coronado heartily indorses House bill No. 11449. Authorize you to represent
us at hearings.
W. E. HARPER,
President of the Board of Trustees, City of Coronado.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 97
RESOLUTION No. 27690.
Be it rctoJred lt;< the common council of the citi/ of Xan Diego, Calif., as
folJoirs : That the following resolution, adopted at Santa Ana, Calif., May 4,
1922. at a called convention of representatives of the southern section of the
League of California Municipalities, of the farm bureaus, and farm centers
of southern California, and of the Imperial irrigation districts, be, and the
same is hereby, adopted as an expression of opinion of the common council of
said city :
" Whereas it is apparent to all persons acquainted with the facts that the
great Imperial Valley of California is annually in imminent danger of being
overflowed and flooded by the Colorado River ; that the menace of this river is in-
creasing with the years : that its bed is filling and raising about 1 foot a year ;
that its bottom is now several feet higher than it was when it broke into the valley
several years ago and formed the Salton Sea ; that its levees must be built
higher each year; that the only available dirt for levee construction is very
poor material for the purpose ; that should the Colorado River break through
the levees again its destruction would be immeasurable ; and that the havoc
of its deluge would be great and appalling because it would not only be immedi-
ately destructive but its evil effects would be permanent for the reason that
its waters would not run off or subside, as in floods most everywhere else, but
would gather in the basin of the valley, which is below sea level, as in the
formation of the Salton Sea, and remain until the river again turns to an-
other outlet and until the sunshine of centuries again lifts these waters by
evaporation ; and
" Whereas relief can be had from this portending catastrophe, and the
50,000 people and the millions of dollars' worth of land and other property in
this valley can be made safe by the construction of flood-contral dams in the
river basin ; and hundreds of thousands of acres of additional lands can be
irrigated, and immense amounts of hydroelectric power can be developed; and
" Whereas House of Representatives bill No. 11449, " To provide for the
protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin. " introduced in
the House of Representatives by Congressman Phil Swing and in the Senate
by Senator Hiram W. Johnson, is a measure looking to the early accomplish-
ment of these purposes in the best and most practical manner : Now. therefore,
be it
"Resolved 'by the joint convention of the representatives of the southern*
xcction of the League of California Municipalities, of the farm bureaus, and
farm centers of southern California, and of the Imperial irrigation districts,
dutii nxxcnibled in the city of Santa Ana, Calif., on Thursday, the .'/th day of
M<n/, 1922, pursuant to call and notice regularly made and given, That House
of Representatives bill No. 11449, ' To provide for the protection and develop-
ment of the lower Colorado River basin, ' be approved and indorsed ; that we
urge upon the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands and upon the Congress
the impressive necessity of an early report and passage of this bill that the
relief therein proposed may soon be given ; that we request the Senators and
Congressman from California to give their special attention to this measure
and press its adoption ; " and be it
Resolved, That this common council urges that all possible means
be taken to expedite the passage of the bill mentioned in the above resolution ;
and be it
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded by the city clerk
to each of the Representatives and Senators from the State of California.
I hereby certify the above to be a full, true, and correct copy of Resolution
No. 27690 of the common council of the city of San Diego as adopted by said
council May 15, 1922.
[SEAL.] ALLEN H. WRIGHT, City Clerk.
Mr. HAYDEN. I also suggest that the text of the article by Mr. Grunsky, who
is a very able engineer, be printed in the record, omitting the illustrations.
Mr. LITTLE. Is there any objection? If not, that will be done.
98 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
(The paper referred to follows:)
CONTROLLING THE PRINCIPAL ARTERY OF THE SOUTHWEST STATES ONE OF THE
FOREMOST AUTHORITIES ON THE COLORADO RIVER DISCUSSES THE SITUATION
Xow BEFORE THE COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE FUTURE
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL POSSIBILITIES OF THE SOUTHWEST.
[By C. E. Grunsky, Consulting Engineer.]
The Boulder Canyon dam site is located just above the point where the Colo-
rado River makes its abrupt turn from a westerly to a southerly course. It
is some 60 miles in an air line above the point where California's east boundary
line strikes the river and is between three and four miles below the mouth of
the Virgin River. The river at this point forms the boundary between Nevada
on the north and Arizona on the south. The canyon is narrow, being gen-
erally reported as about 250 feet wide for a distance of one-half mile. The
sides of the gorge are steep. The rock is granite. The project for storage at
this site as now favored by the United States Reclamation Service involves the
construction of a dam that would rise to a height of 550 feet above the water
surface of the river, forming a reservoir with a storage capacity in excess of
25,000,000 acre-feet. The discharge of Colorado River at this 'point may be
noted, in approximate figures, as ranging from 7,000,000 to 22.000.000 acre-feet
per year. The normal annual discharge of the river is about 15.000,000 acre-
feet. The water of a full reservoir would extend up the Colorado River into
the lower end of the Grand Canyon. A large portion of the storage space would
be afforded by the lower valley of the Virgin River. The surface area of the
reservoir may reach 125,000 acres from which the loss by evaporation would be
about 750,000 acre-feet per annum.
The feasibility of a dam of the dimensions proposed seems now to be gener-
ally accepted by the engineers who have investigated the dam site. A reser-
voir at this point would control the flow of the Colorado except the contribu-
tions by the Gila River, and could be so manipulated that it would eliminate
the lower river flood menace to the extent that it is due to up river high stages.
It would regulate the flow of the river for irrigation purposes and would permit
the generation of about 600,000 horsepower. The power thus generated would
be available for use at points as far removed as San Francisco, but the princi-
pal place of use would naturally be in Arizona, Nevada, southern Utah, and
southern portions of California.
The up-river use of water for irrigation is increasing. Some small diversions
of water from the headwaters of the Colorado River into adjacent drainage
basins are already accomplished and others are under contemplation. It is-
not now known to what extent this up-river use of water will decrease the
discharge of the river through the Boulder Canyon and there 1s consequently
some conjecture as to whether the above indicated power output can be real-
ized. In any event there will always be a sufficient flow to make storage worth
while, and the natural flow alone to which unassailable down-river rights have
already been established by beneficial use would justify the use of the water
in generating power if a dam of any consderable height is placed in Boulder
Canyon. It may be noted in this connection that the Tuma project will require
a summer flow of 1,500 to 1.700 second-feet and has been actually using 1.100
to 1,200 second-feet. Imperial irrigation district for use on the lands of the
district and on a smaller area in Mexico has been diverting and using over
6,000 second-feet in summer and more than one-third of this amount at times
of minimum demand in winter. So, too, at Palo Verde there has been diversion
and use on a large scale. Plans for extension of irrigation in the lower river
regions have been made, notably in the case of Imperial Valley, where it is
proposed to add some 400,000 acres to the irrigated area. But any such ex-
tension of irrigated areas is conditioned on conserving the present wastage of
flood waters. This wastage is large, as will be seen, when the volume of flow
reaching Laguna Dam. about 16,000,000 acre-feet per year, is compared with
the amount diverted by Yurna reclamation project and the Imperial irrigation
district together, about 2,500,000 acre-feet.
ANOTHER COLORADO FLOOD IMMINENT. ^r
There is another urgent reason, aside from extension of irrigated areas and
power development, for the early construction of a big regulating reservoir
somewhere not too far up on the Colorado. This is the control of floods. The
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 99
floods on the lower river have become a serious menace to the river's delta lands.
Adequate storage facilities on the river under proper control would reduce
the peak of all flood discharges, except only those which originate in the water-
shed of the Gila River. It should be noted, however, in this connection that
such storage alone will not completely solve the flood-control problem. Colo-
| rndo River is now running wild in that portion of its delta which lies to the
r southward of a line about 20 miles south of and roughly parallel with the
south boundary of California. Ever since the river abandoned its channel
at a point near the south line of Arizona in 1909 it has been flowing westerly
from that point and has piled its drift and silt into the Volcano Lake region.
The lake has been practically obliterated by silt deposits. In consequence of
the increasing obstruction thus placed in the way of flood water the flood plane
is rising at the rate of about 1 foot a year, and has now progressed to the
point where the river at its high stages will begin again to overtop its natural
banks in the 20-mile stretch in which the river forms the boundary between
Arizona and Mexico, and its high waters may become a menace to levees whose
bases have been barely lapped with water for some years past. This situation
demands action which should not he delayed. The United States should take
whatever measures are necessary to secure the right from Mexico to put the
Colorado River back upon a direct course to the Gulf of California, and this
should be done at once, regardless of whether storage works are constructed
or not.
ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MILLION TONS OF SILT.
The silt carried by the river is a factor to be considered in the planning
of storage facilities. The river carries in suspension annually about 180,000,000
ton* of silt and rolls some more along its bottom. An average of over 100.000
acre-feet of well compacted sediment are brought down to the river delta
annually. Perhaps 80.000 to 90,000 acre-feet of deposit in a reservoir at
Boulder Canyon should, therefore, be expected. This would, of course, ac-
cumulate in the upstream portions of any reservoir that is at the points where
the water loses its silt-transporting power. If the Boulder Canyon project is
carried out, it would take the silt about 30 years to destroy one-tenth of the
proposed storage capacity, consequently deterioration due to the accumulation
of silt in the reservoir is not a serious problem from an economic standpoint.
THE ADVANTAGES OF AN UPPER DAM.
As an alternative to the early construction of the Boulder Canyon project
a reservoir farther upstream above Lee's Ferry in Glen Canyon has been
suggested. Here, too, there is a narrow canyon, but the walls are sandstone
instead of granite. A loose rock dam with an effective height of over 700 feet
and a storage capacity of over 40,000,000 acre-feet has been suggested for this
site. A reservoir at the Glen Canyon site would be less effective in controlling
floods, being some 300 miles farther upstream, and it would he farther removed
from the power market. But a dam at this point would have the particular
advantage of so checking and regulating the major portion of the river flow
f hat the cor.strucricn of other dams farther downstream would be facilitated.
Its construction, although perhaps not to the extreme height suggested, would
be in line with the ultimate maximum utilization of the river flow, because
if used in conjunction with a high dam at some down-river point the water from
tin's upper storage could be liberated at rates adjusted to power requirements
without regard to irrigation demands, and the regulation for irrigation would
be effected entirely at the downstream reservoir.
WATER ENOUGH FOR ALL.
There are one or two facts which stand out prominently, as, for example, the
apparently slight effect of the increase of the use of water at up-river points
upon the amount of water which reaches the Laguna Dam, near Yuma. The
records of discharge lack the accuracy and fail to go back far enough to make
the effect of up-river irrigation of about 1.150,000 acres upon this flow apparent.
To what extent, then, will the addition of perhaps 1,600,000 acres more to this
irrigated area reduce the flow? Of the 3,000,000 acre-feet of water required
for this area a part only, say 2.000,000 acre-feet, should be subtracted from the
down-river discharge. Assuming the minimum yearly supply at Boulder Can-
yon to be 7,000,000 acre-feet under present conditions and the normal about
100 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
13,000,000 acre-feet, then, without restricting the use of Colorado River water
for irrigation in Wyoming, Colorado. Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada,
there will still be 3,000,000 to 9,000,000 acre-feet of water per annum that will
go to waste after supplying the present needs of lower-river irrigators who
now have some 700,000 acres in cultivation.
Storage on a large scale is essential to reduce this waste and to make some
of the water of the years of larger flow available in the years of light run-off;
but in analyzing the effectiveness of a reservoir for this purpose it must be
remembered that if the water released from storage is to serve both for the
generation of power and for irrigation, the head at the dam should never be
completely sacrificed, and that, therefore, the effective reservoir capacity should
be entered into a calculation at much less than the full capacities as above
noted.
The cost of providing a reservoir at the Boulder Canyon site is generally
given at upward of $30,000,000.
WHO SHOULD BUILD THE DAM?
The agency which should carry out the regulation of the flow of the lower
river in the interest of irrigation, for the development of power, and for flood
control should be the United States; but if private parties are ready to under-
take the work, subject to such control by Federal Government and such regula-
tions as may be necessary to properly guard conflicting interests and establish
rights, there can be no valid objection to granting such private parties per-
mission to proceed with the work.
In no event should the right to control be passed on to the several States
which are interested in the conservation and use of the waters of the Colorado
River and its tributaries. It is well enough for the Colorado River Commission,
which is now functioning with Mr. Herbert C. Hoover at its head, to define
the relative interests of these States in the waters of the river, but despite
all that any of these States can do in the matter of putting the water to bene-
ficial use there will still be a surplus to flow down the river into its lower reaches
and the works here under discussion will certainly be carried out in some
form.
If the United States undertakes the work, then suitable provision should be
made for wholesnling the water to the districts that are irrigated with water
that is made available by storage, a fair charge should be made to the power
companies who obtain power from this source for distribution, and annual
benefits should be assessed against the regions which are benefited by flood
control, or, of course, there might be an equivalent immediate or early return
to the United States of capital investment, which could best be accomplished by
issuing bonds and turning the same over to the United States.
Mr. LITTLE. We will now hear Mr. Criswell. I believe you are president of
the City Council of Los Angeles, Mr. Criswell.
STATEMENT OF MB. RALPH CRISWELL, PRESIDENT OF THE CITY
COUNCIL, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.
Mr. CRISWELL. Yes, sir; I am president of the city council of Los Angeles. We
in Los Angeles, of course, are interested in this problem in the Imperial Valley, to
tliis extent, that our wholesalers and jobbers supply the merchants in that
territory and our financiers have money invested there in the form of loans,,
which has been brought out, are not very safe at the present time. The pros-
perity of that country adds to the prosperity of the city of Los Angeles, but
we are particularly interested in the power which may be developed at the
Boulder Canyon Dam. The city of Los Angeles for a number of years has been
engaged in the generation and distribution of hydro electric power. We have
something like $25,000,000 invested in that project now.
Mr. HAYDEN. That was in connection with the construction of the Owens
River Aqueduct?
Mr. CRISWELL. That is in connection with the Owens River Aqueduct. We
have not power possibilities sufficient to meet our demands for power, and we
have for some years been looking about, prospecting for other power sites.
Some of these sites on which we hnve spent considerable money for preliminary
survey, and so forth, are not the best sites and can not develop power nearly
as cheaply as it can be developed at the Boulder Canyon. Therefore, we are
interested in the building of the dam at Boulder Canyon and the allocation:
of the power privileges at that dam.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 101
For three or four years our power department has not encouraged, and in
fact has refused to negotiate with people who desire to locate factories or
smelters or refineries in Los Angeles, because we did not feel that we were
safe in guaranteeing power at a given cost. If we could have allocated to us
a proportion of the power to be developed at that dam, that problem would
be solved and some of the tentative sites which we are now working upon in
the Sierra Nevada Mountains would be abandoned by the city.
Mr. HAYDEN. Are you meeting with objection in northern California to
development by the city of Los Angeles of power sites in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains north of the Tehachapi Pass?
Mr. Cms WELL. Yes; I had reference to those.
Mr. HAYDEN. In other words, the people of that section of the State believe
that power developed in that territory should be utilized in northern Cali-
fornia and not transported to southern California?
Mr. CRISWELL. We have been told that that is their attitude.
Mr. HAYDEN. What is the maximum amount of power that the city of Los
Angeles would like to have from the proposed development at the Boulder
( 'anyon Dam?
Mr. < 'itiswELL. The city of Los Angeles at the present time has installation
for about 100,000 horsepower. We are actually developing 75,000 horsepower
and are to-day purchasing from a private power company about 35,000 horse-
power.
, Mr. B ARBOUR. Is that all used by the city?
Mr. CRISWELL. That is all used by the city.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Does the city own its own plant?
Mr. CUISWELL. The city owns generating plants of its own along the line of
the aqueduct.
Mr. HARBOUR. Does that include the power used on the railway lines?
Mr. CRISWELL. That does not include the power used by the street railways,
no.
Mr. BARBOUR. Could you say how much is being used by the street railways?
Mr. CRISWELL. I do not have that figure in mind.
We are getting a very high degree of efficiency from our installation at the
present time. Ordinarily a plant does not turn out more than two-thirds firm
horsepower <>f the amount of the installation. We are getting about three-
fourths. The city of Los Angeles is in this position; we do not want to say at
this time the amount of horsepower we would like to have allocated to us, fur-
ther than this, that after all communities in the Southwest Arizona, Nevada,
and California -after all other communities have been allocated the power
which they want and which the Secretary of the Interior feels he is justified
in allocating to them, the city of Los Angeles will agree to take all that is left.
We will enter into a contract to that effect.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. Would that plan of utilization insure the full development
of the plant in the beginning?
Mr. CRISWELL. It would. It is our opinion that a certain amount of power
or power possibilities should be reserved by the Secretary of the Interior for
future allocation to communities that can not act at 'the present time that
might be slower to act than are some of the cities that have been figuring on this
for sometime and are ready to act; that those power possibilities should be
reserved for future allocation, but the city of Los Angeles would agree that
if nobody took any power and if half of that power, we will say, was reserved
at the present time, we will pay for the power that is allocated to us a sum
sufficient to meet the interest and the sinking fund charges, and we will get
cheap power then.
Mr. HAYDEN. Do you mean interest and sinking fund on the entire cost of
the project?
Mr. CRISWELL. On the entire cost of the project.
Mr. HAYDEN. That was stated yesterday to be about $8,000,000 a year.
Mr. CRISWELL. Something like that.
Mr. LITTLE. Do you believe that Los Angeles could afford to pay $8,000.000 a
year for this proposition on the Colorado River if they could get the power?
Mr. CRISWELL. Well, I would not want to say $8,000,000, because I do not
have the figure in mind, and I haven't it in my notes here, but, I do say that
we have figured the cost of the dam and the cost of the installation of generat-
ing machinery and the cost of the transmission line, and we would be willing
to bear the burden, if necessary, on the whole proposition.
Mr. LITTLE. Providing you got power?
102 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. .
Mr. CRISWELL. Providing we got the power. But we are not asking that,
understand that, gentlemen we are imt asking for any power until all of these
other communities have heen satisfied.
Mr. LITTLE. You refer to the Boulder Canyon Dam?
Mr. CKISWELL. To the Boulder Canyon Dam; yes.
Mr. P,ARi:oru. Following right along that line, would the city of Los Angeles
be willing to take over this Boulder Canyon project and construct the dam, if
the Government, permitted it to do s>. at ;s own expense?
Mr. CKISWELL. On account of limitations in our charter for bonding provisions
we could not do that, and that leads me to another point: Tn the suggestion
that is made by the Secretary of the Interor in his report to this committee
he suggests that bonds be issued for the building of* these works and that those
bonds be sold at a bonus if possible. I presume the idea he had in mind was
that the bonus would cover the interest on the bonds during the period of
construction. The charter of the city of Los Angeles would prohibit us from
] laying a bonus, but we can accomplish it directly by contracting that we will
agree to pay this interest during construction, but we could not agree to
nay a bonus for bonds, and I doubt very much whether there is a municipality
in southern California that could pay a bonus for the bonds; and many of
them, including perhaps Los Angeles, could not purchase bonds but we could
find a purchaser.
Mr. BARBOUR. What is your idea for the city of Los Angeles as a munici-
pality to purchase some of these bonds?
Mr. CRISWELL. I just said that I doubt whether we could under our charter
limitations do so. but we could find a purchaser.
Mr. BARBOUR, If they could be purchased at par?
Mr. CRISWELL. I doubt whether we could purchase them even at par.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have you heard any suggestion as to the per cent of
power to be reserved for future development? Has there been a suggestion
made along that line?
Mr. CRISWELL. No ; there have been no percentages figured out that I know
of. You understand that the installation of power machinery there would ex-
tend over a number of years before it could all be installed, even though we
worked as rapidly as possible.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. In the statement which you made a moment ago. did you
have in mind the future development in the State, which you enumerated for
allocation?
Mr. CKISWELL. I did : in my suggestion that a portion of this power, a cer-
tain percentage of it, should be reserved for future allocation.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is, the city of Los Angeles, after allocation to Ari-
zona, Nevada, and California outside of Los Angeles, would be willing to take
the surplus power?
Mr. CRTSWELL. That was my statement. That is what I meant to say.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. With reservation for future development in those particu-
lar States?
Mr. CRISWELL. Yes. sir.
Mr. RAKER. Mr. Cri swell, does your city charter permit you to dispose of elec-
tric energy that the city has control of outside of the city of Los Angeles?
Mr. CRISWELL. Would it permit it?
Mr. RAKER. Yes.
Mr. CRISWELL. It would permit us to dispose of it yes but under a contract
which we entered into with the Southern California Edison Co. when we
purchased their distributing system inside of the city we agreed not to interfere
with their market outside of the city, but any surplus power we generate shall
be sold to that company at a price fixed by the State railroad commission.
Mr. RAKER. Now, supposing the power was allocated to Utah, Colorado, and
New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada, to certain large cities outside of Los
Angeles, and the balance to be taken by Los Angeles, would it be your pur-
pose and intent in taking your line from Boulder Canyon to Los Angeles to
supply the small cities and communities in southern California with elec-
tric energy at the same price that you supplied it to the people of Los
Angeles ?
Mr. CRISWELL. That is a detail that I have never heard discussed.
Mr. RAKER. Well, it is a detail so big what I am getting at is this: Here
are a number of thriving communities south and east of Los Angeles that in and
of themselves are financially unable, say, to install a plant or to get any
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 103
Allocation: would it he the disposition of Los Angeles to supply these people
with this electric energy, you people having secured a very large block of it?
Mr. CUISWELL. It would lie the disposition of the city of Los Angeles to assist
those other municipalities in any way that it could.
Mr. HAKER. Would there he any disposition to not supply it?
Mr. CRISWELL. I think not.
Mr. KAKKR. I make myself plain on that, I hope.
Mr. CRISWELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. Do you not think it ought to be arranged so that if. say, 300,000
horsepower was allocated to Los Angeles, because she could pay for it and take
it and agree to do it, that you should in turn supply these smaller communities
on the line and within a reasonable distance from your main line'.'
Mr. CRISWELL. I think, Judge, it would be necessary to enter into some kind
of an arrangement with the smaller municipalities themselves for a general
transmission line to a central substation in the territory that might then break
up the big voltage and supply the smaller communities.
Mr. KAKKR. That would in substance be carrying out what I asked.
Mr. Cut SWELL. Yes. Now, I might say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. E. F. Scat-
tergood, the chief electrical engineer of Los Angeles, who came here with us on
this matter, was taken ill and is now in the hospital, but I would like permis-
sion for him to file a statement covering some of these technical points after
he is able to do so.
Mr. LITTLE. Is there any objection to that? If not, that will be authorized.
Mr. CRISWELL. I believe that is all I have to say.
-Mr. BANKHEAD. I am rather surprised I have not been out in that section,
and I am rather surprised to know of the large consumption of power electric
power in Los Angeles. What are the main industries in your city that con-
sume this large amount of power, outside of your own municipal plants?
Mr. CRISWELL. There are a large number of factories perhaps none of them
so great in themselves, except the (Joodyear Tire Co.. which takes a large
block of power but I think the last census of the United States shows that
the city of Los Angeles is. in value of manufactured products, the tenth city
in the United States.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Are they of the general nature usually made in industrial
centers?
Mr. CRISWKI.L. Yes. sir.
Mr. BARKOI-R. And those industries consume electric power to a very large
extent?
Mr. CRISWELL. To a very large extent: yes. sir. And those that now derive
rheir power from fuel oil would prefer to change over to electric power.
Mr. BANK HEAD. How far is Los Angeles from Boulder Canyon?
Mr. CRISWELL. About 260 miles, approximately. We are now bringing our
\vater from 240 miles away, so that we are not concerned about bringing electric
energy i_'(5i> miles.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. In bringing electrical energy from Boulder Canyon to tbe
city of Los Angeles what percentage is lost in transmission?
Mi-. CIJISWEIL. That is a technical question that I will call Mr. Scattergood's
attention to and have him incorporate his answer in his statement.
Mr. BARROVR. The Southern California Kdison Co. is already bringing power
into Los Angeles from as great a distance, is it not, as Boulder Canyon?
Mr. CRISWELL. Yes: a greater distance. The Southern California Edison Co.
brings power in from the P.ig ('reek country up in the Sierra Nevadas. which is
nearly 300 miles away.
Mi-. RAKER. Mr. Criswell. you are chairman of the City Council of Los
Angeles?
Mr. CRISWELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. Now. I suppose that with the water transportation facilities,
the railroad transportation facilities that now exist, and the prospective boule-
vards and roads leading from all parts of the West to Los Angeles, with the
climatic conditions and the territory surrounding Los Angeles, judging from
what has occurred, you expect in the near future Los Angeles to be the first
city in the United States in manufacturing?
Mr. CRISWELL. Now. I am afraid. Judge, that if I answered that question
truthfully as I see it I might be accused of coming down here to boost Los
Angeles.
1316 22 PT 3 3
104 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. UAKER. No; now, that question involves this Boulder Canyon construc-
tion project, and it is a matter for them to investigate now to see whether or
not your statement is true.
Mr. CRTS WELL. I will say this in. answer to your question, that if we can
have assurance that the Boulder Canyon dam is to be built and that Los
Angeles will receive an allocation of a fair share of that power, the next
census the next Federal census will show not more than two cities in the
United States larger than the city of Los Angeles.
Mr. BARBOUR. That is. in population or in industries?
Mr. CRISWELL. In both.
Mr. RAKER. Then in substance you answer my question affirmatively V
Mr. CRISWELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAKER. And that ought to be an inducement for the construction of a dam
like the Boulder Canyon Dam.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What is the present population of Los Angeles?
Mr. CRISWELL. About 715,000.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Your district lies north of San Francisco, does it not, Judge
Raker? [Laughter.]
Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Criswell, do I understand, then, that your estimate is that by
the time this Boulder Canyon Dam could be built your town would be the
third city in the United States?
Mr. CRISWELL. If we can have the assurance that we can supply power to the
manufacturers who wish to locate there.
Mr. LITTLE. Is there anything in the past history of the city that shows a
comparative development that would tend to that that soon?
Mr. CRISWELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. LITTLE. You have been going that way, have you ?
Mr. CRISWELL. The history of the city of Los Angeles confirms my statement.
Mr. LITTLE. You have been growing at that rate?
Mr. CRISWELL. We have been growing at that rate.
Mr. HAYDEN. I am very much interested in your statements relative to the
allocation of power. There appear to be two theories on that subject. One is
that the city of Los Angeles has sought to obtain all the power to be developed
at Boulder Canyon to the exclusion of other users, and that there will not be
power enough to go around. Then there is another theory which has been
advanced before this committee, that all other power development on the Col-
orado River should be prohibited for fear there will not be market for all the
power that can be developed at Boulder Canyon. Now. which theory do you
believe that the committee should adopt in that regard?
Mr. CRISWELL. I think you should go along the line that the Boulder Canyon
project should be built and the financing of it taken care of before other
projects are taken up. That is simply to make you people here in Washington
feel absolutely safe on the investment.
Mr. HAYDEX. But, in your judgment, there is no doubt but what all the power
generated at Boulder Canyon will be promptly used?
Mr. CRISWELL. I have no doubt whatever on that point.
Mr. RAKER. To carry Mr. Hayden's question a little further, a market can be
provided for it, and if there is a doubt that certain industries and places might
use it all. so much the better, but there is enough opportunity up the river to
develop almost as much again.
Mr. CRISWELL. The river will develop about 10 times as much. The firm
horsepower will be between 600.000 and 700,000 developed there.
Mr. BANKHEAD. At Boulder Canyon?
Mr. CRISWELL. At Boulder Canyon. The installation would probably be one
million horsepower and it would develop about two-thirds of that.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Primary power.
Mr. CRISWELL. Firm horsepower all the year round. And there can be de-
veloped on the river, the engineers say. about 6.000.000 horsepower.
Mr. RAKER. So the development of Boulder Canyon and the allocation of the
power to actual use, the determination of construction charges and interest
would not deter any other communities from future development, because there
is plenty of opportunity up the river for developing almost ten times as much.
Mr. CRISWELL. There is. And in regard to the statement that was made that
Los Angeles had been charged with a desire to take all or control all of the
power on the Colorado River, the city of Los Angeles has never at any time
had any such vision in its mind ; all we want is a fair share of the power for
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 105
ourselves, and we want all the other communities in the Southwest to have
allocated to them all the power that they can use.
Mr. LITTLE. How many people have you in Los Angeles now?
Mr. CRISWELL. About 715.000, according to our last school census.
Mr. LITTLE. How many did you have 10 years ago?
Mr. OKI SWELL. Ten years ago in 1910 we had 319.000.
Mr. RAKER. And in 1883 you had 15,000.
Mr. LITTLE. Are there any other questions, gentlemen? If not, Mr. Hoodenpyl,
will you state your relation to the matter and just whom you represent?
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE HOODENPYL, CITY ATTORNEY OF
LONG BEACH, CALIF.
Mr. HOODENPYL. I am city attorney of the city of Long Beach. Long Beach
is a city of some 50,000 people according to the last census, situated a little
east of south of the city of Los Angeles.
Mr. LITTLE. How long have they been getting that bunch together?
Mr. HOODENPYL. In 1900 we had 2.250 people; in 1910 we had 17,000; in
1920, 55,000.
Mr. LITTLE. What is going to happen next?
Mr. HOODENPYL. One hundred thousand probably 125,000 by the next census.
Mr. LITTLE. What are the resources of that city?
Mr. HOODENPYL. Well, we have one particular resource that most everybody
laughs about when we mention it. and that is climate. We have the ocean ; we
have a wonderful residence section. A great many people are coming to
southern California for homes who desire to live in the city of Long Beach
because it has a mild climate. It has a south exposure on the ocean and is
protected from the winds by the Palo Verde Hills, which makes it one of the
most attractive, eveu-temperatured cities on the coast.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What proportion of the able-bodied men there are
engaged in some active work?
Mr. RAKER. One hundred per cent.
Mr. HOODENPYL. I think the percentage is larger than that. [Laughter.]
I will say very frankly that we have a population of at least 33J per cent that
are there simply to spend the money they make back East, or have made back
East, and I think !t is the most delightful place in the world for business men
who have made their fortunes in business.
Mr. LITTLE. You are fishing to have us move out there?
Mr. HOODENPYL. Well, it is a dangerous proposition to come out there unless
you want to stay. [Laughter.]
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is ir the prediction of some of the residents of Long
Beach that when the next census is taken Los Angeles may be a suburb of
Long Beach V
Mr. HOODENPYL. No, I think not. I am like Mr. Crlsswell. I would not go
fhat far. but the city of Long Beach although it is a long distance, comparatively,
from Imperial Valley, is interested in two ways in this proposition, otherwise
they would not have sent me here as a representative to come before this com-
mittee and present what I could to aid in getting the Government to promptly
improve and develop the Colorado R'ver. The Imperial Valley is what we call
our back country, our agricultural section, and in a general way the prosperity
of southern California and of the Southwest, depends upon the protection of
that valley and the protection of the territory in Arizona : and whatever pro-
tection can he afforded there, and whatever Improvements can be made in
Arizona <>r in Nevada, are a benefit to the whole Southwest, and to that extent
the city of Long Beach is indirectly benefited because the prosperity of that
section will be shared in by the city of Long Beach equally with other cities.
1 can conceive of no greater calamity eveij to the city of Long Beach than the
destruction of the Imperial Valley and it would affect the whole southwest
in the same way. It would be a permanent destruction if this water goes into
the valley. In that way the city of Long Beach is interested, and sufficiently
interested to expend its money to send a representative here to let you gentle-
men know its interest in the matter and to urge you to action along th's line.
Mr. LITTLE. May I ask the gentleman a question? Have you formed any
estimate as to how much value would be immediately destroyed if that Im-
perial Valley were flooded?
Mr. HOODENPYL. Well, it is difficult to say what you mean by immediate
destruction. If an opening in the river is permitted there, as Mr. Bacon said.
106 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
and as the engineers generally agree, it would be a difficult problem to close
the opening in the river.
Mr. LITTLE. What I mean is. if they did not close it.
Mr. HOODENPYL. If they did not close it there would be an enor.nous in-
jury. The engineers can give yon the area, the exact figures of what would bo
flooded, but it would destroy the cities of Calexico, Brawley, El Centre, and
Imperial. And I understand that the crop reports last year showed $65,000,000
worth of produce from that valley of California.
Mr. LITTLE. And all that produce would be destroyed, that $63.000,000
worth, would it not?
Mr. HOODENPYL. Absolutely. The people would be driven out of their homes,
and besides that all of the improvements in the city, the railroad, and every-
thing else there, would be under water.
Mr. UAKEK. It would not only be the $65,000,000, or $80,000,000 a year, but
it would be a permanent destruction.
Mr. HOODENPYL. It would be a permanent destruction of the present values,
also.
Mr. LITTLE. And in addition to that, the balance of the land, if irrigated,
would be brought into production and add almost as much as you are produc-
ing now.
Mr. HOODENPYL. The limit of this will at least double the irrigable area in
that section, not all of which would be under the sea level, though.
Another point along that line that has not been touched upon is this, that
the Imperial Valley produces a crop which is early, largely cantaloupes and
things like that berries that would not compete with the general farmers
throughout the country, and the urging of the objection that there is enough
land tillable at the present time would not be effective as against the Im-
perial Valley because the products there are largely not competitive with
the balance of the country.
The city of Long Beach is directly interested in this proposition of power.
We believe that if this dam is constructed by the Federal Government, power
can be laid down in southern California much cheaper than we get it now from
the private corporations. The industrial section of the city of Long Beach is
just across the line from an industrial section of the city of Los Angeles. Los
Angeles has extended its quarters to the coast. We are handicapped in our
efforts to obtain industries by reason of this fact : The city of Los Angeles
having its municipal system not only its distributing system, but owning also
its producing system is able to sell electricity across the line from the city of
Long Beach at 5* cents per kilowatt hour that is the domestic rate while the
city of Long Beach, across this imaginary line, is required to pay to the private
corporation 7.92 cents per kilowatt hour. Now, the ratio of this rate, this
domestic rate, is carried out proportionately in the industrial rates. There
are no physical differences between the territory inside of the city of Long
Beach and the territory inside of the city of Los Angeles. We both have city
water and can meet any competition for municipal water in the city of Long
Beach, but we can not meet the power situation.
Mr. RAKER. Explain to the committee what is the matter with the railroad
commission that they are not adjusting this difference.
Mr. HOODENPYL. The railroad commission has recently rendered a decision
reducing the rate in the city of Long Beach from 9 cents to 7.92 cents per kilo-
watt hour. Now. it is claimed that under the investments on the privately
owned utility, in order to give them a return of 8 per cent, it is necessary that
this rate be maintained. That brings me to another reason as to why tin's
should be developed by the Federal Government instead of by private cor-
porations to meet that very proposition.
The Edison Co. the Southern California Edison Co. is one of the largest
producers of electricity in the country, and I presume it has as high a standing
and can borrow money as cheaply as* any private corporation or private utility
in the United States. The railroad commission lias permitted it, and it has paid
s per cent for money borrowed to use for development purposes. Now. it is
necessary for that return to be made. The Federal Government can undoubtedly
borrow money for at least 2 to 3 per cent less than any public utility can borrow
it. In view of that, if the Federal Government constructs this dam it will save
to the consumer, who must ultimately pay the cost of construction and for all
money that is hired to go into the project, not less than 2 per cent on the invest-
ment. Now, that is one reason that the city of Los Angeles can serve electric
energy at a rate less than the railroad commission fixes for the public utilities,
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 107
because of the fact that the city of Los Angeles does not have to make that high
return. At the time that the public utility corporations were permitted to
borrow money at 8 per cent the city of Los Angeles was able to borrow it at
6, which allowed it 2 per cent difference there, and that contributed to the
cheapness of the project.
Now, I think the Federal Government should not make a profit out of this
power or out of the construction of this dam ; but I think it is to the interest of
the country at large, and particularly the interest of the Southwest, that this
electric energy be given to the people at cost. The cost of the electric energy is
reflected in all the manufactured products that are produced in that section,
and it is reflected in all the agricultural products, because it is necessary for
every agriculturist in southern California, practically all of them, to use elec-
tricity more or less ; and the cheaper this is placed upon the farm and placed
to the manufacturer, the cheaper the product will be, and therefore the cheaper
will be the product to the public that is the ultimate consumer.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. When you speak of furnishing power and light at
cost, you moan including, of course, interest at 44 or 5 per cent on the amount
invested?
Mr. HOODENPYL. Yes. sir.
Mr. RAXKHEAD. I^et me ask you this question : Conceding that the Government
could do that upon the basis of the statement made by Mr. Smith, at consid-
erably less cost than the companies that are now engaged in that private in*
<]ustry in thnt section, do you think it is entirely fair to them to have Govern-
ment competition of that sort based upon actual cost of production, plus amor-
tization of the plant?
Mr HOODEXPYT,. Well. I do not know any reason why they should not meet
that competition. They have to in the city of Los Angeles, Pasadena, and
Riverside.
Mr. BAXKHEAD. Does your California commission figure that the Government
should he repaid in interest ; that that plant should bear 4 or 5 per cent interest
on the cost of investment?
Mr. HOODEXPYL. Well, you could do that and still make it cheaper than the
cost at present.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Then, would not the practical effect of that be to put them
out of business?
Mr. HOOUKNPYL. Not necessarily: because there will be. from our view of
it. as Mr. Crisswell stated, a greater demand than can be supplied. The
power developed in Boulder Canyon will not be sufficient to put the Edison Co.
out of business.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Do you advocate Government ownership and operation of
a utility of that sort in competition with private industry engaged in the
same character of business?
Mr. HOODENPYI,. Absolutely.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Especially in this instance, where you are preventing
the destruction of a great deal of property and also making available water
for the reclamation of lands that now have no value.
Mr. BAXKHEAD. I was just discussing the question of principle on that par-
ticular phase of it.
Mr. I-TOOIXEXPYT,. This water belongs to the people, it should be developed by
the people, and the people should have the benefit of it.
Mr. RAKEK. What is the investment in reservoirs, dams, ditches, and trans-
mission lines in this territory south of the Tehachapi. owned by private indi-
viduals?
Mr. HOODKXPVL. I could nol give you any estimate on that.
Mr. YEAGER. I can give you that.
Mr. RAKEK. Just tell us that, will you?
Mr. YEAGER. The Southern California Edison Co.. which serves im in the
San Joaquin Valley and part of southern California, lias about * 102.500,000,
as valued by the railroad commission: and (hen there is the Southern
Sierras, a much smaller company, and I do not know the figure on that.
Mr. RAKEK. I suppose it will run altogether about $1 .",0.000,000?
Mr. YKAGEK. A little less than that. T would say.
Mr. LITTLE. D you believe the Government ought to furnish the use of the
Mississippi River for navigation in competition with the railroads?
Mr. HOOOF.NPYL. Yes; I think so. I think they are doing it.
Mr. LTTTI.K. They have been doing it a long time. The Colorado is not
navigable to amount to anything?
108 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. HOODENPYL. Not for practical purposes.
Mr. LITTLE. But it does have an exceptional amount of resource as a de-
veloper of electric power, does it not; more so. iwrhaps, than any other river in
the United States?
Mr. HOODKNPYL. I think so.
Mr. Lrrn.K. And don't you think that you people who live under it have just
as much right to expect the Government to assist in developing the electric-
power and irrigating resources of it as the people along the Mississippi have to
expect the Government to keep up their means of navigation?
Mr. HOODENPYL. That is our view of it. Furthermore. I do not think you
need to anticipate that there is going to he any destruction or diminution of
the value of the properties of the public utilities. The sentiment in southern
California particularly is to huy out the distributing systems of the various
cities at a reasonable and fair price, not only of the value but also of the
severance damages. Los Angeles has recently taken over all of the distributing
systems of the Southern California Edison Co. within its limits. Pasadena has
done the same thing, and Santa Ana has done the same thing, and other cities
are moving to that end.
Mr. LITTLE. May I ask you another question? Suppose that the development
of this power should, by competition or otherwise, develop a smaller rate of
profit in some big investment companies ; do you think that that would be any
worse than it would be for the Government to sit by and allow the farmers of
Imperial Valley, who produce 865.000.000 a year, to be wrecked and destroyed
entirely?
Mr. HOODENPYL. I do not.
Mr. LITTLE. You think the farmers down there, who produce $65.000,000
worth of crops a year, are entitled to as much protection as the gentlemen who
get 7 or 8 per cent on their present investments, do you not?
Mr. HOODENPYL. I think they are entitled to equal protection, if not more.
Mr. HAKER. Let me ask you. from your observation, taking that southwestern
territory as it exists now. is there a sufficient electric energy, or is there a
general shortage all over that country?
Mr. HOODENPYL. There is a general shortage. We have had to wait for
months there to get some 150 horsepower for a manufacturing plant in the city
of Long Beach.
Mr. RAKER. Now. may I ask a question in order to get the record clear, as I
understand it: and if I am wrong. I hope I will he corrected by some of you
gentlemen. Under the law as it now exists the California Railroad Commis-
sion fixes the rates of fares or charges for the furnishing of electric energy by
the public utility corporations?
Mr. HOODENPYL. Yes. sir.
Mr. RAKER. But the commission has not the power to do so in the case of the
city of Los Angeles: is that right?
Mr. HOODENPYL. It has not.
Mr. RAKER. That being the case, over all the rest of the State except Los
Angeles it fixes the rate
Mr. JOHN S. NICKEKSON (interposing). It has that i>ower.
Mr. RAKER. Now?
Mr. NICKEKSON. It has that power now.
Mr. HOODENPYL. Not over the city's plant.
Mr. RAKER. I am talking about the city plant.
Mr. XK KKI:SON. If there is a public utility furnishing power in the city no\\.
they have the power over them.
Mr. RAKER. In other words, they charge the same as the city fixes. Is
that correct?
Mr. HOODENPYL. I am not sure that I understand you, but the railroad
commission fixed the rates in the city of Los Angeles as long as it was served
by the Southern California Edison Co.. but when the city of Los Angeles
took over the distributing system, that portion of it that they did not take over
within the city of Los Angeles belonging to the Southern California Edison
<'.. then the railroad commission lost its jurisdiction of that that was owned
and o])eratecl by the nmnicipality. and I want to say on that score that im-
mediately upon taking over that system the city of Los Angeles reduced
materially the rates which had been fixed and which had been collected by
the Edison Co. with the approval of the railroad commission.
Mr. RAKER. Yon would not be in favor of having a competing system that
would drive out or absolutely ruin a business that had been built up. that
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 109
had done so much for the country as it is now, and that was regulated by a
State commission, would you?
Mr. HOODENPYL. Absolutely not. and 1 do not think there is any fear of that.
Mr. BANKHEAD. In other words, you believe that this water power there
is essential and profitable to the people, and that the Government should
use it so that the people at large will derive the greatest amount of benefit
from its use.
Mr. HOODENPYL. That is my view.
Mr. RANKHEAD. I think you are entirely right, sir.
Mr. LITTLE. Gentlemen, it is 12 o'clock. I presume we will be called to the
lioor of the House very soon. My understanding is that to-morrow is the
regular meeting day and we will meet to-morrow morning at 10.30. If you
have anything more to add I wish you would be here to-morrow, Mr. Hoodenpyl.
Do you want to add a few words now?
Mr. HOODENPYL. I just wanted to add a few words. This is on the matter
of the suggestion of one apparent objection to this proposition of going ahead
immediately, and that is on the question of the allocation of power and the
allocation of water rights and priority use and such as that.
Now, then, this objection is met. absolutely and unequivocally and com-
pletely, if the engineers are correct that there is sufficient water to serve all
of the lands irrigable by the river. In other words, it is immaterial what alloca-
tion of power is made as between the States, if there is sufficient water. That
is the engineering answer.
Mr. SINNOTT. You have the same information from your engineers as to the
final resources of the river that Mr. Criswell had, have you?
Mr. HOODENPYL. The same that Mr. Criswell had. Now, I want to add this
further thought: This power compact commission 'has, I understand, until the
1st, of January to make its agreement. If it does not agree by that date and
make its report, it is dissolved. If it does make an agreement and report by
that date that will have to go to the various States and be ratified by the legis-
latures, and by Congress, and that will take considerable time.
And as Mr. Hoover said yesterday, this matter should go ahead immediately.
When that commission makes a report and evidently it will make a report dur-
ing the year if that report is approved it can be written into the distribution
of this water and the distribution of this power, pending the construction of this
dam and this project; and it should not be delayed on that account; because
there will be no distribution of the power, and no distribution of the water,
until plenty of time shall have elapsed to permit of the adjustment of questions
involving the allocation of power and water, or the determination not to
allocate them ; and then it will be up to the Federal Government to proceed.
\o\v. just one other thought on that question and I am through : I do not
believe under the law any water is turned to beneficial use. or that any prior
right to the power is established by the construction of this dam. for this
reason: Whatever prior right is established would rest in the Federal Govern-
ment, and not in any individual nor in any property, nor would it become vested
in any way, except that it would lodge in the Federal Government ; and all
the States should have confidence in the Federal Government as to the proper
distribution of that power and the proper distribution of that water, and to
protect both the upstream and the lower stream.
Just one illustration to make that clear: There are 500.000 acres of land in
southern California and southern Arizona that could be irrigated. The Gov-
ernment builds this dam. but the right of that land to the water will not become
affixed and there will be no appropriation until the Federal Government
permits the water to go upon the land. And that is equivalent to saying this:
Suppose there are 100.000 acres of land in southern California that is irrigable
by this dam, and the Government says there is not sufficient water for that land
and the Government does not issue a permit for the water to go over it. Von
can not say tinder those circumstances that the water right attached to that
land, when the Government never permitted that water to go there.
And that argues, to my mind, that there will be no attachment of a prior
right until the water is permitted by the Government to go on the particular
piece of land.
I call your attention to that particularly, owing to the urgency of this matter,
and I hope that this matter will not be delayed indefinitely to wait for a
decision of the commission, or of the States pursuant to the decision of the
commission, or in the event that there is no decision until the time expires.
110 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. RAKKR. Before you get through I would like to have you discuss this
question, or to have some one else discuss it during the hearings: Do you
think that the thing should be left up in the air. and that every legal step
should not be taken to secure the Government's permanent right in this water,
so that when it built the dam it would know definitely what its rights were?
Mr. HOODKNI-YL. The Government would have the permanent right.
Mr RAKER. But I do not think you people believe that it should all be left
in the air. but that there should be steps taken so that the Government will
know exactly what its rights arc.
Mr. HOOUKNPYL. That is true when this thing is concluded. But unless y.-u
h'nd some reason whereby the construction of this dam will violate a possible
right and I think it docs not violate any possible right I think you should
proceed to the construction of it.
Mr. SWING. Your point is that the walls of the place where the dam is to be
built, being 2.000 feet high, there could be no diversicn at the dam? After
the dam is completed, there will subsequently be installed in the river below
at some point the necessary works for the diversion cf the water on the Cali-
fornia side or on the Arizona side, and that the diversion is the initial step
for the acquiring of the water right?
Mr. HOODENPYL. Yes: that would be the actual step. But I think whenever
the Government issued a permit for that diversion, that that would fix the
right as to the land covered by the permit ; and if there are 100.000 acres there
as to which the Government does not issue a permit, there can be no right.
Mr. RAKER. Well. I think there is something wrong in that theory, because
there is nothing to give a right there; when you build the dam there and held
back the Hood waters, you have got something for the Government: now. I
think you should hold that down legally, so that you have not only the dam
and the water under it. but have the right to go up the stream and control
that water. The Government should have the same right as an individual
or corporation if it puts in the dam and stores the flood waters.
Mr. SMITH. Well, as this is to be constructed on the public domain, the Gov-
ernment will have absolute control of it: no private individual can acquire
any rights without the consent of the Government.
Mr. RAKKR. I am not discussing that. I am saying that the Government
ought to be protected in its rights.
Mr. BARBOUR. I do not see any real disagreement between you and Mr.
Hoodenpyl in this matter.
Mr. RAKER. Possibly there is not. but I am strong in protecting the Govern-
ment when it expends the peoples' money on enterprises like this, just as
it has been done on all the Government reclamation projects.
(Thereupon, at 12.05 p. m.. the committee adjourned until Friday. June 24.
1022. at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)
C'OMMITTKE OX IRRIGATION OF AKII) L.\M)S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE.
rriil'iit. .lunr .?.?. J!)22.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. in.. Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott (acting
chairman) presiding.
Mr. SIXXOTT. We will now hear Senator Evans, the mayor of Riverside.
Calif.
STATEMENT OF HON. S. C. EVANS, MAYOR OF RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
Mr. KVANS. Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief, because I want Mr. Xicker-
soii. of the Imperial Valley, to have as much time as possible. I was sent here
by the mayor and council of Riverside and the county supervisors to represent
them in this matter. I went to California in 1876. I do not pose as an ex-
pert, but my life has been spent on problems of this kind that is. in endeavor-
ing to prevent our lands from overflowing along the Santa Anna River and
other streams in California and in the development of land and the placing of
settlers thereon. A short time ago we had a very serious flood in the Palo
Verde Valley, which is shown on this map you have, I believe. I would like
to leave these photographs with you to show you the seriousness of that flood.
I went down at the request of the county supervisors and the Riverside city
council, and we were there three or four days forming a Red Cross organiza-
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. Ill
tion that took charge of anywhere from 40 to 75 families, about 30,000 acres of
land having been overflowed and about 2.000 crops having been destroyed.
I want to tell you that it would make your heart ache to see those families
huddled up there on the damp ground and little children without anything to
eat, without a blanket or anything at all. They had to get off in rowboats. on
planks, and in every other old way in order to get out at all. You can imagine
what a distressing thing it was.
Mr. SINNOTT. Where does that appear on this map?
Mr. EVANS. That is the Palo Verde Valley, right at Blythe. The town of
Ripley. shown on these pictures, was entirely under water, including a $200,000
hotel. The water was standing about 4 feet on the lower floor of the hotel.
The Hood came so quick, and they usually come quick, that the people did not
have any time at all to even take the chickens out. or rheir clothing. They
had to practically run for it. As I see it. this problem is an emergency one.
I have been familiar with the Imperial Valley since its development first
started. I went down there first with a team of horses before there was any-
thing in the Imperial Valley, before there was even a road run. and I have
seen every one of those towns start up and grow. I have been across thte
Mexican border about 60 miles below the border and have seen those other
lands that belong to the people in Mexico.
There is no question at all about the tremendous urgency of this matter.
As has already been stated to you, if that valley tills, of course it absolutely
no outlet. I saw it when the river broke over into the Salton Sea. Many
Riverside people went down there to look at it. It looked as though the South-
ern Pacific Railroad tracks would be entirely destroyed. When I first went
there, there was no transcontinental Southern Pacific Railroad through that
section. When this flood broke through, in 1905 or 1906. or after that flood,
the track was moved farther up the hill. It has been moved farther upon the
hill each time there has been a flood. The flood continued to come in and,
of course, that meant that the land was damp, which made the problem more
difficult, and it would not take much more to absolutely destroy that valley.
My county is so intimately interested in the Imperial Valley that it is hard
to talk of anything concerning one without talking about the other. The State
highway authorities of our State are building a concrete road clear through
the eastern end of Riverside County into Imperial County and clear down to
the Mexican border. There are many communities in our county, including
Coachella, Mecca. Thermal, and Blythe. that have the same nature of soil as
that in the Imperial Valley, and hundreds of our farmers are financially inter-
ested in this matter in a great many ways. They raise in that soil a product
that is not raised at any other place. In Riverside County, in the higher lands,
where the cost of water is considerable, we can raise crops like lemons, oranges,
and other citrus fruits, because those are crops that will stand that cost of
water. On this lainl where only trees grow, you find very few dairies.
The operations are almost altogether handled by tractors. In this other
class of land you find large dairies, with horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, and all
kinds of animals. Dean Hunt, of the University of California, has traveled
tip and down that section of the State calling attention to the importance to
our agriculture of the development of dairies and the absolute necessity for
an increase of animal husbandry in our part of the State if our agriculture is
to endure. He made a very startling statement not long ago when he said that
the people of Riverside County could afford to pull up a whole lot of orange
trees and other citrus fruit trees and put in alfalfa and other vegetable crops.
if ny doing so they could encourage the dairy industry, because that would
give them proper fertilizer in the growing of citrus fruits.
Mr. RAKER. The dairy industry in the Imperial Valley would have to he on
land that is not now irrigated?
Mr. EVANS. Yes. sir; those are the only lands that would appeal to those
people who would like to go into that industry. Of course, some citrus fruits
are raised down there, but they are not anything like what they have in other
counties where they raise them on higher land. There are some very tine and
excellent fruit grown, hut it is mainly devoted to general farming, on account
of the peculiar soil conditions and the ease with which it is- cultivated, to-
gether with the relative cheapness of the water.
Mr. SMITH. Are there not a great many cantaloupes raised in the Imperial
Valley?
Mr. EVANS. Yes. sir: there are a great many cantaloupes, cotton, and onions
grown. It is the only place, with the exception of a very limited area in River-
112 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
side County, where dates are successfully raised. It might interest you to say
that I have seen date trees, larger than those round columns on the Capitol
transported successfully from one place to another.
Now, let me say that Riverside is a city of about 22,000 population, and that
valley is something like the rest of that country. Twenty years or more ago
we started our municipal electric lighting system. We buy power from the
Southern California Edison Co. and some from the Southern Sierras Co.. generat-
ing a small portion of it ourselves. We are municipal ownership people, as are
most of the people in that section of the country, including Los Angeles. Long-
beach, San Bernardino, and other places. I try in a small way. to run some
pumping plants, and there is a large number of people about my size that run
two, three, four, or five sets of pumping plants. Personally, I run four. I run
three of those plants on power procured from the city of Riverside, and the
fourth one I am not able to attach electricity to, because only an outside com-
pany could serve it, and I can not get a rate from them that would justify me
in attaching electricity to it. I think it is a fair question, and you have indi-
cated that in some of the questions you have asked the others, why this lower
rate can be given by our city: Public utility companies are supposed to pay
all of the State expense. We have an ad valorem tax for county and municipal
purposes, and, of course, with them paying a State tax and our municipal plant
not paying any is, perhaps, one reason why they, in justice to themselves, must
be allowed a little higher rate than we are allowed.
.Mr. SMITH. What do you mean by an ad valorem duty?
Mr. EVANS. We are assessed and taxed on an ad valorem basis. They are
allowed their rate by the State railroad commission. We believe in regulating
public utilities.
1 think that is about all I care to say, other than this: I never have heard a
word uttered in southern California, and I go around a good deal, indicating any
desire on the part of Los Angeles or any particular city or locality to get more
than its due portion of this water or power. We realize that primarily this is
for flood control, and I think we realize the great urgency of the situation
there. It would really be a catastrophe if Imperial Valley were obliterated,
and that is what it would mean if the river broke over, as it intends to some
day, unless something is done to prevent it.
Mr. SMITH. You said that your city of Riverside and other cities in southern
California would be willing to come in on the same basis as Los Angeles toward
the reimbursement of the Government for the most of the proposed project.
Mr. EVANS. So far as I have heard, our people express themselves; yes, sir.
Of course we are not in as favorable a position 'as the city of Los Angeles. Los
Angeles is in a unique position. In population and assessed values Los Angeles
exceeds all of these other places. In its total assessed value it exceeds a num-
ber of the Eastern States or a number of the Middle ?]astern States. If you
have a visual presentation of it. you will realize that it is really wonderful how
that section of the country has grown. Of course we would be bound by the
laws, rules, and regulations that would govern in this matter. Certain towns
in that section, like Riverside, Santa Ana. San Bernardino, and places of that
size, would get together and figure out their fair proportion of this power.
I have attended some of those meetings in Arizona and several in Los Angeles,
and I have never heard anyone voice the thought that any one of the cities
along the Colorado River would have more than its fair proportion of this
power.
We realize that this is a tremendously big thing, and we feel that the United
States Government is the only power or the only agency to build it. Now, this
Government is yours and mine, and if we have not faith in its justice and
ability to work these things out. where in the world can we go to have anything
done on a big scale? It is too tremendously big for us to undertake it locally,
and we want you people in your wisdom to take it up. As to the details of the
laws you will enact for the future development of the Colorado River, all of
our people are perfectly willing to leave that to Congress. All that we want
is a fair distribution of the water and power, upon such terms as will in time
take care of this whole expense with a reasonable rate of interest upon the cost.
We are perfectly willing in our section of the country to do that. I have never
heard anybody say anything to the contrary-
Mr. WILLIAMSON. About what is the total population of those smaller cities
that you have mentioned?
Mr. EVANS. They are all about the size of Riverside. They are cities of
about from twelve, fifteen, eighteen, twenty, or twenty -two thousand people.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 113
Mr. WIIJUAMSON. Are they growing rapidly V
Mr. EVANS. All of them are growing rapidly. You have no idea how those
concrete roads are building up the cities. Those roads are drawing the towns
right together. I remember that I went through what is now Longheach years
ago in a farm wagon, and I camped there right on the sand, where the town is
now located. There was absolutely nothing there then, and I am still a com-
paratively young man. I have seen Los Angeles grow from a very few thou-
sand population to nearly 80O.IMM) population. I want to tell you gentlemen that
you do not realize what the climate, the roads, and the boosting spirit of south-
ern California can accomplish. You can not realize the absolute money-making
possibilities, both in industrv and agriculture, that are being built up there.
Mr. SINNOTT. Is it due to the climate or the soil?
Mr. EVANS. It is both the climate and the soil, and it is the everlasting stick-
at-it-iveness of the people, and their go-get-it spirit. They go out after those
things, and they certainly get them. Primarily I am an agriculturist, and I
look upon the agricultural side of it more than upon the industrial side of it,
because that has been my life work.
Mr. SMITH. The great success of that country down there is largely due to
the enthusiastic spirit of the people.
Mr. EVANS. Y'es. sir : we are all of one mind down there.
Mr. RAKER. You say that you went to California in 1876, and are still com-
paratively young. I went there in 1873. and I consider myself a kid. Four or
five months ago There was some propaganda started by various cities in south-
e'rn California with regard to the power situation, and they sent us clippings
in regard to it.
Mr. EVANS . v,. s . sir.
Mr. RAKKR. That was in regard to Los Angeles getting the Colorado River?
Mr. EVANS. Yes. sir.
Mr. RAKKR. That has all been adjusted now?
Mr. EVANS. Yes. sir: it has been adjusted very nicely. Naturally. I might
say. the people of the small communities have had some suspicion in regard to
these things, and there has been some feeling against the great centers of
population, with their financial ability and quickness of action in taking hold
of things. Naturally, the common people in these smaller communities be-
came suspicious, and a lot of small papers came out with those statements.
However, that has been adjusted at several public meetings.
Mr. RAKKR. I suppose that your statement, so far as Riverside is concerned,
would apply as well to the other towns you have referred to outside of River-
side'/
Mr. EVANS. Yes. sir.
Mr. UAKKR. You would like to see it allocated among all of those cities, so
that, if the (iovernment should put in a main transmission line, all of them
could have an opportunity to use this power at such a price as would pay
back the original investment, with a reasonable rate of interest'/
Mr. EVANS. Yes. sir. I was at a meeting at Santa Ana. in which the mayors
of about 10 of those cities took part, and they all gave voice to the same
sentiment.
Mr. RAKKI:. I understand that Santa Ana. Orange, and some other of those
cities are short of power now?
Mr. EVANS. Yes. sir.
Mr. RAKKR. And the development of this Moulder Canyon Dam. with its
600.(MMI horsepower, would not in any way interfere with the general develop-
ment there now'/
Mr. EVANS. No. sir.
Mr. RAKKR. There would be sufficient use for the power now generated, as
well as for that which might be generated by the Boulder Caiiyan I>am'/
Mr. EVANS. Yes. sir: I do not know where else they could go to get it.
Mr. WIIXIAMSON. As to those smaller towns, would they have to have the
current distributed by Los Angeles, or would they be able to cooperate and
build some central distributing station of their own so as to distribute the
electric current'/
Mr. EVANS. That is a detail, and I do not know whether Los Angeles would
build a distributing system from which those towns would take current, or
whether we would have to provide for the distribution ourselves. In Cali-
fornia we have been up against this proposition before, and when we did not
have a law to meet the emergency we went to the State legislature and had
them to make one. We will come throuirh on this proposition ]\\ some means,
and we will pay this bill.
114 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASTX.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. You have no doubt that you will secure cooperation, so
that this current will he taken care of and used?
Mr. EVANS. I have no doubt about it, for the reason that we have practically
reached the limit in that direction now. If we do not secure this, we have
practically reached the limit of our growth.
Mr. KAKKK. Your view is this, that your people would arrange at an early
date so as to be able to assure the authorities before the money was expended
that you would be on hand to use the power as soon as it was ready for de-
livery.
Mr. EVANS. We will either do that, or let Los Angeles take all of it.
Mr. KAKKK. I suppose you would all get together and pi>t in a main transmN-
sion line and have a main distribution point. Otherwise, it would be almost
criminal negligence or destruction of property, because one main distribution
line would serve the purpose.
Mr. EVANS. Yes. sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. W. J. CARE,, PASADENA, CALIF.
Mr. CAKK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent th*>
city of Pasadena. I live at Pasadena, and am a practicing attorney in the
city of Los Angeles. I am not a city official, but I am employed by the city of
Pasadena to come here and state its [position in regard to this matter. Pasa-
dena, of course, like all the cities of southern California, is tremendously in-
terested in the Imperial Valley problem and menace. We feel there that
whatever hurts the Imperial Valley will hurt us, and that whatever helps the
Imperial Valley will help us. AYe are very much impressed with the appealing
character of this project. We are directly interested in the power end of it.
The city of Pasadena, like the city of Riverside, has had its own municipal
lighting system for a great many years. It has its own generating plant, and
it has a complete distributing system. I might say that the city of Pasadena
has perhaps, 50,000 inhabitants. At the present time Pasadena buys its power
at wholesale, and it finds it much more advantageous to do that. For the part
obtained from the city of Los Angeles, under an old contract which is very ad-
vantageous, they pay 0.06 cent per kilowatt hour, and for the part ir obtains
from a private company it pays a price about twice that.
The city of Pasadena, looking toward the future and endeavoring to pro-
vide for its future wants, desires a more permanent power supply for its needs.
Pasadena has a large bonding capac'ty. It is extremely anxious to participate
in this project, and will he glad to take such power as may be fairly allotted to
it. I think we can act more promptly in a financial way than any ordinary
private corporation. The people of Pasadena have always voted bonds by very
large majorities for anything that was necessary for the extension or develop-
ment of its lighting system, and none of the propositions that have ever been
put up to the people have been as attractive as this would be. having in mind
the very low cost at which we could secure power. I agree with Senator Evans
as to tin 1 sp'rit of cooperation among the cities. There has been a great deal
of talk about how the matter would be handled, and the consensus of opinion
lias been that, perhaps, cities like Los Angeles and Riverside, which are pre-
pared to take it a little more rapidly than the other cities, and which are
financially in a stronger position, would take the lead. I am sure, however,
that they will be very glad to reserve any benefit to the other cities that is
fair and proper, and I believe that it would be a good suggestion to provide
that the Secretary of the Interior may attach proper conditions to any permirs
issued, so that they would have to allot it fairly.
Mr. KAKKK. Is it your view that if the Government should build Hie Houlder
Canon Dam ar a cost of about $40.000,000. and. in addition, distributing lines,
or a main distributing line for a certain distance, to cost another considerable
sum. it should be repaid for the full amount of the construction charge and
for the maintenance and upkeep cost, with a reasonable rate of interest upon
the outlay from the time the work began?
Mr. CAKH. Yes. sir: I do not see any reason why that should nor be done.
Mr. KAKKR. Do you think that your people would be willing to meet those
conditions?
Mr. CARR. Yes, sir: we are ready to do business upon the same basis that
private companies are. and pay interest during the construction period. That
would be perfectly satisfactory.
Mr. RAKER. And that would be satisfactory to the people of Riverside?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER HAS IX. 115
Mr. RAKER. Do you think that is about the attitude of the people of Southern
California generally?
Mr. CAKR. Yes. sir; I think so. The power would be so cheap that they could
well afford to do it. I do not think you will have a bit of difficulty in disposing
of the power, and I think there will be quite acute competition to secure it.
We might need to see that the rules governing the distribution of the power
are fair, so that every section may have a fair chance.
Mr. KAKKK. Leaving out for the present any question of benefits in the way
of flood control or in the way of irrigation, and looking at it solely from the
point of view of generating electric power at the Boulder Canyon Dam. your view
is that the entire 600,000 horsepower that can be generated by this dam would
be readily taken up by the people of Southern California, and you think that
they would be willing as they must be, of course to allocate it among the
cities in an equitable way?
Mr. CAKR. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. And that, as a matter of power alone, you people would be
willing to build the dam, but you have not the ready money and can not arrange
<m organization to do it. and, therefore, you think that the Government should
do it for the reasons named, and that the Government should get back within a
reasonable time the money invested, with a reasonable rate of interest.
Mr. CARR. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. And that it would at the same time maintain a perpetual bar
against floods, and also provide a supply of water for 2,000,000 acres of land?
Mr. CARR. I will answer that question yes, with one exception, and that is
that the cities of Southern California are financially able and would be glad
to build the dam if it were proper to do so. I do not think it would be proper.
There are too many conflicting interests. There will be conflicts as between
the users of water and power, there being also involved the question of flood
control and irrigation. I think that such conflicts would arise, and that it
would be inadvisable to allow any city. State, or private corporation to build
the dam. I think that the Government of the United States is the only agency
that can properly do it, having in mind the general public interest.
Mr. RAKER. I did not quite intend by the expression I used to mean able
in that sense, but I meant able by virtute of .the legal complications that might
arisi. and if the Government built it it would be in shape to allocate the power
to those people who are financially able, ready, and anxious to buy the power
and pay the price for it.
Mr. CAUK. They are tremendously anxious to get a fair share of that power,
and I would answer your question yes. with the qualifications I have made.
Mr. HAYUEX. I have a letter from the State water commissioner of the State
of Arizona, who objects to section 5 of this bill for somewhat the same reason
you have given. Mr. Norvill states:
" Section f> of the bill is a grant to the Secretary of the Interior to allow the
purchase of property in the State of Arizona by such political subdivisions "
That would mean counties and cities in California
' that shall have been allocated rights for the generation of power. This,
of course, has particular reference to the city of Los Angeles, Imperial Valley,
and other cities in southern California and the State of California, and it does
not appear to me that either the State of California or any political subdivision
of the State of California should be permitted to purchase and own property
that might be determined to be real property, of the character referred to, in
the State of Arizona in perpetuity, and. therefore. I object to section 5 in its
1 1 resent form.
"I realize that if the Boulder Canyon dam were constructed at the present
time it would be necessary to allow a portion at least of the power to go to
California points, as well as Nevada and I'tah. because there would not be a
market for all the power that could be produced there within the State of
Arizona, and I see no objection in that : but to allow Los Angeles, for instance.
to come into the State of Arizona and purchase the power plant and lands
necessary in its operation, or the dam and plant to hold in perpetuity. I think
is going tp!0 far. There should be a time limit on any possessory right owned,
by outside political subdivisions, at the termination of which either the Gov-
ernment of The Tinted States or the State of Arizona should have the right
to take over the property and rights attached thereto."
It appears from this letter that the same thought is in the minds of the
people of Arizona as'that which you have expressed here, that if the Boulder
Canyon Dam is built by the Government of the United States this bill should
116 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
make it perfectly plain that only the Government should have any right in per-
petuity in it.
Mr. GARB. My observation is that States and cities frequently get into appar-
ently very heated controversies, but when they sit down around the table and
talk it over they have no particular difficulty in adjusting their controversies
and they get along pretty well. That has been our experience. We have our
local fights, but we always adjust them very nicely, and I have no doubt that
could be done in this instance. There, is no doubt in my mind but what Arizona.
Nevada, and all the other States should be very fully protected. I do think
there is an absolute community of intei-est there and when the whole matter
is talked over and adjusted by the Secretary of the Interior I do not believe
you will find anything remaining to be adjusted as between Arizona or any of
the other communities and our people. I think you people will want to be
more than fair with us and our people will want to be fair with the other
communities.
Mr. RAKER. Mr. Hayden's question and your answer do not intend to leave
the impression with the committee, which would go to the House, that this
dam or any part of it would be turned over, or any interest in it, in perpetuity
to anyone.
Mr. CARR. No; the bill specifically provides that title to the dam shall always,
remain in the Federal Government. He is talking and I had that in mind in
answering with regard to the power plant.
Mr. RAKER. Well, the Government would own the power plant, which would
be a part of the dam. They would all be connected together?
Mr. CARR. Yes and no.
Mr. RAKER. Just a moment. Because of this diversity of interest in the sev-
eral States the Government ought to retain full control so as at all times not
only now but in the future to properly allocate that power to the various
interests and so they would all get a fair deal.
Mr. CARR. I think the Government could retain control so as to see that there
is a fair allotment to the respective interests. I agree with you on that. I
said yes and no because the. original bill did not contemplate that the Govern-
ment should actually build the power plant, while Secretary Fall's suggested
scheme does. However, that is a detail the committee will have to work out.
Mr. RAKER. \Vhat is your view as to the power plant and the main transmis-
sion line?
Mr. CARR. My idea is that it should be left optional with the Secretary, after
a full hearing, to decide whether he should build the power plant or not.
Mr. RAKER. Leaving out the transmission line, the Government owns the dam?
Mr. CARR. Yes.
Mr. RAKER. Then why turn over the power plant to individuals?
Mr. CARR. I think it will be largely a financial question with the Government
and one that ought to be worked out by the Secretary of the Interior, taking
everything into consideration. I think our idea generally is that they should
give him fairly broad discretion in working out the best way. because you
can not foresee everything.
Mr. BARHOTR. The people down there have no objection to the Government
retaining possession and ownership.
Mr. CARR. No. I believe that is purely a matter of detail to be worked out
after a full hearing. If you will excuse me. I know Mr. Nickerson can help the
committee most, although I dearly love to answer questions.
Mr. RAKER. This is a big matter, and we did not want you to leave ns too
quickly.
Mr. SixNOTT. The next witness is Doctor Walker, president of the State farm
bureau.
STATEMENT OF DR. W. H. WALKER.
Doctor WALKER. I have been over the Imperial Valley several times and
Mr. SIXNOTT (interposing). Will you state to the committee who yon are and
whom you represent?
Doctor WALKER. I am Dr. W. H. Walker, president of the California Farm
Bureau Federation and a member of the executive committee of the American
Farm Bureau Federation. I am here representing the California farmers.
Mr. SIXNOTT. Where do you reside?
Doctor WALKER. I am a resident of Willows. Calif., nd my office is in
Berkeley.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 117
Mr. RAKER. How long have you been in this work?
Doctor WAI.KKK. Alxnit four years in the farm bureau work.
Mr. RAKER. What was your work before that?
Doctor WALKER. Physician.
Mr. RAKER. You were doctoring' agricultural interests?
Doctor WALKER. No; I was doctoring Senators and Representatives. I have
been over this area all over the State and through the Imperial Valley many
times. I know of no State on earth where the whole work is up to the man as
much as it is in the Imperial Valley. Water is an absolute necessity for the
men in that valley in that it becomes very vital to them.
Now. as to tlie matter of protection : In my opinion the situation they are
in right now. and under the conditions they are working. Financial assistance
is practically denied them. That is because of the manner in which they are
compelled to operate, and they can not develop that country with the handicap
they are carrying now. The Federal land bank has denied them credit and
the local banks are practically denying credit because of the conditions under
which they are working and with this fear hanging over them.
As to the matter of the danger of silt and that is all in these reports, and I
can not but agree with them you will rind a tremendous amount of silt
coming in there, even along the irrigating ditches, and it sometimes gets so
high as to bank the fields from the roadway as you drive along. That is
building up this dam and rendering a danger there.
As to the matter of objections to the opening of new territory because of
the precipitation of increased production, I would like to say that I have heard
some people say that there is an overproduction in the country at the present
time, but the California Farm Bureau and the American Farm Bureau Federa-
tion do not stand for any such statement as that. We are strongly in favor
of reclamation and development because we know America is fast approaching
the period when it will be an importing Nation on foodstuffs. We have almost
reached that point now. and the best authority as to that and I have looked
that up is the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, and. if I may, I will read
what he says in that respect :
"This Nation is rapidly approaching a critical period in her development.
She has long been one of the greatest food-producing nations of the world and
has also been a large exporter from her abundance. Now. however, she is
rapidly approaching the time when she will need all her own production and
possibly more. * * * Taking the crop production as a whole, statisticians
have figured that we are becoming a food-importing rather than a food-exporting
Nation within the period of from 15 to L'5 years. In fact, the situation is worse
than that we are to-day importing more food than we are exporting, measured
by money value."
I have heard it stated that the ratio of increase is something like 15 per cent,
while our increase of food production runs only about 10 per cent, so that
there is about a 5 per cent margin between the two. and we will need this
additional land. It must be developed if we are to keep pace in supplying our
food and also our raw materials as a Nation, and yet, in face of that fact, some
People hold up their hands in horror and say we are about to precipitate condi-
tions which will make that worse when, as a matter of fact, it is not over-
production that is troubling us.
Mr. SIXXOTT. That was the argument advanced against the homestead bill.
Doctor WAI.KKK. Yes.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What particular individual or organization of any im-
portance is contending that we do not need more land under cultivation?
Doctor WALKER. I have seen it in magazine articles. I would not say any
organization: but we want to go on record, the American Farm Bureau Fed-
eration and the California Farm Bureau Federation, as not believing in that
theory and we are not working along those lines.
Mr.' SMITH of Idaho: There is a farm paper published in Springliel 1. Mass..
of which Mr. Herbert Myrick is editor, which argues from that standpoint:
in other words, applying the "closed shop" idea to agriculture.
Mr. SINXOTT. The legislative representative of the National Grange appeared
before the Public Lands Committee and advanced that argument two years
ago.
Doctor WAI.KKK. That which I have quoted is from Dr. E. D. Ball, Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture.
Mr. HAYDEX. Is it not also true that even if there were any merit in the
contention that more foodstuffs are being produced in the United States than
118 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
are necessary, that the character of crops grown in California, and particu-
larly in the Imperial Valley, are such that they do not directly compete with
the communities in the East where that argument is advanced?
Doctor WALKER. Not so much. That section of the country would not com-
pete with the corn belt, and yet I have gone into the Imperial Valley and made
contracts for grain deliveries under our cooperative marketing down there
and we got considerable grain. But, of course, there are other products
which would not compete, such as vegetables, lettuce, melons, and such as that.
Mr. HAYDKN. Crops which can not be grown in other parts of the United
States at the season of the year during which they are produced in the Im-
perial Valley?
Doctor WALKER. I was in Portland before the chamber of commerce less than
a year ago and the charitable societies there had 600 families on their hands.
Afterwards I learned that within three hours' ride of Portland hundreds of
carloads of produce were rotting in the fields, and yet they had there hun-
dreds of families in need. That was not overproduction of food, hut it was
inability to distribute and there is where your trouble is. You will find that
condition not only in Portland but right here in Washington.
Mr. RAKKI:. Doctor, in your connection with the American Farm P.ureau and
the California Farm Bureau during the last four years have you had an op-
portunity to make a study and investigation of agricultural production in the
United States?
Doctor WALKER. Well, in a general way.
Mr. RAKER. From that observation, taking the development of the Imperial
Valley under this irrigation scheme, the land in Arizona and the general idea
of reclaiming this arid land, would that mean an overproduction of farm prod-
ucts in the United States?
Doctor WALKER. Not at all : I do not consider it would at all.
Mr. RAKER. According to your view would the production in these Western
and Southwestern States in any way interfere with or be detrimental to the
farmers of Kansas, Iowa. Illinois, and Indiana?
Doctor WALKER. I do not think so.
Mr. RAKER. That argument has been made, not only before the Public Lands
Committee but before this committee.
Doctor WALKER. Speaking for California alone, we do not raise enough pork
to supply California, we do not raise enough wheat to supply California, and we
do not raise enough barley to supply California : we ship it in, although there
is an export type of barley that we do export. So that of the grains that affect
the Middle West, there is demand for them right there in California, a demand
for more than we are producing at the present time.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is it not true that about 60 per cent of the farmers of
the country simply raise sufficient products for their own use and do not enter
the markets very extensively? I know that was true in eastern Ohio, where I
was reared. The farmers did not have much to sell; they raised enough for
their families and sold only enough to buy some sugar, coffee, and a few clothes,
and it seems to me we ought to look to the interests of the great mass of the
people who want a home on the soil and only can raise enough to sustain them-
selves and raise their families as well as to those who farm for the purpose of
getting rich.
Doctor WALKER. Of course, all farmers have to sell something in order to get
other necessaries and they sell it in the form of some food. But if we should
go into that and I should attempt to tell you what has happened to fanners
in the last four years it would make you weep their inability to dispose of
their products at a reasonable figure.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. The farmers who are embarrassed financially are the
large producers who have invested large capital and have to raise a great deal
and get a good price for it. The ordinary farmer on the hillside has not had
such a hard time, because he has his cows, his pigs, and his sheep, and he is not
financially embarrassed TO an unusual extent. Of course, you folks out in Cali-
fornia may not know about the small farmers, but there are a great many of
them throughout the United States, and there should be land made available
for a million more.
Doctor WALKER. I know of many small farmers that that picture does not fit.
as far as that is concerned.
Mr. RAKER. Just a moment.
Mr. SINNOTT. This is going to take us pretty far afield.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 119
Mr. RAKKK. Not this question. This question is right square and will hit the
bull's-eye.
My colleague from Idaho suggests that the small farmer raises no more than
is necessary for his existence; hut is it not necessary for him to raise wheat,
harley, chickens, and other things to sell so that the men in the city may get
something to live on?
Doctor WAI.KKR. Yes; I should say that it was necessary to do that.
Mr. KAKKK. And that is why we are trying to advance the fanner, so that he
can raise enough for himself and his family and also something to sell in order
to supply these necessaries to the man living in the city.
Doctor WALKER. I agree with you on that. Now, right on the line of over-
production : We have reached the peak of production in the United States, and
unless we farm very carefully and conserve our resources and apply more fer-
tilizers we are going to slide hackward more and more. We have developed all
of the virgin territory, and this area not only needs fertilizers but it needs
electrical power. An electrical journal published in California the National
Electrical Journal, I think is its title states that California uses more power
for electrical purposes in agriculture than all of the rest of the United States
put together, and we have a tremendous power problem facing us.
You people talk about 000,000 horsepower and get scared over it, but
I would like you to know that right at the present time in California
the power companies, upon which they are asking an 8 per cent guaranty on
their capital investn.'ent, are asking the railroad commission, which is their
carolling body, to allow them to develop $900,000.000 for electricity that is
needed immediately and enough to make it $1,600,000,000 for the electricity
that will be needed in the next 10 years that is, as they say, to take care of
the demands of California in the next 10 years; so that the power that will be
developed at the Boulder Canyon Dam will be more than consumed before you
are ready lo sell it.
Mr. RAKKI;. That statement, in a more or less degree, would apply to Oregon.
\Vasliington. Nevada. Utah. Arizona, and all of those Western States?
Doctor WAI.KKR. Absolutely, because in any one of those places by pumping,
for example, you could put the lands under irrigation, and wherever you can
raise sage brush and can put water on the land you can raise fine crops.
Mr. RAKKK. Would that development in any wise interfere with or be detri-
mental to the United States so far as the Middle West is concerned?
Doctor WAI.KKH. Not at all, but it would be a help, in my opinion. Further
taking up that ]wint, the absolute necessity of more agricultural power and
cheaper power, the very existence of some of those places in the Western States
depends on it. Cheaper power will also mean cheaper transportation, and that
is another thing they depend on, and right along that line we are reaching the
stage where we absolutely need that power. It will make our fertilizers. Every-
thing that has been said in favor of Muscle Shoals will absolutely apply to the
development of electrical power in this region.
Mr. RAKKR. You mean by that, that by virtue of developing hydroelectric
power all through that intermountain region, from the Canadian bonier clear
down 10 .Mexico, we will be able to furnish it to the railroads so that they will
be able to assist in transporting our products from the West to the East?
Doctor WAI.KKH. Yes; and it will conserve our oil. All this will be found in
this report. We will be able to save many barrels of oil. The Southern
1'acilic is burning oil and they could electrify their roads by developing more
power, especially where wood and other fuels are scarce. So that the very
existence of the people practically depends upon this. I visited the Canadian
plant with Sir Adam Reck and T saw how they are using electricity there and
I saw how niggardly we are using it. I saw how all of that great possibility
was going unchecked and I saw how all of that water from the western part
of the Rocky Mountains was going to waste. It is not only going to waste/
but it is endangering the lives of about fifty thousand people in the Imperial
Valley. It is a rich valley : it thrills a person to go in there and see what
wonderful accomplishments man has been able to make. They have made
that country like a garden, and from the standpoint of the safety of those
people, from the standpoint of the national policy of increasing production.
2ro]i\ the standpoint of increasing the power for fertilizers and for cheaper
power I see no argument against this and every argument for it.
Mr.. RAKKR. We have one other argument ; that they will be able to produce
gold, silver and other nrnerals in that country that they can not produce now
because of the excessive price of fuel.
1316 22 PT 3 4
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Doc-tor WALKER. Not only that, hut if you want to open up the chemistry side
of it you get into a field that has wonderful possibilities. Cheap aluminum
can he furnished there practically at the same time you are making fertilizers
and one or the other will pay for the cost of production, so that you will
either have fertilizer free or aluminum free.
Mr. RAKER. Have you any other good things? Because, you know, there are a
good many opposed to this development in the West, and if you have any other
good things let us have them so we can show them to our good colleagues from
the East.
Doctor WALKER. Well, as to your colleagues from the East, I have profound
respect' for them, but they ought to go West and see what the possibilities are
and unlock some of the possibilities which will make life a little more liveable
for the people out in those desert areas; they can do that and at the same
time add commercially to the stability of the United States. You take any
man in chemistry and let him unlock the possibilities of that country and it
is wonderful what can be accomplished. We have all of those minerals and
all of those metals. They have not been adequately developed before and if
they are fully developed we can make that a more wonderful place than anyone
ever dreamed of its being. I think that concludes my statement.
Mr. SIXXOTT. The next witness is Gray Silver.
STATEMENT OF MB. GRAY SILVER, WASHINGTON REPRESENTA-
TIVE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION.
Mr. SILVER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Gray Silver and I
represent the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Mr. SIXXOTT. You are the legislative representative of the American Farm
Bureau Federation?
Mr. SILVER. Yes, sir. Since Doctor Walker has testified just ahead of me and
told the story. I scarcely know what there is for me to say other than that, in a
general way, the American Farm Bureau Federation is not opposed to projects
of this kind, but, on the contrary, thinking not only of food production but of
protecting the property and lives of those people who are jeopardized and
thinking of the power production for other purposes, they are very much in
favor of that kind of development.
The kind and amount of crops that will be developed by this project will not
be so large as to affect the markets, and, in addition, as the doctor has so well
told you. we will soon have overtaken our normal production of foodstuffs in
this country. It will take some time for a project of this kind to be constructed
and some time for the results to be taken to the market, so that in looking ahead
it is not at all one of those developments that can be viewed from the point of
being harmful to our people.
The electrical side or the power end of it makes a strong appeal to every
farmer and the pledging of public credit for this kind of development is sound,
right, and proper, because 80 per cent of the cost of electrical current is in-
terest charges. If you develop this power by the method you propose here and
pledge public credit on I do not know what the basis may be, but, using Muscle
Shoals as an illustration, 4 per cent instead of 8 or 10 per cent, which is the
usual cost of money for private development you at once cut the cost of cur-
rent in half ; you make a 50 per cent decrease in the sale price by that one
move. Then, as you amortize the capital cost you make a much greater re-
duction.
By the amortization method of financing, as proposed in the Muscle Shoals
case, you repay all the capital investment and have your power for the cost of
maintenance, operation, and depreciation.
In other words, using the figures which I have on Muscle Shoals, and they
apply to this project, east of the Rocky Mountains in this country the per-
year horsepower cost of electrical current is about 830 on the basis of all
the market will bear; if it is developed on this public-credit basis with the
amortization feature, when the amortization is complete it will cost around
s~>. That will enable not only the production, where the ore is available, of
certain grades of steel by the electrical furnace at about half the present cost
of production by the coke-furnace- method, but it will permit, on a very much
more economical basis, the fabrication of steel the making of tractors, the
making of binders, the making of trucks, and the making of other imple-
ments from steel, as well as the fabricating of wood the manufacture of
all those things that are made of wood, in which power is a large factor, and
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 121
while, when you make the cheap electric current, you make all of those things
jKissihle you mr.ike more possible the carrying of this current to the farm
homes and you take the drudgery out of the farmhomes. If the sale price
of the current is made cheap enough the farmers will be justified in buying it.
Electricity on the farm, sold at a reasonable rate this rate obtained by de-
velopment at low interest rates with amortization of capital investment will
reorganize a vast number of farm operations, reduce the cost, improve and
increase the man power of the farm. Electric motors will furnish water every-
where it can be used advantageously ; electric milking machines will relieve the
farmer from one of the most trying chores he has to perform. Electric motors
will hoist the hay to the mow. grind the feed, thresh the grain, turn the grind-
stone, and we may even find eventually that high-powered electricity will be
practical in stimulating certain kinds of plant growth.
Net only will it rejuvenate the farm from the production standpoint, but
home life will be reorganized and much of the drudgery removed. Farm home
work will become more as it now is in the city. The electric stove, w r ith its
automatic control, will do away with the long hours day in and out all the
year through. The housewife has had to stand over the hot cookstove. with
resulting colds and often followed by ill health, to say nothing of the enforced
neglect of children and denial of self-culture and social intercourse and other
household duties. With this electric method of cooking, after the food is pre-
pared and placed in the stove, the housewife, in addition to having a clean,
smokeless kitchen with temperature not above the remainder of the house, has
a 'room suitable and comfortable for any domestic purpose. She also has the
time of the cooking period at her disposal ; for by this electric method there
would be no fires to repair or keep going, so this time can be spent on the
children or other household duties, or visiting the neighbors or on Sundays
going to church, to come back at the hour previously determined and serve a
good meal, well cooked, with all the tedious, burdensome, and difficult details
done away with. The housewife will wash the dishes by electricity instead
of the old way. which was trial to the women every meal: wash the clothes by
electricity and save all the back breaking and hard rubbing over the wash-
board and steaming suds; rinse by turning a faucet and wring by turning a
lever: iron with the large electric iron or mangle, by which a two days' ironing
job is done in two or three hours. All this means so much to the housewife that
I can hardly convey to you the full import.
And so with many other labor-saving devices and much comfort-making equip-
ment, all available when cost of electricity is in proper relation with the sale
price of farm productions.
We have lived in the coal age for a number of decades. We are just beginning
to emerge into the electrical age. " White coal " is the power of the future.
Hydroelectric power is. and probably always will be, cheaper. So economical,
necessary, and popular will electric power become that before many decades
coal will probably be utilized at the mouth of the mine rather than increasing
its cost by expensive transportation.
Mr. RAKER. You mean the farmer will not have to do like you and I used
to have to do. get up at about n o'clock in the morninsr and milk the cows in the
dark, but they w>ll have electric light to see how to do it?
Mr. STI.VFR. They will have electric light and electric power to do the milk-
ing, instead of using their hands. Most of the dairies in my home section are
now operated by electricity. I am not speaking of the small dairies, but of
dairies of some size. This electric power will be used to make ice instead of
cutting it. and if you ever did it, you know it is not a nice job to cut ice in
the wintertime and store it up for the summer. Refrigerators \vill be wired
to use electricity and make little cubes of ice as they need them daily, and not
try the patience of the women folks awaiting for the men to come and get ice
from the ice house. All of these things are not being guessed at. but they are
actually being done, and the limiting factor in the use of it is the cost of elec-
trical current.
Mr. HARBOUR. They could heat their houses with it.
Mr. SILVER. In my home for the past ten years we have cooked wholly by
electricity, and it is not an unusual thing in my community. On many farms
the cooking is done entirely by electricity. It is a matter of great comfort to
the housewife to be able to prepare a meal and cook it on an electric stove.
Then, either by setting the switch which turns on the hont at a certain time
as may be required or by setting it so that the switch will be thrown off when
the proper heating point has been reached, the housewife can go to church,
122 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
if you please, on Sundays, or if it is on a week day she can make a call, know-
ing that the meal will be properly cooked with no danger of burning. There
is no possibility of burning the food, but the heat is simply turned off auto-
matically when the temperature reaches a certain set point which is the proper
heat for cooking whatever kind of food is in the stove. The food is cooked in
a tireless-cooker compartment alter it has reached the right temperature.
Nothing is burned or overcooked and nothing is undercooked. There are many
different kinds of things that can be done with this j>ower on the farm. For
instance, carrying water is not an attractive job to the boy, and that can be
done away with. Those things will be done away with on all the farms where
the current can he obtained economically or cheaply enough to enable the farm-
ers to take it.
Mr. RAKER. You would be able to do away with the noon-hour job for the
boy of turning the grindstone, because the grindstone would be turned by elec-
tricity, and the boy would be given some rest.
Mr. SII.VKI:. Yes. sir. Then, think of the railroad situation. Electricity is
going to bring cheaper transportation by rail than we have ever had. Has it
ever occurred to you that 25 per cent of the freight cars now on the rail-
roads would, by using electricity, give the public the same service that loo
per cent are giving under present methods v For instance, 800 miles of the
Chicago,, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad have been electrified, as some of you
know, and it has been shown that they carry freight 14 miles per day as against
7 miles per day by steam power. Barring the time that would be taken in load-
ing and unloading, it would mean that half the number of cars that are now
in use would move the same amount of freight if they were electrified.
Mr. SMITH. Why is the movement of trains expedited so greatly when the
roads are electrified?
Mr. SILVER. There are several reasons. One is illustrated by the experience
in West Virginia on a bad grade, in going tip the grade to BHietields' and
Roanoke, where before electrification took place it was one of the most d'fticult
grades to get trains over. A steam engine pulls by jerks, while an electric
motor pulls steadily. Before electrification took place, freight trains were so
continually breaking down and being pulled in two that they laid a special
passenger-train track around those hills so that the passenger trains might pro-
ceed. The freight trains almost always had the line blocked. In the eight
years since the electrification of that piece of road there has not been a single
drawbar head pulled out or a single break in those freight trains. The freight
trains have been made even longer on that road, and with exactly the same
kind of equipment; but with a different kind of pull, they avoid that difficulty.
Another consideration is this: The steam engine must be run in every six or
eight hours to be looked over by hostlers and caretakers. It must be rested
and rejuvenated for the next trip, while the electrical motor will run for -0
hours or more without stopping. The electric motor runs in a different way
from the steam engine and it is operated in such a way as to give the tra : n
added speed and, further, it picks up speed much quicker and stops i] nicker.
and, as I have said, it makes fewer stops. That, of course, means more time
gained. As I have said, there would be a saving of 50 per cent in the matter
of cars because of the saving in time. Then. 25 per cent of the cars. or. to be
exact, 23.8 per cent of the cars, now being operated in the freight service are
used for hauling coal and other things in connection therewith for the railroads'
operations, so that there would be a saving of approximately 25 per cent more
in the matter of cars with power carried on wires. The public could get as
much service out of 25 per cent of the cars as it now gets out of 100 per cent
if the lines were electrified. That, of course, means a great saving. It is
so great that I do not know how to estimate it in dollars. It should mean
cheaper freight than we have ever yet enjoyed by any kind of transportation
facilities.
I shall not testify any longer, except to say that we are in full sympathy
with this development. We are in sympathy with it because we bel'eve that it
is sound and logical and we- believe that it is needed. If we do not have a
better distribution of food supplies than we have had recently we are undone.
We must have improved means of distribution.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. Have you any idea what would be the percentage of re-
duction in the cost of transportation that would be made possible by electrifying
the railroads?
Mr. SILVER. I would not know how to give you that estimate. I do not have
that estimate.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 123
Mr. Wn.i.iAAiso.N. How much would it reduce the cost of operation, approxi-
mately?
Mr. SILVER. I do not have that information. You could likely get that from
the superpower survey or you could probably get from them sonve interesting
statistics on that phase of it. I do not have in mind just what the economies
are, but they are very great. For one thing, the labor is less and it involves a
simpler process, requiring fewer men. You do not have the same trouble in
training men to operate electrical motors that you have in training them to
operate steam engines. It is not so long a process and it would avoid labor
conflicts to some degree. It is very desirable from every viewpoint, and the
argument that we can never find the nvoney to make this development is not
well founded because the economies would be such that there would be a great
saving in the end. There would not be required anywhere near so much rolling
stock as is required at present. However, I believe that these natural re-
sources should be developed by pledging the public credit so that the public in
that way may maintain its equity in them.
Mr. RAKER. So it is our view that the development of this Boulder Canyon
Dam, and other developments along the Colorado River in connection with
those seven States in the Southwest, would be developments of as great advan-
tage to the people in that section as tbe development of Muscle Shoals would
be to the people of the Southern States?
Mr. SILVER. To my mind it is in the same class. I think it is the sanve kind
of development and will he helpful to the whole people. The two projects
should be classified alike. The same purposes are served. In the West there
is a limitation placed upon production by the amount of water available. It is
not a matter of plant food because you have the fertilizing elements in this
soil in the West. In the East we put the water over the wheels and take from
the air the fertilizing elements required for the soil. They are using natural
resources just the same but applying them in a different way.
Mr. RAKER. You think that the Government would be thoroughly justified in
entering UJKHI a development work like this?
Mr. SILVEK. Yes. sir. I think that is the way to make progress in production,
distribution, and home making. I thank you, gentlemen, for your attention.
STATEMENT OF MB. J. S. NICKERSON, PRESIDENT OF THE
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION BOARD.
Mr. NICKERSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committe, I represent
the Imperial irrigation district, and am sent here for that purpose. We have
in that valley 50,000 people, and we have 450,000 acres under cultivation, more
or less. I am president of a Mexican company, down in Mexico, as Judge Swing
told you, which is a wheel within a wheel. The directors, there being three of
us, hold that Mexican stock. We have in the neighborhood of 200,000 acres
there under cultivation. Therefore I ought to be able to give you the farmer's
side of it fairly well in going over the local conditions there. Now, in Mexico
we have 133 miles of main canals to maintain, and of levees we have 75 miles.
We have 50 miles of railroad track on those levees that we must keep up and
operate. Now, why do we want to change our condition, and why do we want
to get out of Mexico and build this all-American canal? In the first place, the
cost to the people below the line is $2.50 per acre a year to irrigate, while on
the American side the cost is $7 per acre. That is a pretty good reason why
we -should want to get out of there. With this new canal we would have 150,000
or 200,000 acres of land that would be brought under ciiltivation. That is the
largest and best body of land now available in the United States.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. I understood you to say that the cost of irrigation on the
Mexican side was $2 per acere, while the cost on the xXmerican side was $7 per
acre.
Mr. NICKERSON. I said the cost was $2.50 an acre on the Mexican side.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. Then it would be to yorir advantage to remain on the
Mexican side, would it not?
Mr. NICKERSON. That is what it cost them to get their water on the Mexican
side, or the actual cost that they pay for water is $2.50 per acre, while it costs
the farmers on the American side $7 per acre.
Mr. BARBOUB. And you take the water through the same canal?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir; we must maintain the canal at the expense of the
people on the American side.
Mr. RAKER. Can you tell the committee now just why that condition exists?
124 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Mr. NICKEBSON. I can tell you why we want to get out of Mexico. As I have
said, there is that difference in the cost of water, or that difference between
the cost of water used on the American side and the water used on the Mex-
ican side. There is quite a difference in the cost. As I have said, this is the
largest and best body of land that is now available in the United States to-day,
and we have provided in this bill that the Legion boys shall have a preferential
right to that land. They are anxious to get it, and they will get a preferential
right to it.
Mr. LINEBEBGER. By Legion men you mean ex-service men?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. You have stated that on the Mexican side the cost of the water
was $2.50 per acre per annum, while on the American side the cost was *7 pet-
acre per annum.
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes. sir.
Mr. RAKER. And it has been stated that they take it out of the same canal and
from the same dam. The same dam supplies the water from the river, and it
is run in the same ditch. Now, why is it that on the Mexican side they' are
obtaining water at a cost of $2.50 per acre per annum while on the American
side the cost is $7 per acre? Will you teil the committee why that difference
exists?
Mr. NICKERSON. I will tell you: They pay the same price for water, or they
charge the same as we do, but there is a difference in the cost of maintaining
the canal. They do not pay for the maintenance of the canal. We have to
pay for the water on the American side, and we must pay for the maintenance
of the canal.
Mr. RAKER. Why do they not pay their proportionate share of the cost OL
maintaining the canals, levees, and railroad?
Mr. NICKERSON. In the first place the contract does not specify that they have
to do it, and, in the second place, there is no Mexican Government to deal with.
During the last year there have been some three or four governors down there,
and yon can not hope to do anything with that kind of government. As a mat-
ter of fact, there is no head of the Mexican Government, and Mexico is in
reality a revolutionary foreign country.
Mr. SWING. Is it not a fact that they can not be charged any more for water
than the Mexican Government will consent for them to be charged?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir; that is the reason why.
Mr. RAKER. There was a contract between the owners on the Mexican siik-
and the owners on the American side?
Mr. NICKERSON. There was an old concession of a private company which has
been handed down two or three times, and we are the last ones to hold it. Under
that contract they were to take all the water they wanted, up to one-half of the
water, and there was a price fixed for the water.
Mr. RAKER. And in that agreement you overlooked the fixing of the cost of
maintaining the canals, levees, and railroad?
Mr. NICKERSON. Well, those levees are something that have shown up since
that contract was entered into. It has been shown here that the conditions on
the river changed so rapidly that no one could keep up with them.
Mr. RAKER. Everybody else here may understand it, and I do not want to be
the only one who is dense, but I want that matter clearly explained. Here is
water furnished from the same river, diverted by the same dam, taken through
the same canals, with the same levees and the same railroad used to maintain
the water supply, and I want to know why these Mexican people do not pay
their proportionate share of the cost of the maintenance of the canals, levees,
and railroads?
Mr. NICKERSON. Because they do not have to. There is no government there,
or there is nobody at the head of the government. I went down there a year
ago last February to Mexico City and told them what our condition was
down there. They smoothed me down the back in the Mexican way, and said
that I was absolutely right about it. They said they thought they should help,
and they figured we should have half a million dollars in gold from them. I
said to them, " Well, if you will give us $15,000 or $20,000 per month to get the
thing started, it would be of great assistance." They did not see any reason why
that should not be done, but that was the last I heard of it. I lived in that
country for 14 years.
Mr. RAKER. Now, tell us why you do not shut the water off from them, as you
would on the American side, when they do not pay the>'r proportionate share of
the cost of maintaining the canals, levees, and railroad?
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 125
Mr. NICKEBSON. I can tell you that very easily : We have to go through their
country to get water into our territory, and, as I have said, that is nothing but
a revolutionary foreign country. They have no government.
Mr. BAKBOUR. If you should shut off their water, you would shut off your
own?
Mr. NICKEBSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SMITH. What quantity of land is being irrigated down in that portion of
Mexico ?
.Mr. XICKERSON. It has been stated that there are 150,000 acres, but it is more
than that.
Mr. SMITH. Do you know how rapidly additional lands are being taken up?
Mr. NICKEBSON. There is a lot of it. There are at least 25,000 acres a year
coming in.
Mr. SMITH. How long will it be before the Mexican laud will absorb all of
the water, and you people will not have any?
Mr. NICKEBSON. They will not absorb all of it, but it is a dangerous proposi-
tion, and we are inviting trouble there, because they will establish water rights.
At the same time, we are taking our water in there, because we can not help
ourselves, but they are arbitrarily establishing water rights by the use of it.
Mr. RAKER. If you attempted to shut off the water from the users on the
Mexican side, a good many of whom, I presume, are Americans
Mr. NICKEBSON (interposing). We can not do it. Last year they arbitrarily
went to work and put a dam in our main canal, and it was absolutely injurious
to us, because it filled the canal up with silt.
Mr. RAKER. Why did you not take the dam out?
Mr. XICKERSON. It was in Mexico, a. revolutionary foreign country. They
have too many soldiers there.
Mr. SWING. We are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico so far as that part
of the canal is concerned.
Mr. RAKEB. I wanted Mr. Nickerson to tell the committee why they could
not shut off the water.
Mr. XICKERSON. Because it would shut our water off. We would dry our-
selves ii]) if we did th.it. That would dry us up.
.Mr. HAKKR. How does it happen that you give them any of this water?
.Mr. XICKEBSON. That was a private company that had a concession from
the Mexican Government. At that time they never figured that there would
be much land under cultivation in Mexico, and they had to submit to those
conditions in order to get the water in on the American side, because they
could not cut through the sand hill without too great expense.
Mr. SWING. That company was a Mexican company?
Mr. XICKERSON. Yes. sir.
Mr. KAKKR. Will you explain to the committee how you will be protected
in the matter of your water supply if you make this change?
Mr. NICKERSON. We will keep it on our side of the line. It was possible to
do that, but when it was done, it was not at the Laguna Dam. They came
down below Yiuna, and made this diversion, but it was not the place to do
it. It should have been made at the Laguna Dam in the first place, but we
did not have the money to do it.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Nickerson, would you prefer to go ahead and make your
statement without interruption?
Mr. RAKER. I hear that suggestion a good deal, but in taking testimony
like this, we want to get full information. I do not want to interrupt you
except to get the facts.
Mr. XICKERSON. Gentlemen, I am here to go down on my knees before the
committee or to do anything within reason in order to get help for those people.
Xow. there is another thing I want to say to you as a reason why we want to
get out of there: Our expenses in Mexico from May 1, 1910, to May 1. 1022,
were *12.!>:>7.X1S. I have an itemized statement covering every dollar of that
expenditure, and will file 't with the committee. Something was said, I
believe, about encouraging the use of water in Mexico. We are encouraging
that every day this arrangement continues, because those water users will
secure water rights. Whether Mexico has any right or not, I do not know 1 ,
and we are not here to put them out of business. We want them to live and
we want them to prosper, but we do not want them to prosi>er at the expense
of the people of the United States. They should pay their part of the cost.
but they will not pay their part of it. They will never pay it until we get
out of there. I do not want you to understand that we wish to put them out
126 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
of business, because we do not. On the contrary, we want to help them, but
we do nor want to pay their bills.
Mr. RAKER. What would be the method of taking care of them?
Mr. NIC KKRSON. We could sell them water. I talked to Secretary Lane in
reference to that. He said, " We will not have anything to do with them." I
said, " We do not have to sell it to them at a loss." and he said. " No : sell it at
a margin." We want a small margin on account of the amount of money that
we have spent on levees, canals, etc., for years past. It is practically under
their control now. We have no control over it, and we are getting into bad
trouble. This Government is getting into trouble by taking water in there.
Mr. RAKER. Has our Government made any effort to adjust this matter so
an to protect you people?
Mr. NKKERSON. No. sir: there is no way to do anything. Our Government
has nobody to deal with, because there is no government down there, or you
have no recognized government. Some men say we had better take it up with
the government down there, but I say there is no government down there.
Mr. SMITH. There is really no remedy for that condition except by the con-
struction of this project.
Mr. NICKERSON. That is the only way.
Mr. SMITH. If you build this all-American canal, you can take out your wa-
ter on the American side.
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes. sir.
Mr. SMITH. What would the Mexican landowners do toward paying their
proportionate share?
Mr. NICKERSON. They would have to stand a proportionate part of the COST.
They could take it out of the river, or get it through us. They could get it
through us at the Laguna Dam, but I doubt if the Government would consider
that arrangement with a foreign country. They would have a certain amount
of water.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. As a matter of fact, you have more water coming down the
stream than can be used in the Imperial Valley.
Mr. NICKERSON. No. sir; not all the time.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. But you would have after you got the dam built?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir: we would have more water than would be needed.
J am acquainted with the Arizona side, and there is no more water than \v>
will want under the conditions now. There are certain months when we are
short of water.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. But that is due to the lack of storage?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir. There is at least a month when we do not hav
enough water there. Our peak is about 7.(KK) second-feet in dry times, but it
goes down as low as 2,000 second-feet. The Yuma project and the Imperial
Valley do not always have water enough. This is something that will protect
the Government, and it will protect the Yuma people on the Arizona side.
Mr. WILLIAMSON*. You are referring now to the Boulder Canyon Dam?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes. sir.
Mr. HAYDF.N. Without the construction of a reservoir on the Colorado River
to store the flood waters it would not be worth while to build the ail-American
canal?
Mr. NICKERSON. No, sir; but there is no company that, could do that.
Mr. HAYDEN. Furthermore, you can not now obtain credit whereby you couM
raise the money to build the all-American canal.
Mr. NICKERSON. We tried to put out a bond issue but the bond men
would not let us put out bonds, because, they said. " You have no storage reser-
\oir; you get it and then you can do that."
Mr. HAYDEN.. Then the construction of a great reservoir on the Colorado
River is the real key to the situation?
Mr. NICKERSON. It takes care of the whole situation : you can not do any-
thing until you do that.
Mr. HAYDEN. The first thing necessary for the relief of the Imperial Valley
is to provide storage for the flood waters?
Mr. NIOKERSON. Absolutely.
Mr. HAYDEN. only when that is done will it be possible to go on with the
other development?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes. As one of the representatives of the Farm Bureau
said, we have no credit. The farm loan bank will not let us have any money.
nor will the banks in Los Angeles. The people come to me and say. " For God's
sake. Nickerson, if you can get that dam started it will put credit in this val-
ley and all over this country so we can live."
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 127
Mr. LIXKHERGEB. Is it not :i fact also. Mr. Xickerson, that when you were
still able to obtain money you had to pay from 2 to 3 per cent more for it
than people who were borrowing in other sections of the State, where they did
not have this potential menace starring them in the face from year to year?
Mr. XICKKIJSON. Yes.
Mr. LIXEBEBGER. You had to pay 10 per cent when people in other sections
of the State were paying 7 and 8. did yon not?
Mr. XICKKRSON. I can explain that to you in a minute.
Mr. LINEHERGKR. It is ii ot necessary to go 'into details, but that is the pen-
alty you have been bearing for years in all of your financial operations, is it
not?
Mr. XICKERSON. Yes. The attorney general and the bond commission in the
State of California say, "You have the least bonded indebtedness; you have
one of the best districts, but your bonds are selling for less than in any district
in the State of California." We have sold them as low as 88 cents, while in
other districts they are selling for above par.
Mr. LINEBEBGER. What did they bear when you sold them at 83?
Mr. XICKEKSOX. Five and a half. So you see that is ruinous. I said,
" Why?" He said, "Your flood protection, but whenever you take care of that
it will be different." I had men tell me that before I left. They said, " We
have got to have some more money." but fortunately we are getting along all
right. "But," he said, "you must have your storage, your flood protection."
I said. " That is absolutely what we are trying to do now through this bill,
and I believe we will be able to make the ]>eople back there believe it is neces-
sary."
Mr. HAYDKX. Then your interest in this legislation is. first, flood control
above and beyond all other things?
Mr. XICKKRSON. Yes. sir.
Mr. HAYDEX. Second, with the river regulated, it would be possible not only
to furnish the lands you now have under cultivation with an adequate supply
of water but increase the irrigable area in the Imperial Valley V
Mr. XICKERSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAYDEX. But you have comparatively little direct interest in the hydro-
electric power that can be developed?
Mr. XICKERSON. Yes. Well, we would need some power, but on this all-Ameri-
can canal we produce a lot of power : I think we could produce something like
50,000 or 60,000 horsepower through that canal, but the main object, as you say,
is storage and then the getting out of Mexico. Xow, as long as you have spoken
about power I live more or less in Los Angeles, own property there, and all
that, but nobody here has said anything about the possibilities in Arizona. I
am an old Arizonian myself and I have a warm place in my heart for the
Arizonians. and it is a fact that they are interested as much as we are. Xow,
they have a lot of land there; they have the Yuma project, or the Government
has, and on which it has si>ent its money and it must be protected. Then there
is the mining industry all over the State, and I know all about that. I know
of mines laying idle for want of power, and if this power were developed by the
Government. Arizona would open up mines- that have laid idle for years. That
would put men to work and it would be a revolution in that whole State. There
is not anything on our part of it that we want to handle or check; Arizona is
entitled to its part of it just the same as we are and we want to give it to them.
We have no cards stacked; we want to give everybody all they are entitled to
in the way of power and protection.
Mr. HAYDEX. Yon are familiar with the Yuma reclamation project?
Mr. XICKERSON. Y'es, sir.
Mr. HAYDKN. In your opinion is there any real danger that the Colorado Hiver
might break the levees, leave its channel and materially injure that project?
Mr. XICKERSON. It is absolutely liable to go through the center of it.
Mr. HAYDEX. And if the river did
Mr. XICKERSOX (interposing). It would absolutely destroy the Yuma project.
Mr. BARHorR. What did the Yuma project cost the Government?
Mr. HAYDKN. The net cost of construction to date is over *!>.000.0<M).
Mr. XICKKRSON. I thought it was about $12,000,000.
Mr. HAYDKN. So that while Arizona has not heretofore been so greatly inter-
ested yet if a break in the Yuma levee occurred and tht> Colorado Uiver changed
its channel the injury would be just as real to Arizona as a similar break in the
levee would be to California'.'
128 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Mr. NICKERSON. Absolutely ; and there is no telling when there be a combined
fllood in the Colorado and Gila Rivers. Floods have come together in those
rivers, and if the floods should ever come there at one time they would im-
mediately put the Yuma project off the map and put us off too. Of course, they
have the San Carlos project which would take care of the flood waters of the
Gila River and they would not then amount to so much.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. At what time of the year are the floods the worst?
Mr. XICKERSON. AVell, right now: this is the worst time. If rain comes up
in the mountains and wets the snow and ice they all conic down in a rush and
there is no power that lives on earth that can take care of them.
Now, you were speaking about conditions on the Yuma project, in which
the Government has its money to-day. Now, then, going back to the levee, we
have a second defense on the Volcano Lake Levee that is rotten ; it lias tilled
up and we have the water cutting away from there at the present time and if
a substantial flood should come that defense would not do vis any good, that
is, if the water did break over it. You see, it is tilled up on the inside part of
it and below it makes a drop, and if the water broke over that and then made
a drop it would immediately cut back. As Judge Swing told yon. it would
immediately cut back and clean us off the map.
Mr. RAKER. May I ask you one question? Taking your knowledge of the
Mexican situation and the situation in the United States this being an
international stream would you say that the building of the Boulder Canyon
Main for the purpose designated would result in the following: The elimi-
nation of the canal going through Mexico, the building of the All-American
Canal, and the development of electric power at the Boulder Canyon Dam, and
that the matter between the two Governments would be in better shape to be
adjusted than at the present time?
Mr. NICKERSON. Absolutely, and protect the Government at the same time.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. There is a call of the House and the committee will
have to adjourn. I would like to learn the sense of the committee with ref-
erence to another meeting. It is evident that Mr. Nickerson has only partially
completed his statement, and several other witnesses are to lie heard. If it
is agreeable, we will meet to-morrow morning at half past 10.
(Thereupon the committee adjourned to meet Saturday, June 24. 1922. at
10.30 o'clock a. m. )
COMMITTEE ox IRRIGATIOX OF ARID LANDS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Sat H r^aii. June ^',. 1 ( .\22.
The committee met at lO.o.l a. m.. Hon. Nicholas .T. Sinnott presiding.
Mr. SINNOTT. The committee will come to order.
Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Nickerson resumes his statement I just
received in the mail this morning a letter from Secretary Fall containing copies
of telegrams received from Bisbee. Ariz., relating to the Girand project, which
is located on the Colorado River just above Boulder Canyon and is considered
a competitor to that project: also a wire protesting the legislation now before
you and an answer to the same, which I think ought to go into the record first
as typical of one of the principal objections being made, and an answer to the
same. [Reading:!
JI-XE 23. 1922.
MY PEAK CONGRESSMAN: I am herewith attaching for your information tele-
grams received from the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce protesting against the
Swing-Johnson bill and insisting upon granting power license to Girand and
associates.
I am also attaching my telegraphic response to same.
I am communicating with the Arizona Senators and Representative, as well
as Senator Shortridge and the California Representatives, inclosing them copies
of this letter and telegrams referred to.
Very respectfully.
ALBERT B. FALL. Secretary.
Hon. PHIL P. SWING. M. C.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 129
[Telegram.]
BISBEE, ARIZ.. June .2.2. V.>.2.2.
ALBERT B. FALL.
Secretary of Interior, Washington, D. C.:
We, the undersigned, want Arizona to obtain an immediate development of
power on the Colorado River. The same is immediately necessary in the
reclamation of thousands of acres of land by pumping and also for present
industries. The Girand project, No. 121, berore tae Federal Power Commis-
sion, will give Arizona that immediate power and also State taxes therefrom,
and we urge that the license be issued at once. Objections from southern
California to the Girand project have been filed, but upon an erroneous idea
that the project will interfere with Boulder Canyon. We as-k that the license
issue as provided by law. Having confidence in your fairness, we rely upon
your aid in the. matter and respectfully request a reply by wire giving your
views.
BISBEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
[Telegram.]
BISBEE. ARIZ., June 22.
ALBERT B. FALL,
Secretary of Interior, Wash-in utvu. D. C.:
We. the undersigned, are unalterably opposed to the passage of the Swing-
Johnson bill for construction at Boulder Canyon. It discriminates against
Arizona by providing for the diversion of waters upon California lands alone
and also prevents Arizona from developing any power on the Colorado River
either as a State or through private enterprise, but allowing the upper basin
States that privilege. We are urging our Representatives to use every honor-
able mean? to defeat this measure, and we are cooperating with other organiza-
tions toward that end. Having confidence in your fairness, we rely upon your
aid in the matter and respectfully request a reply by wire giving your views.
BISBEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
Telegram.]
DEPARTMENT OF THK INTERIOR. Jnm- .2.1. 1U.22.
BISREE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
Bisbee. Ariz.:
Receipt your two telegrams 23d acknowledged. Referring your declare;!
opposition Swing-Johnson bill construction Boulder Canyon. I can IK t agree
that it discriminates against Arizona. Yuma project on the Colorado River
is protected and has already cost this Government more than $3.600,000. Ari-
zona has been especially favored in the advance of Government funds: also
in the amount of more than .S10..1OO.OOO on the Roosevelt-Salt River project, a
total of more than $16200.<XK). Returns from public-land sales to close last
fiscal year show receipts from Arizona (Lj900,000 or expenditures in excess
receipts MH.i per cent. Receipts from public-land sales in California total
$7.000.000. and expenditures upon California lands by Government a little more
than $3.000.000. or < nly 4."> per cent of receipts. Pending legislation proposes
construction dam and development water power by Government of United
States and would allow allocation and sale of same anywhere in the State
of Arizona, with no preference rights to any portion or district of the State
of California over Arizona. Bill does not discriminate as to water power or
sales thereof to any ether States as against Arizona. Bill does not propose
to prohibit any other construction under the law by Girand or his associates
or by the Southern California Kdison Co. or their associates or anyone else.
but does give priority rights to the Government of the United States in the
hydroelectric development over any private parties whomsoever, whether citi-
zens f Arizona. California, or of other States. Under authority act of Con-
gress. 1020. I have reported in favor construction by Government Boulder
Canyon Dam and participation therein if desired by any States desiring allo-
cation of power. This report made under the direction of Congress of the
130 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
United States. As member of the Water Power Commission, I have opposed
and must continue to oppose the granting of license to Girand and associates,
or any other private parties of power permits on Colorado River, until Con-
gress has opportunity to act through adoption Swing-Johnson bill or other
legislation.
Boulder Canyon Dam will prevent or assist in preventing floods destroying
Arizona territory and necessity for requests through Arizona Senators and
Representatives of gratuity appropriations of public funds for such protection.
FALL, Secretary.
Mr. HUDSPETH. Who signed the former telegram there protesting?
Mr. SWING. Both of them are by the Bishee Chamber of Commerce.
I also want to file in connection with that at this time, w'thout reading,
a report prepared by a former Arizonan, I think at present a citizen of Arizona
but who is occupying a position in the Government, in which he shows the
tremendous benefits that will flow to the State of Arizona as a result of the
development of this project provided for in the legislation now before you.
I ask permission that this also may go into the record.
Mr. SINNOTT. Without objection it may go in.
( The paper referred to follows : )
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
BUREAU OF MIXES.
Wciahhifffon, Jinie L>. !!>.!>.
Hon. PHILIP D. SWING,
Hwtxe of Repre.xcutatire*. W(ixhi)i(i1on. D. C.
MY DEAR MR. SAVING : You have asked me to give an opinion of the benefits
likely to be derived by the mining industry of the Southwest from electric-
power development as contemplated under the Colorado River project.
The question naturally divides itself into the following considerations :
(a) Urgent necessity for protecting established communities such as Yuma
and Imperial Valley irrigation distr'cts against flood menace.
(6) General industrial benefit to the Southwest,
(c) Specific benefit to the mining industry-
Mining is to-day, and probably will continue to be for the next decade, the
dominant industry of Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and southern Nevada.
The problems of the mining industry in this section may be summed up under
three principal heads; transportation, power, living conditions. I will briefly
consider these problems in the order named.
Transportation. The State of Arizona is peculiarly shut in. The nearest
ports are Galveston on the east and Los Angeles on the west, with high freight
rates from Arizona points to either port, which react unfavorably on the cost
of power, the cost of supplies, and on general living conditions. A solution of
this problem is seen in the completion of the Tucson. Cornelia, and Gila Bend
Railway extension plans from Ajo. the present terminus, to the Gulf of Cali-
fornia, a distance of only 97 miles. This would give Arizona a direct freight
outlet to the sea. Unfortunately the needs of the mining industry alone do not
furnish sufficient urge to capital to undertake this development.
Power. Mining operations in this section, both large and small, are to-day
seriously hampered by the increasing cost of coal, fuel oil, and gasoline; the
increase in power costs is a matter of grave concern to the mine operator.
Cheap and dependable hydroelectric power will stimulate prospecting and
development; it will cheapen metal production in a large territory which dur-
ing the year 1918 produced metals to the value of over a quarter of a billion
dollars; it will put the small producer on equal terms with the large producer
in the matter of power costs ; it will open up possibilities of the electrometal-
lurgical treatment of low-grade ores which are at present unavailable on ac-
count of high cost of steam or oil, generated electric power, isolation, and
other handicaps.
Living conditions. Living conditions, and particularly the cost of living,
are affected largely by the conditions of settlement and of farm development,
and by both highway and railroad transportation development. Arizona may
be considered as being very sparsely settled which makes for high per
capita development cost for public utilities and high maintenance and interest
charges. Statistics furnished by the Agricultural Department indicate that
less than 5 per cent of the potential tillable land of the State is under culti-
vation. The principal requisite for further development and utilization of till-
DEVELOP Ml-; XT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 131
aide laud is power for pumping water and this calls for abundant, dependable,
flexible, and reasonably priced electric power.
True conservation of the Nation's mineral resources demands that the
mineral deposits should be developed and worked with the greatest economy
and thoroughness. This can only be done with adequate highway, railroad, and
power facilities. Tins in turn demands enormous investments in improvements
of a permanent character which will endure long after the mineral deposits
are on the wane. It must be remembered that a mine is to he regarded as a
wasting asset. Therefore, it is of importance to the mining industry that other
indusiries lie developed to fully utilize these transportation and power fa-
cilities, and thus maintain the volume of business and commerce of the territory
as mineral production declines.
The Colorado River power project therefore is of vital importance to the
mining industry of this section. Not only will it adequately supply the power
needs of the mines, but it promises to solve fully ami satisfactorily the other
major problems. Many of the large mine operators of the State have a vision
of relief to come in the form of an industrial development in the State imme-
diately following upon the assurance of the availability of dependable electric
power, which development will insure enough freight in the form of valuable
raw material such as copper, cotton, rubber, and other agricultural products.
to warrant extension of the railroad from Ajo to the Gulf.
As indicating the stability of the mining industry of the State and the
initiative of the mine operators. I may point to the recently completed ex-
plosives plant of the Apache Power Co. built by the mine oi>erators to supply
the local explosives demand. The next logical progressive step is to refine and
fabricate Arizona copper prior to shipment by water. Apparently the two
essentials are a satisfactory freight outlet to water and electric power.
Eliminating from consideration the increasing power demands to be ex-
pected from southern California, the principal consumer of power from the
Colorado Kiver project would for the immediate future be the mining industry.
There is an immediate market at the mines for at least 73.000 electric
horsepower, and the demand may be considerably larger.
In conclusion, I desire to emphasize the conviction that the assurance of
such power service will unquestionably launch an industrial development
which would react most favorably upon the mining industry in a way difficult
to measure in dollars. This indirect help may prove to be fully as important
as the more tangible direct help to come from the availability of power for
use at the mines.
Very truly yours,
F. J. RUI.KY. Art I nil ]>ir>'ct'jf.
For H. FOSTER BAIN. Diwtor.
STATEMENT OF MB. J. S. NICKERSON, PRESIDENT IMPERIAL
VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
Mr. NICKKKSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I want to
call your attention to this river that is shown here [indicating Colorado Uiver
on mapl. I'p here is our intake from the river. The banks along there are
fairly good and the river is about twelve or fourteen hundred feet wide. Now
immediately when it gets down here it divides.
Mr. KAKKU. Mr. Xickerson, if you would describe what that is and say the
direction and give the name, it will read fine in the record but the way you
are putting it a person reading it will not get any information at all from it.
Mr. NICKKKSON. I will say that river is at our headgate, where we take the
water out. twelve or fourteen hundred feet wide: then after yon L r et down here
about eight to twelve miles, the river begins to spread out and meander, on
account of the water when it loses its velocity and volume the silt begins to
settle and the water spreads and that causes the river to meander, and our
great trouble is from there down here [indicating! because it is up on a ridge.
Now right here, at this place <>n the Arizona side, the Government levee, the
river broke in last year on account of this meandering and widening of the
river. That is 17 miles from Yuma on the levee of the Government |" indicating).
Now we go on farther down here.
Mr. KAKKK. That is south V
Mr. NICKKUSON. That is south: we are going south. We i_ r et down here about
'2~i miles and there we have cut the river into what is known as Bee River.
We have made a cut there that cost sn.'.n.iHM) this year. We have spent on a
132 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
railroad here about $100.000 in order to get it down to this Bee River change.
Now all this part of it has a tendency to work over in this direction, toward
the Imperial Valley, and yon can see from the map here the way the river
runs: it meanders from one side to the other because there are no banks and
it has no grade and it just runs from one side to the other.
Mr. RAKER. That is north and west?
.Mi'. XICKERSOX. It runs north and then west. yes. sir.
Mr. SIXXOTT. Where is the Mexican line there?
Mr. XICKERSOX. Way up here, north. There is the Mexican line (indicating
on map].
Mr. RAKER. How far is this Bee River from the Mexican boundary line?
Mr. XICKERSOX. From our boundary line it is about 25 miles t<> where we
are making that change in there. There is where we made our tight this
year and we have held it so far, but I want to show you gentlemen it is all
temporary work we are doing there, fighting for life to get through from one
year to the other.
Mr. HrnsPETH. That is in Mexico?
Mr. XICKERSOX. Yes, sir. all this money that we have spent we have spent
over $12,000.000 in the last four or five years, and I have got itemized state-
ments to show that.
Mr. HUDSPETH. How much money?
.Mr. XICKERSOX. $12,000,000. I have got an itemized statement that I am
going to file with yon showing that.
Mr. SINXOTT. That is money you have spent in Mexico?
Mr. NICKERSOX. Yes. sir : in Mexico.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. To protect your water supply?
Mr. XICKERSOX. Taking our water through there and buying machinery and
dredging canals, and so forth, at the expense of the people on the American
side of the line, and the people on the Mexican side just pay for the water
but do not pay for the expense, and we have to go down through their country.
Xow. you see here is a canal that we run down into their country [indicating].
We run out to here, to Volcano Lake, Black Butte, and then we run back
into the United States. We maintain all that and the levee, take care of it
and sell them the water at the same price that we sell it on the American
side, but they do not pay the maintenance of it ; then we have to tax the people
on the American side to make up the deficiency from the water sales, which
amounts to $7 per acre per year on the American side, and on the Mexican
side it only costs them $2.50.
Mr. RAKER. The levee you speak of is designated on the map as Volcano
Lake Levee?
Mr. XICKERSON. Yes, sir : and we have a canal running right along there
and running back into the United States.
Here is aonther proposition I want to show you. If we take this water
through on the American side you can see the length of mileage we will cut
out and the amount of evaporation.
Mr. SINNOTT. What is the difference in the mileage between the straight
one and the Mexican one?
Mr. XICKERSOX. Well, there would be
Mr. STXNOTT (interposing). Two sides of the triangle against one?
Mr. XICKERSOX. Yes, sir; just about.
Mr. SINNOTT. Do you know the mileage?
Mr. XICKERSOX. Xot exactly : I do not. We have got 135 miles of canals,
main canals through which we deliver this water in Mexico.
Mr. HUDSPETH. Do you know the distance of the American caii.-il. what ir
would be?
Mr. XICKERSOX. It is on that paper folder.
Mr. HERRICK. If we build the all-American canal those canals in Mexico
will remain, but they will not deliver water across into the United States any
more : is that it ?
Mr. XICKERSON. That is it.
Mr. HERKICK. And that will enable you to make those fellows come Through
with some maintenance, will it?
Mr. XICKERSOX. Well, we want to give them the water up here [indicating].
We pay for the canals and everything and we don't want to take the water
away from them : we do not want to do anything unfair, but we do want
them to pay their proportionate part and take the water that belongs to them
and take care of it. but not at our expense.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN. 133
Mr. HUDSPETH. If you built this all-American canal, Mr. Nickerson, would
it be necessary to keep any maintenance on this other canal in Mexico?
Mr. NICKERSON. No ; we would not be doing any business there. If they
had any water coming to them they could take it right here at the time. And
as a staled yesterday, we are carrying water in there and they are develop ng
land at the rate of 25,000 acres a year. You are encouraging them to do that
and giving them an arbitrary right to the water by using it.
I just want to show you the conditions that we are facing, and why anyone
would object and would not get in and try to remedy it I can't understand.
Mr. RAKER. Supposing the American canal was built; then we still would
have this canal running across here marked "Alamo Canal"?
Mr. NICKEKSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. And also the levee known as the Volcano Lake Levee, coming
down here to Volcano Lake?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes.
Mr. RAKER. And then the Solfatara Canal, which irrigates land in Lower
California on the Mexican side, which could be irrigated by those people and
they would be protected from this flood and silt that now comes down.
Mr. NICKERSON. The canal is there and we would possibly have to help them
some, you know, in controlling the water, but we would not have to carry our
water through there and maintain canals and give them 1 free transportation.
Mr. RAKER. What I am getting at is that nobody would be able to say, if
they looked at the situation fully, that you would be doing an injustice to any-
body ; it would be a help to them as well as an absolute saving of yourselves on
the California side.
Mr. NICKERSON. Well, I would not say it would be a help to them. It would
not be a financial help. The Government could say how much water they had
coming and give it to them.
Mr. RAKER. If they are just paying for the vahie of the water, irrespective
of the maintenance and upkeep and flood control, wouldn't it be an advantage
to those people in Mexico as well, if they are entitled to any water?
Mr. NICKERSON. Sure they would get the benefit of the flood control, which
they are holding their hands up now for.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Nickerson, will those Mexican land owners con-
tribute in a financial way to the construction of this Boulder Canyon Reser-
voir?
Mr. NICKERSON. No. I do not think so, and I do not think the Government
would take it. or let them come in as a partner anyway. They would get the
benefit of it ; it would increase the value of their land at least $50 an acre,
possibly $100.
Mr. HERRICK. Is this land here worth anything to anybody [Indicating] ?
Mr. NTCKKKSON. Yes, that is good land if you keep the water off of it.
Mr. HKRRICK. It is nothing but a swamp now.
.Mr. HAYDEN. Unless there was adequate storage provided on the Colorado
River, even if the ail-American canal was built you would still have to go
down into Mexico to maintain the levees?
Mr. NICKERSON. To a certain extent. There would not be much, because the
flood water would be taken care of.
Mr. IIAYDKX. You evidently misunderstood my question. I said in case the
Boulder Canyon dam, that you advocate, or other storage on the Colorado
River was not provided, then the construction of the all-Amcrican canal would
merely give the Imperial irrigation district control of the irrigating water
but you would still have to negotiate with Mexico every year over the levee
problem. The important thing is storage of the flood waters, and the all-Ameri-
ca n canal is of secondary importance to your people.
Mr. NICKKKSON. Storage is first, water second, and power third. That is the
way we figure it.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you think if they had the all-American canal there
would be such a quantity of water go down into Mexico as to make it danger--
ous to Imperial Valley?
Mr. HAYDEN. The amount of water in the Colorado River at flood stage is
so great that the ail-American canal would only take a very small part of
it. The flood menace would continue to exist just as it docs now. and that
would compel negotiations with Mexico each y<iir regarding the levee. With
that as a club the Mexicans could probably force the people in the Imperial
Valley to make concessions to them ; bxit if the floods first are controlled
then it would not be necessary for the people of the Imperial Valley to go
1,34 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
into Mexico to maintain the levees. If the all-Ameriean canal is built the
water for the irrigation of Imperial Valley can be transported entirely
through the United States and the Imperial Irrigation District can cut com-
pletely loose from Mexico. There would then be no compulsion of any kind
on the people of the Imperial Valley to do anything. Rut storage must come
tirst.
Mr. LIXEHERGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Hayden one ques-
tion, if I may.
Mr. SWING. I suggest that you let Mr. Nickerson finish, because he has only
a little time left, and then we can ask these questions of each other after that.
Mr. LIXEBERGER. It is very pertinent to the question.
Mr. SWING. He has only five minutes left.
Mr. SIXNOTT. Mr. Nickerson. how do you care for your surplus and drain-
age water from the all- American canal?
Mr. NICKERSON. We have the Alamo Canal. We have the Alamo liiver that
runs right down through our territory through the Imperial Valley into the
Salt on Sea. And they have got a lot of water that runs in there too. irrigat-
ing their part of it, waste water that runs in there.
Mr. Hrusi'KTH. Mr. Xickerson, I do not understand Mr. Hayden's conten-
tion. Probably I do not understand the topography of the country there and
how that water runs. Now, I have understood that if you construct your
American canal we would have nothing to do with Mexico; it would not he
necessary to maintain the canal down there. Now, where would you get your
overflow from the Mexican side? Does it run back into the United States?
Mr. NICKERSON. Oh, yes; the overflow if there was any flood water come
over our levees it would go right down into the Unite;! States.
Mr. Hrusi'ETH. I understand now. I did not understand, and I wanted to
get that clear.
Mr. NICKERSON. Now, you were speaking about the canal.
This canal is shorter, and it opens up a lot of land several thousand acres of
land up in there and that will go to the soldier boys. And it will be very
valuable land. There is land like that worth $1,000 an acre. I want to say. that
is adapted to fruit, grapefruit, and grapes in the valley now. There is very
little of that kind of land in the valley, and some of it is worth $1,000 an acre
that was put into grapes three years old.
Rut the flood water is the keynote to the whole situation taking care of the
flood water. Mexico will get water just the same. We don't want to take any-
thing away from them. As I tell you, it will benetit their land from $")0 to $100
an acre. The flood water is the tirst thing.
Here is our canal [indicating I : here are the headings, concrete headings that
we put in there at a cost of from s.~>0.000 to $10O.ooo. They can have them.
We have got to go off and leave them. And they can get their water: we do not
hinder them in the least in any way.
Mr. SWING. Suppose you put before the committee the actual situation here
with reference to that matter.
Mr. NICKKKSON. There is Volcano Lake; there is our main protection from the
water coming in [indicating!. There are hot mud geysers going up into the air
there two or three hundred feet high from this volcanic eruption.
Mr. SWING. Are those levees on both sides of our canal?
Mr. NICKKKSOX. Yes, sir: it is built right across them, and it is built out of a
very light silt. It is the silt that has settled there, and it doesn't make a good
levee. I am a construction man. I have followed that business all my life
waterworks, levees, railroads, and everything of that kind and I know what
we are talking about. The tirst year they are built they are pretty fair, but as
soon as they dry they contract, and then cracks come in them, and the water
goes right through them. The soil is so light yon can't make good levees out of
it at all. Now, we are subject to that difficulty.
On the lower side of that levee it is filled up inside about 10 feet. If that
did break there would be a drop of about 10 feet and it would just start to
cutting back, and I think I mentioned yesterday it would cut right back up
through into Yuma and possibly destroy the La gun a Dam. There are lots of
engineers who think it is possible for it to do that.
Mr. HTJDSPETH. Where is Yuma?
Mr. NICKERSON. Up in here f indicating].
Mr. SWING. You have been on this levee many times during flood seasons.
have you not?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 135
Mr. SWING. What amount of water Ls there pressing against that levee during
the high-water season? How far back have you seen that water V
Mr. XICKERSON. It will run clear back to the Arizona line. That will be 20 to
25 miles of flood water. It runs in here, and then it gets up to 8 or 10 feet
and then it creates a grade and that makes it go south. The grade to the
west into Imperial Valley is greater than it is to the south, but after the water
gets in and backs up, it goes to the south.
Mr. SWING. How deep is the water here where it backs up against the canal?
Mr. XICKERSON. It is 12 to 16 feet deep, and I have seen it go clear over the
top of it.
Mr. RAKER. In ordinary stages of that water where is the main channel of
that river, commencing from your intake there and running on down till it
strikes the Gulf of Lower California?
Mr. XICKERSON. It runs down through here and runs against this levee here
[indicating],
Mr. RAKER. Before the levee was there it must have run some place; where
did it run?
Mr. XICKERSON. It ran promiscuously over in this country [indicating]. The
old channel is here and then it changed.
Mr. RAKER. Xow you saw it before they put that levee in there, did you not?
Mr. XICKERSON. Xo : I did not not that particular part of it.
Mr. SWING. There was a very small levee there formerly. 3 or 4 feet high.
How high is it now?
. .Mr. XICKERSON. It is about 15 feet
Mr. RAKER. You do not quite get my question. Before the Imperial Valley
people put this dam in. and their ditch, and before any work was done toward
turning water into Imjierial Valley it did not. overflow nor was there any
high water: where did the water run, and designate it on the map, if you can.
Then I want to ask you a couple of other questions.
Mr. XICKERSON. I went down the old channel here [indicating].
Mr. SWING. Marked on the map "Channel of the Colorado River prior to
1908."
Mr. XICKKRSON. Yes.
Mr. RAKER. Xow, we have got that. What prevents the water from running
in the old channel you have up there by the Bee River?
Mr. XICKEKSON. It is filled up with sand now.
Mr. RAKER. Xow let me ask you this iiuestion the engineers have made
statements here, and of course, they ought to know something about it tak-
ing the statement of my colleague. Mr. Hayden, if the reservoir is put in at
what is the place on the Gila River?
Mr. HAYDEN. The San Carlos Dam.
Mr. RAKEI:. Take ibis statement that tluit will hold back the flood waters,
and take the statement of the engineers and also of Mr. Hoover that the
Boulder Canyon Dam alone will bold the flood water for at least two years and
a half, if not three years, will you tell the committee what there is there to
prevent, or what there is there that would cause the destruction of the Vol-
cano Lake levee and these other works, and why the river could not be con-
trolled by putting it back into its old channel?
Mr. XICKERSON. There isn't any reason in the world. It can be put back.
Mr. RAKEK. If the flood waters from the (iila and Colorado are controlled
and can be controlled by these two dams from one to three years, couldn't the
old channel there by the Bee River be easily be put back in the old channel
and maintained at very moderate expense?
Mr. XICKKRSON. Well, it can be maintained where it is easier than it can
be put back in the old channel. It could be done, but who is going to pay for it?
Mr. RAKEU. I am not asking about who is going to pay for it; I am asking
if that is not quite possible?
Mr. XICKERSON. It is possible. You can put that river anywhere after you
get the water controlled. I know that San Carlos canal : the dam site is a good
one and it ought to be put in.
Mr. RAKER. If the floods in the river are thus controlled from two to three
years, and only the ordinary Hood would come down to the Ynma Dam, what
would be your judgment as to The amount of expense that would entail to throw
the river down in here [indicating], from where it is a well-defined river, down
to a little east of Bee River and come down the old channel?
1316 22 PT 3 5
136 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Mr. NICKERSON. That has grown up with trees as big as your body, all the
way down. It would be a big expense to throw it back into the old channel,
hut where it. is now it can be easily maintained. There is not much expense.
Mr. RAKER. You mean where it is now. not if you diverted the channel?
Mr. NICKERSON. That is the straightest and most direct route, as I can show
you on the map here, right into the Gulf. Now, if you throw it in here, in the
old channel [indicating], you have got to go right over that reclamation project.
Mr. RAKER. When- would it be most feasible to have it?
Mr. NICKERSON. Right in here [indicating].
Mr. RAKER. That being the case, you would not be affected by virtue of the
overflow; that would be avoided. We are talking now about the physical end
of it.
Mr. NICKERSON. It would be absolutely avoided, because there would not be
any water there ; it would be held back in the reservoirs.
Mr. RAKER. Have you explained to the committee how the river was diverted
from Bee River into the tributaries at Pescadero?
Mr. NICKERSON. We put in a rock dam right there [indicating].
Mr. RAKER. And did you make a cut?
Mr. NICKERSON. We made a cut there that cost $250,000.
Mr. RAKER. What was the nature of that cut?
Mr. NICKERSON. We built three channels, 300 feet wide, and turned the river
into it by damming the Colorado River, driving piles and putting in rocks and
making a diversion here [indicating].
Mr. HAYDEN. How did you ascertain that it was feasible to make the Pes-
cadero cut?
Mr. NICKERSON. By finding the grade that was in There.
Mr. HAYI>EN. By making a survey of the country it was found that there
was a depression through which, if you diverted the water by a cut. the river
would run instead of extending over and against the present levee?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes. sir.
Mr. HAYDEN. How long do you estimate that it will take for this Pescadero
section of the delta to fill up with mud, just as Volcano Lake filled up?
Mr. NICKERSON. I have asked that question of several engineers and they
tell me there isn't a man living that can tell. It might run this year; it might
run next year; it might fill up this year. There is no one that can give us
any definite statement as to how long it will last.
Mr. HAYDEN. How long did it take the river to fill Volcano Lake?
Mr. NICKERSON. We have been there ever since the break in 1909.
Mr. HAYDEN. In 11 years the river has filled up Volcano Lake about how
much?
Mr. NICKERSON. About 8 or 10 feet.
Mr. HAYDEN. Eight or ten feel of silt all over that area, so that now the
Volcano Lake section of the country has filled up higher than the Pescadero
section ?
Mr. NICKERSON. Oh, no ; as I said a while ago, this river here is 20 feet
higher than that levee than the top of the levee.
Mr. HAYDEN. Was there a ridge between the Pescadero drainage area and
Volcano Lake which you cut through, so that the water could run into the
Pescadero ?
Mr. NICKERSON. There is no ridge off that way. but there is a ridge where
the river has piled up and spread out. Then it breaks round it. But you don't
want to get it into your head. I don't think, about throwing it back into this
old channel, Mr. Raker, because this is the most direct and best way.
Mr. RAKER. I know; but you said this would affect the Arizona side. Now,
there is the old channel that can be used clear down to the Bee River.
Mr. NICKERSON. Well, it used to run here, you know [indicating].
Mr. RAKER. Yes: it is marked there.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is not that an engineering problem that this committee
can not solve?
Mr. RAKER. I do not think so. Now. it would not touch the Arizona side if
the water ran there in ordinary stages when there is no flood.
Mr. NICKERSON. If you took the water out there [indicating] it would not
hurt anybody, because there would not be much going through there.
Mr. RAKER. As a matter of fact, the floods in HIP (lila being controlled by the
San Carlos Dam, as stated, and in the Colorado by the Boulder Creek Dam,
as stated, the ordinary flow of the water that would then remain in the
Colorado River below the Yuma Dam could be easily handled and would in
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 137
no way jeopardize the irrigation of hinds below in cither California or Lower
California, and it would cost but little to handle it.
Mr. NICKEKSON. Absolutely. Very little.
Mr. SWING. About this Hood situation, may I ask that you state what, in
your opinion, would he the comparison of the catastrophe that would happen
to the property and lives of American citizens if the river should break at
Volcano Lake levee now, as compared with the break which did occur in 1905.
That was a nationally known catastrophe.
Mr. NICKEHSO.N. We have got $100,000,000 worth of property down there in
the valley, and there must be $25,000,000 on the Mexican side.
Mr. SWING. Would it be greater or less than that of 1905?
Mr. NICKEKSOX. It would be greater, because there is more property.
Mr. SWING. Proportionately, bow much greater would it be?
Mr. NICKEKSON. Thant it was then?
Mr. SWING. Yes.
Mr. NICKEKSON. I would say twice as great ; probably more.
Mr. SWING. Then there were 5,000 people in Imperial Valley; now there are
50,000 10 times as many people and 10 times as much property.
How much more water would there be to rush in on the valley if there was
a break now than there was then?
Mr. NICKERSON. The natural How of the river is probably 150,000 or 200.000;
then you have all of this backed up in this lake [indicating] 20 miles wide.
Mr. SWING. In 1905 you had only the natural flow of the river?
Mr. XICKKHSON. Yes.
Mr. RAKKK. You are assuming now this country as it exists at the present
time, being subject to flood, are you not?
Mr. NICKEKSON. Y'es.
Mr. KAKEK. But if the Hoods of the Colorado and the Crila were controlled,
this question that you have now confronting you relative to the breaks as well
as to the cost of maintenance and upkeep, would be obliterated.
Mr. NICKEKSON. Absolutely. It woulud be a very small matter; would not
amount to anything at all.
Mr. RAKER. So. on that question of the Alamo Canal and the levee, and this
other canal running from Volcano Lake west and north, that could be used at a
very moderate expense in upkeep if the Hoods were controlled, and when the
flood control is maintained at Boulder Canyon and on the Gila, the question
involved relative to the American Canal is a question of the difficulty between
the American and the Mexican canals.
Mr. NICKERSON. It is not any question of difficulty between them at all : it is
simply taking care of our own property and getting out of a revolutionary
country. And everybody would receive a beneHt, Judge; the Mexican people
would receive a beneHt on account of the floods over their lands being con-
trolled.
Mr. RAKER. Now. I want you to draw a distinction. Do not let the facts
as they exist govern your answer. If the floods are controlled you have the
dams, the ditches, the intakes, and you would not be bothered with these
floods?
Mr. NICKERSON. Absolutely not.
Mr. RAKER. The silt would be provided for by the dam; therefore you could
control and irrigate not only the lands in Mexico but the lands in Colifornia
with an ordinary expenditure for maintenance and upkeep.
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. RAKER. So as a matter of fact the question of the All-American canal,
so far as this land is concerned, is a question of difference between the citizens
of California and Lower California relative to the payment of the maintenance
and upkeep.
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes.
Mr. SWING. That is part of it. Now, Mr. Nickerson. will you tell the com-
mittee briefly the reason why we must get out of Mexico and give up this situa-
tion and get a new intake, resulting from the trouble between the c'tizens of
Arizona and the citizens of California?
Mr. NTCKERSON. I am well acquainted with that. We have to build a weir.
a diversion dam in here [indicating] to get the water into our intake on the
Colorado River, and the Colorado River is divided between California and
Arizona. This diversion backs the water up and it is a menace to the Arizona
side. There isn't any question about that, and we have to get down on our
138 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
knees and beg them every year in order to get a weir in there. It is just a year
to year proposition, and they are after us all the time saying, " Why don't
you do something?" Then we have an injunction hanging over our heads now
to stop us, and it may throw us into court most any time, and it' we should have
to go into court and be held up there for any length of time it would mean ruin
for the Imperial Valley, absolutely.
Now we have been saying to them, and we have a contract with the Govern-
ment to move our heading up to Laguna Dam in that diversion
Mr. RAKEB (interposing). Before you pass that let us get the facts so that
we may know how we are acting and the facts are what you want to give
us suppose you put your weir in at your intake now on the Colorado River:
when there is an ordinary flow in the river, which means simply enough to
irrigate the land below, would or would there not be any question of a hood.
so far as the Arizona side was concerned?
Mr. NICKERSON. Not with an ordinary river, but when the flood comes
Mr. RAKEB (interposing). I want to eliminate the flood.
Mr. NICKERSON. Well. yes.
Mr. RAKER. Just a moment now I want to get the facts: I want to get
something upon which to act, and I am asking you if. assuming now that the
floods are controlled by the Boulder Canyon Dam and the dam in the Gila
River; then there will be an ordinary flow at your intake, and that being the
case, assuming that to be the fact, the silt being held back by the dam. would
there be danger of flooding the Arizona side with the river in the condition thus
stated ?
Mr. NICKERSON. I do not think so. But then we have got to get out of
Mexico ; we can't get out of Mexico with it now. We have got to go up the
river 20 miles in order to get out with diversion so as to get on higher ground.
Mr. SWING. There will be no danger of floods in Arizona after th:s Boulder
Canyon Dam is built, unless we have to put this weir hack in the river.
Mr. NICKERSON. If we raise the elevation of the water, then seepage comes in
to bother them. If we raise the elevation they are subject to seepage.
Mr. SWING. Have you the agreement there which they wanted you to sign?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SWING. That presents the view of Arizona clearly.
Mr. NICKERSOX. I will not have time to read hardly any of it, but we have
to put up a bond to protect them.
Mr. RAKER. Put it in the record.
Mr. NICKERSON. All right. We mave to put up a bond of $500.000 to protect
the Yuma Water Users' Association. I have a copy of the contract that they
want us to sign this year, and then we have to sign a death warrant besides
to get that.
Mr. RAKER. Let that go into the record, will you?
Mr. NICKERSON. Yes. Then I have also a statement showing comparison
of costs of operation in Mexico.
Mr. RAKEK. Now. assuming that the Boulder Canyon dam is in. with its
control of water for two or three years on the Colorado : with the Gila con-
trolled by the San Carlos dam ; with the floods controlled and only enough
water coming down to irrigate the lands that need irrigation, would there be a
raise in the water at the weir above the ordinary level so as to in any way
affect either the California or Arizona lands that are now being irrigated?
Mr. NICKERSON. On the California side it would not, but it would in Arizona,
yes, because they are farming right up near this weir: on our side it is rocky
and hills, so we do not irrigate anything there. But that would not do us any
good to get down into Mexico.
Mr. RAKER. I want to leave out any question about Mexico and confine the
question to the facts, because after that I am going to put another question,
hut I am just gett'ng the physical facts now.
Mr. NICKERSON. Have I answered that question?
Mr. RAKER. Yes, you have answered that pretty well now.
Mr. SWING. I want to ask unanimous consent of the committee to put into
the record this agreement prepared by the Yuma County Water Users' Associa-
tion, which they have asked the Imperial Valley irrigation district to sign as
a condition for diverting water this year from the river.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho (presiding i. Without objection it may go into the
record.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN.
139
(The papers referred to follow:)
Statement xjioi
ro>i>]i<iri*on of coxfx of operation in Me.rico.
period Man 1. 191(1, to Mail 1.
;/r'//.s- from
[Costs, Hanlon heading and valley division in Mexico ; amounts shown are to nearest
dollar.]
1916
(May to
Decem-
ber).
1917
(entire
calendar
year).
1918
(entire
calendar
year).
1919
(entire
calendar
year).
1920
(entire
calendar
year).
1921
(entire
calendar
year).
To Mav 1,
1922.
Orand
totals.
Operating expense*. .
Protective work..
$389, 779
219,281
$730,2*4
170,655
1785,662
395,488
$943, 592
545, 958
$861,190
633,020
$503,309
469,640
$18(1,731
123,387
$4,401,537
2, 557, 429
Additions and better-
ments.
272, OSO
517, 544
822, 213
611,714
333,140
633
3,210
2, 560, 534
Equipment pur-
chased . . .
3,995
186,882
382, 571
05, 349
287, 024
4,343
2,308
932, 472
Interest and discount
on district bonds...
Miscellaneous inter-
est, etc
139, 5G3
8,930
350, 2(54
26,029
523,527
19,648
349,310
20,874
336,638
60,449
434,411
15,960
194, 232
2,333,951
151,890
Totals
1,033,628
1.9*7,6JS
2, 930, 099
2, 536, 803
2,511,401
1,428,296
509,868
12,937,813
Drlagline equipment purchased 1921 was charged to protective work and readjusted 1922, $126,592.06.
Statement xlioiritnj comparison of costs of operations in 3fr.ri.cft, May 1, 1916. to
Man ./. l'.>2.>.
Operation :
Water distribution $960, 000. 00
I>redsring, cleaning canals, etc.
Mexico 1,070,240.00
Intake Andrade 1. 502, 000. 00
Miscellaneous, maintenance of levees, canals, and structures. 1.319.297.00
Total 4. 401, 537. 00
Additions and betterment*.
Structures :
Ilockwood <Jt
si'61.120. 15
Oil and water tanks_
6,0&1.49
I>rit't boom
8, 060. 46
Power. and tele-
phones
51. 70
We<t side main
heading _
12. S07. 85
headgate tecolote
5, 270. 40
Tort u oso drop
11.037.15
Tortuoso wasteway
and trestle
27, 407. 31
Alamo waste
86, 464. 81)
By-pass gate sharps-
12,917.51
Wanllaw check
:!_'. 928. 66
Wistaria check
29. 915. 2s
K;isj side headgate_
55. 965. 95
Cudahv check
74.:::.
Bulkhead. Cudahv
check
20, 325. 09
Wistaria wasteway-
46, 117.30
Kncina chute
13,567.40
l-'.ridges across va-
ricii- canals
14, 972. 20
Sharpes heading
134, 096. 69
Miscellaneous
172. 907. 14
1. 076, 763. 13
Canal system :
Rockwood intake __ 152.221.79
( Vrro Prieto Canal _ 266. r.2'.. 59
Solfatara 147. 857. 99
Tecolote cut 215, 869. 88
Alamo Canal (cut-
offs) 158, 948. 72
Dermara cut 16, 547. 70
Alamo Canal train-
ing _ 158, 125. 82
Widening Cerro Pri-
eto 108, 780. 14
Alamo Mocho cut 35, 295. 33
Carrillo cut 88, 2(53. 41
Alamo Canal levee
K. S. heading 6, 976. 41
1,355,416.78
Buildings :
Town site and build-
ings
Employees' build-
ings, Andrade. and
offices; also ware-
houses
Hydrographers' and
watchmen's houses
20, (50:2.34
63, 938. 90
16,240.95
100. 782. 19
140 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Equipment, liny 1. 1916. 1>i Mai/ 1. ?.'..'>.
Roadway and tracks :
Air compressor and
equipment $10. 585. 73
Locomotives, cars, dredges,
etc. :
Locomotives 36, 342. 40
Dump cars 128, 717. 14
Spreader 11,094.81
Monighan dredges 40, 972. 86
Locomotives, etc. Cout'd.
Marion dredges *12. noo. no
Suction dredges 360, 300. 48
Cranes 37. 358. "-I'
Miscellaneous 17. 607. 76
654. 980. 00
Quarry, Andrade 27. 571. 90
IMPERIAL II;JU<;ATIO.N DISTRICT. June 1~>. l!i.l.>.
Mr. NICKKKSON. The attached agreement for 1022 with the Yuma Connty
'Vater Users' Association was received after I had written my letter. Look
it over, the board has not taken any action on it yet.
F. H. MtlvER.
AGREEMENT.
1. This indenture, made this 6th day of June. 1922. between Imperial Irri-
gation District, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California, and doing business in Imperial County. State
of California, hereinafter called and referred to as the district, and Yuma
County Water Users' Association, a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Arizona, and doing business at Yuma, Stare of
Arizona, acting for and on behalf of its. and all of its, Constituent members
and shareholders; hereinafter called and referred to as the association: \vit-
nesseth.
2. Whereas the district is engaged in the business of appropriating and di-
verting irrigation waters from the flow of the Colorado River at a point in
said liver known as Hanlon's heading, at. or near, fractional sections tliirtv-
five and thirty-six (35 and 36). township sixteen (16) south, range twenty-one
(21) east, San Bernardino meridian, in Yuma County. State of Arizona, for
the irrigation and reclamation of many hundreds of thousands of acres in Im-
perial Valley, Imperial County. State of California, known as Imperial Valley
irrigation project ; and
3. Whereas, in order to secure a sufficient flow of irrigation water to prop-
erly irrigate and reclaim said lands, and to prevent the same from returning
to their original desert condition, it is now necessary to erect, and temporarily
maintain, during low-water periods in said river, a dam, or weir, in said river.
at or near said Hanlon's heading : and
4. Whereas the installation and maintenance of said dam tends to create
such a condition in the flow of the waters of said Colorado River as to endan-
ger the works of the Yuma project of the United States Reclamation Service,
and the lands and property of the association, and its constituent members
and shareholders ; and
5. Whereas the association has granted its permission that ;i weir, or dam.
may be constructed and maintained at said point in said river from July 1.
1922. until July 1, 1923, subject to certain conditions, provisos, and exceptions
hereinafter more fully set forth; and has stipulated and agreed that a certain
temporary restraining order heretofore issued out of the Superior Court of the
State of Arizona, in case No. 2429. and now in force and effect in said court,
wherein the said association and others are plaintiffs, and the said district and
others are defendants, restraining and enjoining the district herein from erect-
ing and maintaining any weir, or dam, at said point, shall be so modified as to
permit the erection and maintenance of a weir, or dam. therein during said
last-mentioned period: and not to further prosecute said suit during such period.
6. Now, therefore, the said district in consideration of the foregoing, does
hereby promise, undertake, and agree that, if it becomes necessary for the ac-
complishment of said purpose to erect and temporarily maintain a dam. or
weir, in and across the Colorado River, at or near said Hanlon's heading, as.
hereinbefore described, that it shall construct the same out of brush, without
the use of any rock whatsoever, and that said brush shall be erected and main-
tained on the top of the crest of the rock dam and weir heretofore erected by
the district so as to hold the water at no greater height than is necessary for
the diversion of the amount of water actually required for the irrigation of the
lands of said district and that said brush wier. or dam, and the materials com-
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 141
posing the same, shall be held and maintained in place by a system of piling
driven through, and erected upon the crest of said rock dam or as near thereto
as practicable ; if necessary said system of piling to be used in conjunction
with certain guy ropes and ties made fast to certain dolphin anchors erected in
said river immediately above said rock dam. the height to which the dam is
to be maintained and the extent of said system of piling to be subject to control
by the project manager of the Yuma project: and the district further prom-
ises, agrees, and undertakes to remove ;ill of said brush dam. or weir, from out
of said river on, or prior to. July 1, 1923, and at any other time between said
July 1, 1922, and July 1. 1923, that Porter J. Preston, project manager of the
Yuma project of the United States Reclamation Service, or William Wisener,
president of the association, or Maj. E. D. Ardery, district engineer United
States Army, or their successors in office, shall deem the maintenance of said
dam to, in any way, endanger any of the works of said Y"uma project, or any
of the lands or property of the association, or its shareholders and constituent
members, or any land within said Yuma project on either side of said Colorado
River ; and the district hereby undertakes and agrees to keep and maintain at,
or near, said dam a sufficient amount of explosives to immediately blow out and
remove said dam to such an extent as will permit the free flow of the Colorado
River to the southward, so that the same will not endanger any of said property.
7. And the said district further stipulates and agrees, that the permission
so given to erect and temporarily ma ntain such a dam. or weir, in the Colorado
Riyer at said point, and the permission heretofore given frr the erection and
maintenance of dams and weirs across the Colorado R'ver. at. or near, said
point, and their erection and maintenance, and the giving, in the future, of
permission to erect and maintain such dams and weirs, shall net be taken, held
or deemed, nor shall either of them IK- taken, held or deemed, not to be of
irreparable injury to the association, its shareholders and constituent mem-
bers: and the granting of said permission, and the erection and maintenance
of said dams or weirs, shall he without prejudice to the right of the associa-
tion, its shareholders and constituent members, to have entered in sa : d su't
No. 242!). or any other proceeding, in any ether court of competent jurisdiction,
upon due and sufficient evidence, a decree permanently restraining the district
from constructing and maintaining such weir, or weirs, or any weir. dam. or
dams, across said river.
8. And the district, in consideration of the premises as hereinbefore set frrth,
docs hereby further promise, agree and undertake to pay to the association,
its shareholders and constituent members all damages that may result to
them, or to either, or any of them, from injury to their person or property
because of the erection or maintenance of said brush dam. or weir, or the
ma ntenance of the rock base upon which the same shall be constructed as
hereinbefore described, and the district further promises, undertakes, and
agrees to pay the ass* ( iation its shareholders and constituent members, any
and all damages that may result to them, or either of them or any of them,
because of the erection or maintenance of the n-maining portions of all. or
any. of the nek dams or weirs heretofore placed in said Colorado River at. or
near. sa>'d point, including what is known as the Clark Dam or weir.
9. And it is further stipulated and agreed that the association, or either
or any of its constituent members or shareholders, may sue hereunder in their
own right, and without joining any < ther party hereto as a party plaintiff;
rrori'li'tl. l/dir<T< r. That if more than one of the said shareholders cr constit-
uent members should separately sue the district for such damage, all of
said actions sc brought in the same court may be consolidated and tried as
one action, each plaintiff recovering the amount of damage that he or she
shall have suffered, as finally determined by such court.
10. The district, for and in consideration of said premises, further promises,
covenants, and agrees to entirely remove from out of the bed cf (he Colorado
River, on or before December :>0. 1923. all. and all parts of any, and all dams
and weirs, piles and piling, rock and brush anchors, guys. ties, and all <<ther
material whatsoever placed, or caused to lie placed, there'n by the district or
its predecessors iii the ownership and < peration of said Imperial Valley irriga-
tion projects, at any time whatsoever for the purpose of impeding the How of
said river, and raising the height of the waters thereof so that the same would
more freely flow into the irrigation canals of the district. < r any of its pred-
ecessors, and to the extent that all of the waters >f the Colorado River shall
flow as freely to the southward as said waters did flow prior to the placing
of any obstructions in the !>o<] therecf by the district, or any of its said pred-
ecessors.
142 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
11. It is understood and agreed that the district shall furnish a satisfactory
surety bond in the sum of live hundred thousand dollars < s.loo.<KX> > to the
United States of America anil the association, as joint and several obligees,
to reimburse them for any damage resulting from the erection or maintenance
or said dam or weir, and conditioned for the removal of all of said obstruc-
tions from said river. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the event
of a failure of the district to fully comply with the conditions of paragraph
ten (10) that the bond of $500.000 shall be forfeited as liquidated damages
and shall not be considered a penalty, but the proceeds thereof shall be used
by the association for the removal of the rock, brush, and other obstructions
left in the river bed; and that a recovery, or recoveries, on said bond shall
not be a bar to any action, or actions, by the association, or its constituent
members, or any of them, in- the event that they, or either of them, should
be damaged greater because of the district's breach of any of the terms or
covenants of this agreement: it being understood and agreed that the district
undertakes, promises, and agrees to pay all the damage that may result because
of its breach of any, or all, of the terms, conditions, and covenants of this agree-
ment, notwithstanding the execution and delivery of any bond, or bonds, or
any recovery thereon. And in the event of damage accruing, and said bond
becoming exhausted in whole or in part, during the life of this agreement, the
district agrees to furnish additional security and assurance so that there will
always be during the life of this agreement security against damage to the
association in the sum of $500,0oo.
12. In consideration of the foregoing premises the district hereby agrees
to hold the association harmless in the event it may be required or compelled
to pay the rent payable on April 1. 1923. and April']. 1024. and April 1. lirjfi,
reserved in that certain lease for the term of three years entered into under
date of April 1, 1J)22. between Agnes ('. Heineman and husband, and the as-
sociation for certain lands lying west of the United States Reclamation Service
levee in section 36. T. 16 S., R. 21 E., San Bernardino meridian, in Yuraa
County, Ariz., and the district further agrees to hold the association free and
harmless from all costs, expense, liability, and damage accruing or resulting
to the association because of any lease, license, or permit given or granted,
expressly or impliedly. by this instrument, or by assignment of. or subletting
under, said lease, or otherwise, by the association to the district for the
en ction or maintenance of said temporary dam or weir, or for the erection
or maintenance of any structure or structures on said land for the erection
or maintenance of said dam or weir.
18. The district further agrees, as a condition subsequent, to promptly, ami
with diligence and in good faith, take such necessary steps as shall be re-
quired under the laws of the State of California to procure funds sufficient
for the procuring and construction of another heading, and diversion struc-
tures with a sufficient aqueduct, on the Colorado River, at Laguna Iam. in
accordance with the terms of the contract between the district and the Sec-
retary of the Interior dated October i_':$. 1918. In the event of the district
failing to comply with the terms of this condition subsequent, the association
may. at its option, declare this agreement null and void and revoke all license
an ! permits granted hereunder. And in the event of the procuring said
funds the said district further covenants and agrees, within three months
after the procuring of said funds, to begin in good faith (strikes, injunctions,
and acts of God cxcepted.) the construction of the necessary works for the
procuring of said other heading and diversion point for taking its irrigating
water from the Colorado River, as set forth in this paragraph, and to dili-
gently prosecute such construction to completion: otherwise, to pay to the asso-
ciation as a penalty the sum of five hundred dollars (8500) per day for each
day that there shall be default by the district in complying with the terms
and conditions set forth in this paragraph: 1'roriilrd. linirrrrr. That nothing
in this paragraph contained shall be deemed, taken, or held as being obliga-
tory upon the association to accept said penalty, but that upon such default
the association may revoke all permission, license, and leave granted by this
contract as a whole; but in no event shall anything in this paragraph con-
tained be deemed, taken, or held to be any waiver of the right of the associa-
tion, or any of its constituent members or shareholders, to sue for and recover
any damage accruing to it, or them, or either of them, because of the breach
of any of the terms of this contract; and nothing in this paragraph contained
shall be deemed, taken, or held to relieve the district from liability because
of the breach of the covenants of this contract: Provided furtJxr. Innrcrer,
That nothing herein contained shall be deemed, taken, or held by any court,
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BAS1X. 143
tribunal, board, bureau, person, or corporation, whether a party to this con-
tract or not, as a waiver by the association of its right to sue for an 1 recover,
either ar law or in equity, or by other means, the sum of $1.600.000 agreed
to be paid by the district to the United States for the use of said Laguna
Iam. in accordance with the terms of contract between the said district and
the Secretary of the Interior under date of October 23, 1918, but the associa-
tion disclaims any right to recover said sum from said district.
14. It is agreed that during the erection and maintenance of said dam. or
weir, the association may employ and retain an inspector, or inspectors, on
said work to ascertain and determine if such erection and maintenance is
being operated and maintained in accordance with the terms of this agree-
ment, and said district agrees to reimburse the association for such reasonable
compensation as may be paid by it to such inspectors, not to exceed $24 per
diem. And the said project manager, or his successors in office, in person or
by subordinates, may at any time- during the life of this agreement enter upon
said works or any portion thereof for the purpose of ascertaining if the same,
or any portion thereof, are being constructed and maintained in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this agreement, and in the event of their being
constructed or maintained in violation of said terms or conditions, to assume
control and direction of such works and their construction and maintenance,
and to operate the same, in whole or in part, as by this agreement prescribed ;
provided always that such control, direction, or operation shall not result in
denying to the district a sufficient supply of irrigation water for the needs of
said* Imperial Valley irrigation project, except in the emergency contemplated
and provided for in paragraph 6 hereof.
15. It is further understood and agreed that should the maintenance of the
dam be deemed a menace to the city of Yutna or any of the lands of the Yuma
Valley or endanger the same by seepage or flood and its removal be ordered by
Project Manager Porter J. Preston. Maj. E. D. Ardery, district engineer, United
States Army, or William Wisener. president of the association, or their suc-
cessor or successors in office, the district agrees to immediately proceed with
the removal of said dam, and should the district refuse to do so. or neglect to
act promptly, it is further agreed that Project Manager Porter .1. Preston, or
his successor in office, in person or by a representative or representatives ap-
pointed by the board of governors, may, at the demand or request of the board
of governors of the association, enter upon any portion of the works of said
district on either the Arizona or California side of the river and take possession
of the same and proceed to assume control and direction of the work of removal
of said diversion dam. The district hereby unreservedly agrees to waive, re-
linquish, and cancel any and all rights to prevent such action by injunction
or any other process of law that might be invoked in the courts of either
Arizona or California or the Federal court.
1<>. It is understood and agreed that owing to the fact that the district is a
municipal corporation of the State of California it may be necessary or appro-
priate, in the event of the breach of any of the terms or covenants of this agree-
ment. for the association to sue hereunder. or under said reimbursement bond,
in the State of California, and that such proceedings, if had. will result in addi-
tional cost and expense to the association: wherefore the district, in cons'dera-
tion thereof and said premises, hereby promises and agrees to pay to the
association, in the event of action being brought hereunder, or under said
reimbursement bond in the State of California, the sum of one thousand
dollars (Sl.oooi to reimburse the association for the additional cost and ex-
pense to it of suing in the State of California, and such additional sum for
attorney's 1'ees as may be deemed reasonable by the court trying such action.
In witness whereof the said corporations have, by order of their respective
governing bodies, caused these presents to be executed in their respective cor-
porate names, by their presidents and secretaries, and aitesied by their seals,
the day .-md year first above written, in duplicate.
IHHICATION I MSTKKT.
President,
Attest : -- .
Seensterp.
YT.MA CorMY WAIKI: CSKKS' ASSOCIATION-.
By - ,
President.
Attest : -- .
144 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
EL CENTRO. CALIF.. .funr ]>. 1!>?2.
Mr. J. S. XICKERSON,
Congress Hall, W<i*1> in I/ton. 1). C.
DEAR SIR: In compliance with your request by wire, under date of June 0.
you will find inclosed contract entered into with the Yunia County Water
Users' Association for the year 1920, copy of the permit issued hy the War
Department, and a copy of the bond of *.~>oo.oi i< i to the Yunia association, and
also documents concerning the present status of the injunction.
In my wire I requested that yon advise me if it was necessary to furnish yi-u
with copies of these documents for former years.
Yours very truly.
F. H. MclVER.
Secrct'tri/ Imperial Irrigation District.
Whereas by section 10 of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1899, en-
titled "An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preser-
vation of certain public works en rivers and harbors, and for other purposes."
it is provided that it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of
any wharf. p!er. dolphin, boom. weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other
structure in any port. r< adstoad. haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or
other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where
no harbor lines have been established, except on [dans recommended by the
Chief cf Engineers and authorized ^y the Secretary of War; and it shall not
be lawful to excavate or till, or in any manner to alter or modify the course,
location, condition, or capacity of any port, roadstead. Inn-en, harbor, canal,
lake, harbor or refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of
the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has
been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary
of War prior to beginning the same ;
And whereas application has been made to the Secretary of War by the Im-
perial irrigation district of California for authority to repair and rebuild its
tempcrary diversion dam or weir (originally constructed constncted under
authority of War Department permit dated February 1-1, 1917). located in
the Colorado River at or near Hanlons Heading, at the site shown on the map
hereto attached, and to maintain said structure until July 1. 1921, as recom-
mended by the Chief of Engineers :
Now. therefore, this is to certify that the Secretary of War hereby authorizes
the said work of repairing and rebuilding the Imperial irrigation district's
temporary diversion dam or weir in the Colorado Ilivnr at or near Hanlons
Heading and maintaining the same until July 1. 1921. upon the following
conditions :
1. That it is to be understood that this authority does not give any prop-
erty rights either in real estate or material, or any exclusive privileges; and
that it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasYn of private
rights, or any infringement of Federal. State, or local laws or regulations, nor
does it obviate the necessity of obtaining State assent to the work authorized.
It merely expresses the assent of the Federal Government s< far as concerns
the public rights of navigation. (See Cummings v. Ch'cago, 188 U. S. 41 o. r
2. That the work shall be subject to the supervision and approval of the
district engineer. Engineer Department at Large, in charge of the locality, who
may temporarily suspend the work at any time if. in his judgment, the interests
of navigation so require.
3. That if any pipe, wire, or cable is herein authorized, it shall be placed and
maintained with a clearance not less than that shown by the profile on the
plan attached hereto.
4. That so fa i 1 as any material is dredged in the prosecution of the work
herein authorized it shall be removed evenly, and no large refuse piles shall be
left. It shall be deposited tc the satisfaction of the said district engineer and
in accordance with his- prior permission or instructions, either on shore above
high water or at such dumping ground as may be designated by him. and where
he may so require, within or behind a good and substantial bulkhead or bulk-
heads, such as will prevent escape of the material into the waterway ; and so
far as the pipe, wire, or cable is laid in a trench, the formation of permanent
ridges across the bed of the waterway shall be avoided and the back filling shall be
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 145
so done as not to increase the cost of future dredging for navigation. If the
material is to be deposited in the harbor of New York, or in its adjacent or
tributary waters, or in Long Island Sound, a permit therefor must be pre-
viously obtained from the supervisors of New York Harbor. Army Building,
New York City.
.">. That there shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the
work herein authorized.
6. That if inspections or any other operations by the United States are neces-
sary in the interests of navigation, all expenses connected therewith shall be
borne by the permittee.
7. That the permittee assumes all responsibility for damages to the work
or structure herein authorized and for damage caused by it or by work of
the permittee in connection therewith to passing vessels or other craft, and
shall not attempt in any way to prevent free use by the public of the area at
or adjacent to the work or structure.
8. That if future opera t "OILS by the United States require an alteration in
the position of the structure or work herein authorized or if. in the opinion
of the Secretary of War. it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free
navigation of said water, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from
the Secretary of War. to remove or alter the structural work or obstructions
caused thereby, without expense to the United States, so as to render naviga-
tion reasonably free. easy, and unobstructed: and if. upon the expiration or
revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification
of "the water course hereby authorized shall not be completed, the permittee
shall, without expense to the United States and to such an extent and in such
time and manner as the Secretary of War may require, remove all or any
portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to its former con-
dition the navigable capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made
against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration.
'.). That if the display of lights and signals on any work hereby authorized
is not otherwise provided for by law such lights and signals as may be pre-
scribed by the Bureau of Lighthouses, Department of Commerce, shall be in-
stalled and maintained by and at the expense of the permittee.
10. That the permittee shall notify the said district engineer at what time
the work will be commenced, and as far in advance of the t ; me of commence-
ment as the said district engineer may specify, ami shall also notify him
promptly in writing of the commencement of work, suspension of work, if for a
period of more than one week, resumption of work, and its completion.
11. That adequate measures satisfactory to the district engineer shall be
taken by the permittee for furnishing him prompt warnings of floods and for
maintaining at the site of the said structure material and equipment sufficient
for its prompt removal.
12. That arrangements satisfactory to the Secretary of War shall be con-
tinued to dispense as speedily as possible with the necessity for placing diver-
sion dams in said river and that the said district shall report in detail to
the said district engineer on the 1st and loth days of each month while This
authorization continues in force what measures are proposed for that purpose
and the progress made thereon.
13. That unless previously revoked or specifically extended this authorization
shall expire July 1, 1921.
In witness whereof the Chief of Engineers has hereunto set his hand this
29th day of May. 1920, and the Secretary of War on the 1st day of June. 1920,
the former in token that he has recommended the authorization of the afore-
said work by the Secretary of War in accordance with the terms and condi-
tions above recited.
NKWTON P. BAKKR,
Secret fir}/ of W'ir.
LAXSIM; II. BKACH,
^f(ljo| General. Chief of
146 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
WEIR BOXDS.
A permit issued by the Secretary of War under date of June 30, 1921, for repairing
and rebuilding a temporary diversion weir in the Colorado River until July 1, 1922,
was laid before the board and ordered placed on file.
Director Brockman introduced the following preamble and resolution and moved
its adoption:
"Whereas in accordance with a resolution adopted by the board of directors on July
6, 1921, the president and secretary of the district executed a cosurety bond with the
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. and
the National Surety Co. for $500,000 to the United States of America and the Yuma
County Water Users' Association, as required by the agreement entered into by the
Imperial Irrigation District and the Yuma County Water Users' Association under
date of June 10, 1920, by which the aforesaid association waives its objection to the
rebuilding and maintaining of the weir in the Colorado River for the years 1921 and
1922, said bond being in words and figures as follows:
"'Know all men by these presents, that we, the undersigned Imperial Irrigation
District, an irrigation district organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws
of the State of California, as principal, and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, a
corporation organized and existing under and by \irtue of the laws of the State of
Maryland and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., a corporation organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, and National
Surety Co.. a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
the State of New York, as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto the United States
of America and Yuma County Water Users' Association, a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Arizona, as obligees, in the
penal sum of $500,000, well and truly to be paid to the said obligees and 'or either of
them, their successors or assigns, for which payment well and truly to be made we
bind ourselves and our successors by these presents.
' ' Sealed with our seals this 8th day of July, 1921 . :
' ' The condition of the above obligation is such, that
"Whereas, on the 30th day of June, 1921, the United States of America, acting
through the Secretary of War, issued a certain permit to the said Imperial irrigation
district for authority to repair and rebuild a temporary diversion dam, or weir, con-
structed by the said district across the Colorado River, at or near Hanlons Heading,
Calif., under War Department permit dated February 7 14, 1917, and to maintain the
same until July 1, 1922, if said permit is not previously revoked or specifically
extended; and
''Whereas the said Yuma County Water Users' Association has heretofore stipulated
that a certain temporary restraining order subsisting in cause No. 2429 in the superior
court of Yuma County, State of Arizona, wherein said association and others are plain-
tiffs and said district and others are defendants may be so modified as to permit the
repairing, rebuilding, and maintaining of said temporary dam or weir during the
period beginning July 1, 1920, and ending July 1, 1922 (unless sooner removed during
said period because of imminent danger to the lands, works, or property of the United
States of America or members of said association in accordance with the provisions
contained in paragraph 6 of that certain agreement entered into between said associa-
tion and said district as of June 10, 1920), without the same being in violation of said
restraining order, and has further stipulated that said cause shall not be further
prosecuted during said period : and
"Whereas it is further provided in said stipulation and in said agreement of June
10, 1920, as a condition precedent to its taking effect, that the said district shall give
a bond to the United States of America and said association as joint and several
obligees in the penal sum of ?500,000, satisfactory to said association, to reimburse the
United States and said association and its constituent members for any damage which
may result from the repairing, rebuilding, or maintenance of said dam or weir and
further conditioned that said district shall, on or before July 1. 1922, entirely remove
or cause to be entirely removed any and all parts of said dam or weir and all parts of
all other dams and weirs place ! in .--aid river at or near Tianlons Heading by said
district or its predecessors in ownership, operation, or maintenance of the Imperial
Valley (Imperial County. Calif, i irrigation project, and all piles and piling, rock and
brush, anchors, guys and ties, and all other materials whatsoever placed in said river
at or near said I'anlons Heading by said district or its said predecessors at any time
whatsoever, for the purpose of which had the effect of impeding the flow of said river
and raising the height of the waters thereof so that the same would, or did, more
freely flow into the irrigation canals of said district or its said predecessors and that
such removal shall be to the extent that all the waters of the said river shall at all
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN". 147
times flow as freely to the southward as said waters did flow prior to the placing of
any said obstructions therein by said district or its predecessors and so as not to
endanger the property of said association or the property of its constituent members.
"Now, therefore, if the said Imperial irrigation district shall reimburse the United
States of America and Yuma County Water Users' Association and its constituent
members for any damage caused by or resulting from the erection or maintenance of
said dam or weir, to the lands, works, or property of the United States of America or
said association or its constituent members, and shall, on or before July 1, 1922,
entirely remove or cause to be entirely removed any and all portions of said dam or
weir and other dams and weirs placed in said river at or near said ITanlons Heading,
by said district or its predecessors in ownership, operation, or maintenance of the
Imperial Valley (Imperial County, Calif. ^ irrigation project, and all piles and piling,
rock and brush, anchors, guys and ties, and all materials whatsoever placed in said
river at said point by said district or its predecessors, at any time whatsoever, for the
purpose of which had the effect of impeding the flow of said river and raising the
height of the waters thereof, so that the same would, or did, more freely flow into the
irrigation canals of said district, or its said predecessors, and such removal shall be to
the extent that all the waters of said river shall at all times flow as freely to the south-
ward as said waters did flow prior to the placing of any of said obstructions in said
river by said district or its predecessors and so as not to endanger the property of said
association or the property of its constituent members, then this obligation shall be
null and void; otherwise to be in full force and effect.
'Suit mav be brought upon this bond by either the United States of America or
the Yuma County Water Users' Association, acting either jointly or severally, and
successive actions may be brought by either or both of said parties, provided, however,
that the Imperial irrigation district must be made a party to any action brought on
this bond, by due service of process and the obligation of the Imperial irrigation dis-
trict hereunder shall only be limited by the full amount of the aggregate of all judg-
ments which may be rendered against it and that the obligation of each of the three
sureties herein shall be limited respectively to one-third of the amount of any final
judgment or judgments which may be rendered against the Imperial irrigation dis-
trict, not exceeding, however, the sum of $166,666.67 for each surety, but nothing
herein contained, nor shall any judgment or judgments, recovery, or recoveries
hereunder, be deemed taken or held to bar the maintaining of any other action or
actions against said district by said association or its constituent members, should it,
or they, be damaged in a greater amount than the principal sum of this obligation, as
the result of the erection or maintenance of said dam or weir or the maintenance of
any said obstructions in said river or failure to entirely remove them or any of them as
herein conditioned or as may be agreed between said district and said association.
"This bond shall be operative to reimburse the obligees herein for any damage
resulting to them or either of them from the erection or maintenance of said dam or
weir under said permit and said stipulation of whatsoever materials the same may
be constructed and notwithstanding that said permit and said stipulation or either
of them may be hereafter so modified as to permit said dam or weir to be constructed
of different materials than those now contemplated by the principal obligor or the
said obligees.
"There shall be included in and added to any judgment recovered hereunder by
said Yuma County Water Users' Association the sum of $1,000 to reimburse the said
association for the costs and expenses of recovering such, as well as such additional
sum, as attorneys' fees, as may be deemed reasonable by the court trying the action
in which said judgment may be recovered, but shall not add to the liability of said
sureties or either of them, each of their liability hereunder being limited as herein-
before stipulated.
"IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
"By J. S. NICKERSON, President.
"Attest: F. H. MC!VER. [SEAL.]
"FIDELITY & DEPOSIT Co. OF MARYLAND,
"By HARRY D. VANDEVEER,
"Attorney in fact.
"Attest: W T . M. WALKER, Agent. [SEAL.]
"[SEAL.] UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY Co.,
"By W. H. SCHROEDER,
"Attorney in fact.
"[SEAL.] NATIONAL SURETY Co.,
"By OATESBY C. THOM,
"Attorney in fact.
148 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
"Now, therefore, be it resolved that the action of the President and Secretary in
executing and delivering to the United States of America and Yuma County Water
Users' Association said bond in the sumjof $500,000 be, and the same is hereby, accepted,
approved, ratified, and confirmed."
The foregoing motion was seconded by Director Rose and prevailed.
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
Office of Secretary, ss:
This is to certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the board of directors of said district at their regular adjourned meeting
on Wednesday, July 6, 1921.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said district this
14th day of July, 1921.
F. H. McIvER,
Secretary Imperial Irrigation District.
AGREEMENT.
1. This indenture, made this 10th day of June, 1920, between Imperial Irrigation
District, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
State of California, and doing business in Imperial County. State of California, herein-
after called and referred to as the district, and Yuma County Water Users' Association,
a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizonia. and
doing business at Yuma, State of Arizona, acting for and on behalf of its, and all of its,
constituent members and shareholders; hereinafter called and referred to as the
association, Witnesseth:
2. Whereas the district is engaged in the business of appropriating and diverting
irrigation waters from the flow of the Colorado River at a point in said river known as
Hanlon's Heading, at or near fractional sections 35 and 36, township 16 south, range 21
east, S. B. M., in Yuma County, State of Arizona, for the irrigation and reclamation of
many hundreds of thousands of acres in Imperial Valley. Imperial County, State of
California, known as Imperial Valley irrigation project: and
3. Whereas, in order to secure a sufficient flow of irrigation water to properly irrigate
and reclaim said lands, and to prevent the same from returning to their original desert
condition, it is now necessary to erect, and temporarily maintain, during low-water
periods on said river, a dam. or weir, in said river, at or near said Hanlons Heading; and
4. Whereas the installation and maintenance of said dam tends to create such a
condition in the flow of the waters of said Colorado River as to endanger the works of
the Yuma project of the United States Reclamation Service, and the lands and prop-
erty of the association and its constituent members and shareholders; and
2. Whereas the association has granted its permission that a weir or dam may be
constructed and maintained at said point in said river from July 1, 1920, until July 1,
1922. subject to certain conditions, provisos, and exceptions hereinafter more fully
set forth; and has stipulated and agreed that a certain temporary restraining order
heretofore issued out of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in case No. 2429,
and now in force and effect in said court, wherein the said association and others are
plaintiffs and the said district and others are defendants, restraining and enjoining
the district herein from erecting and maintaining any weir or dam at said point, shall
be so modified as to permit the erection and maintenance of a weir or dam therein
during said last-mentioned period, and not to further prosecute said suit during said
period.
6. Now, therefore, the said district, in consideration of the foregoing, does here-
by promise, undertake and agree that, it it becomes necessary, for the accom-
plishment of said purposes, to erect and temporarily maintain a dam, or weir, in and
across the Colorado River, at or near said Hanlons Heading, as hereinbefore described ;
that it shall construct the same out of brush, without the use of any rock whatsoever,
and that said brush shall be erected and maintained on the top of the crest of the rock
dam and weir heretofore erected by the district so as to hold the water at no greater
height than is necessary for the diversion of the amount of water actually required
for the irrigation of the lands of said district, and that said bruch weir, or dam, and the
materials composing the same, shall be held and maintained in place by a system of
piling driven through and erected upon the crest of said rock dam or as near thereto as
practicable; if necessary said system of piling to be used in conjunction with certain
guy ropes and ties made fast to certain dolphin anchors erected in said river immedi-
ately above said rock dam; the height to which the dam is to be maintained and the
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 149
extent of said system of piling to be subject to control by the project manager of the
Yuma project; and the district further promises, agrees; and undertakes to remove all
of said brush dam, or weir, from out of said river on or prior to, July 1. 1922, and at
any other time between said July 1, 1920, and July 1, 1922; that W. W. Schlecht,
project manager of the Yuma project of the United States Reclamation Service, or
A. Y. Greer, president of the association, or Col. F. B. Downing, district engineer
United States Army, or their successors in office shall deem the maintenance of said
dam to in any way endanger any of the works of said Yuma project, or any of the
lands or property of the association, or its shareholders and constituent members, or
any land within said Yuma project on either side of said Colorado River; and the
district hereby undertakes and agrees to keep and maintain at or near said dam a
sufficient amount of explosives to immediately blow out and remove said dam to such
an extent as will permit the free flow of the Colorado River to the southward, so that
the same will not endanger any of said property.
7. And the said district further stipulates and agrees that the permission so given to
erect and temporarily maintain such a dam or weir in the Colorado River at said point
and the permission heretofore given for the erection and maintenance of dams and
weirs across the Colorado River at or near said point, and their erection and mainte-
nance, and the giving, in the future, of permission to erect and maintain such dams
and weirs, shall not be taken, held, or deemed, nor shall either of them be taken,
held, or deemed, not to be of irreparable injury to the association, its shareholders and
constituent members: and the granting of said permission and the erection and main-
tenance of said dams or weirs shall be without prejudice to the right of the association,
its shareholders and constituent members, to have entered in said suit No. 2429 or any
other proceeding in any other court of competent jurisdiction, upon due and sufficient
evidence, a decree permanently restraining the district from constructing and main-
taining such weirs or weir or any weir, dam or dams, across said river.
8. And the district, in consideration of the promises as hereinbefore set forth, does
hereby further promise, agree, and undertake to pay to the association, its share-
holders and constituent members, all damages that may result to them, or to either
of them, from injury to their person or property because of the erection or mainte-
nance of said brush dam or weir or the erection and maintenance of the rock base upon
which the same shall be constructed as hereinfore described, and the district further
promises, undertakes, and agrees to pay the association, its shareholders and constitu-
ent members any and all damages that may result to them, or either of them, because
of the erection or maintenance of the remaining portions of all or any of the rock dams
or weirs heretofore placed in said Colorado River at or near said point, including
what is known as the Clark Dam or Weir.
9. And it is further stipulated and agreed that the association, or either or any of
its constituent members or shareholders, may sue hereunder in their own right and
without joining any other party hereto as a party plaintiff: Provided, however. That if
more than one of the said shareholders or constituent members should separately sue
the district for such damage all of said actions so brought in the same court may be
consolidated and tried as one action, each plaintiff recovering the amount of damage
that he or she shall have suffered, as finally determined by such court.
10. The district, for and in consideration of said premises, further promises, cove-
nants, and agrees to entirely remove from out of the bed of the Colorado River, on or
before December 30, 1922, all and all parts of any and all darns and weirs, piles and
piling, rock and brush, anchors, guys, ties, and all other material whatsoever placed
or caused to be placed therein by the district or its predecessors in the ownership and
operation of said Imperial Valley irrigation project at any time whatsoever for the
purpose of impeding the flow of said river and raising the height of the waters thereof
so that the same would more freely flow into the irrigation canals of the district, or
any of its predecessors, and to the extent that all of the waters of the Colorado River
shall flow as freely to the southward as said waters did flow prior to the placing of any
obstructions in the bed thereof by the district, or any of its said predecessors.
11. It is understood and agreed that the district shall furnish a satisfactory surety
bond in the sum of $500,000 to the United States of America and the association, as
joint and several obligees, to reimburse them for any damage resulting from the erec-
tion or maintenance of said dam or weir and conditioned for the removal of all of said
obstructions from said river: and that a recovery or recoveries on said bond shall not
be a bar to any action or actions by the association or its constituent members, or any
of them, in the event that they or either of them should be damaged because of the
district's breach of any of the terms or covenants of this agreement, it being under-
I stood and agreed that the district undertakes, promises, and agrees to pay all the
" damage that may result bee ause of its breach of any, or all, of the terms, conditions,
and covenants of this agreement, notwithstanding the execution and delivery of any
150 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER I5ASIX.
bond, or bonds, or any recovery thereon. And in the event of damage accruing, and
said bond becoming exhausted in whole or in part, during the life of this agreement,
the district agrees to furnish additional security and assurance so that there will
always be during the life of this agreement security against damage to the association
in the sum of 8500,000.
12. In consideration of the foregoing premises the district hereby agrees to hold
the association harmless in the event it may be required or compelled to pay the rent
payable on April 1, 1921, and April 1, 1922, reserved in that certain lease for trie term of
three years entered into under date of April 15. 1920, between Agnes C. Heineman and
husband and the association for certain lands lying west of the United States Reclama-
tion .Service levee in S. 36, T. 16 S. R.. 21 E. S.'B. M.. in Yuma County, Ariz., and the
district further agrees to pay to the association on the execution and delivery of this
instrument the sum of $2.000, said sum being rent for the last-described tract of land
heretofore, on April 1, 1920, paid to said Heineman, and the district further agrees to
hold the association free and harmless from all costs, expense, liability, and damage
accruing or resulting to the association because of any lease, license, or permit given
or granted, expressly or impliedly, by this instrument, or by assignment of, or sub-
letting under, said lease, or otherwise by the association to the district for the erection
or maintenance of said temporary dam or weir, or for the erection or maintenance of
any structure, or structures on said land for the erection or maintenance of said dam or
weir.
13. The district ftirther agrees, as a condition subsequent to promptly and with
diligence and in good faith take such necessary steps as shall be required under the
laws of the State of California to procure, on or before January 1, 1921, funds sufficient
for the procuring and construction of another heading and diversion structures with a
sufficient aqueduct on the Colorado River at Laguna Dam. in accordance with the
terms of the contract between the district and the Secretary of the Interior dated
October 23, 1918. In the event of the district failing to comply with the terms of this
condition subsequent, the association may, at its option, declare this agreement null
and A'oid and revoke all license and permits granted hereunder. And in the event of
the procuring said funds the said district further covenants and agrees within three
months after the procuring of said funds to begin in good faith (strikes, injunctions,
and acts of God excepted) the construction of the necessary works for the procuring of
said other heading and diversion point for taking its irrigating water from the Colorado
River, as set forth in this paragraph, and to diligently prosecute such construction to
completion; otherwise, to pay to the association as a penalty the sum of $500 pet day
for each day that there shall be default by the district in complying with the terms and
conditions set forth in this paragraph: Provided, however, That nothing in this para-
graph contained shall be deemed, taken, or held as being obligatory upon the association
to accept said penalty, but that upon such default the association may revoke all
permission license and leave granted by this contract as a whole; but in no event shall
anything in this paragraph contained be deemed, taken or held to be any waiver of the
right of the association, or any of its constituent members or shareholders, to sue for
and recover any damage accruing to it, or them, or either of them, because of the
breach of any of the terms of this contract; and nothing 'in this paragraph contained shall
be deemed, taken or held to relieve the district from liability because of the breach of
the covenants of this contract: Provided further , however, That nothing herein con-
tained shall be deemed, taken or held by any court, tribunal, board, bureau, person or
corporation, whether a party to this contract or not, as a waiver by the association of
its right to sue for and recover, either at law or in equity or by other means, the sum of
$1,600,000 agreed to be paid by the district to the United States for the use of said
Laguna Dam, in accordance with the terms of contract between the said district and
the Secretary of the Interior under date of October 23, 1918, but the association dis-
claims any right to recover said sum from said district.
14. It is agreed that during the erection and maintenance of said dam or weir the
association may employ and retain an inspector or inspectors on said work to ascer-
tain and determine if such erection and maintenance is being operated and main-
tained in accordance with the terms of this agreement, and said district agrees to
reimburse the association for such reasonable compensation as may be paid by it to
such inspectors, not to exceed $24 per diem. And the said project manager or his
successors in office, in person or by subordinates, may at any time during the life of
this agreement enter upon said woVks or any portion thereof for the purpose of ascer-
taining if the same or any portion thereof are being constructed and maintained in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement, and in the event, of their
being constructed or maintained in violation of said terms or conditions to assume con-
trol and direction of such works and their construction and maintenance and to oper-
ate the same, in whole or in part, as by this agreement prescribed, provided always
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 151
that such control, direction, or operation shall not result in denying lo the district a
sufficient supply of irrigation water for the needs of said Imperial Valley irrigation
project, except in the emergency contemplated and provided for in paragraph 6
hereof.
15. It is understood and agreed that owing to the fact that the district is a munici-
pal corporation of the State of California it may be necessary or appropriate, in the
event of the breach of any of the terms or covenants of this agreement, for the asso-
ciation to sue hereunder or under said reimbursement bond in the State of California,
and that such proceedings, if had. will result in additional cost and expense to the
association; wherefore the district, in consideration thereof and said premises, hereby
promises and agrees to pay to the association, in the event of action being brought
hereunder or under said reimbursement bond in the State of California, the sum of
$1,000 to reimburse the association for the additional cost and expense to it of suing
in the State of ( alii'ornia and such additional sum for attorney's fees as may be deemed
reasonable by the court trying such action.
In witness whereof the said corporations have, by order of their respective govern-
ing bodies, caused these presents to be executed in their respective corporate names
by their presidents and secretaries and attested by their seals the day and year first
above written, in duplicate.
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
YUMA COUNTY WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION.
STIPULATION.
jf
In the Superior Court of Yuma County, State of Arizona. Yuma County Water Users'
Association et al., plaintiffs, v. Imperial Irrigation District et al., defendants.
It is hereby stipulated by and between the above-entitled parties that the defendant,
Imperial Irrigation District, may have to and including the 18th day of June, 1917,
in which to prepare, file, and present its objections to the filing of plaintiff's so-called
supplemental complaint; and further that the defendant. Imperial Irrigation District,
may have to and including the 2d day of July, 1917, in which to prepare, serve, and
file its answer to plaintiff's amended complaint; and if defendant's objections to plain-
tiffs supplemental complaint are overruled, in part 01 in whole, the defendant. Impe-
rial Irrigation District, may have to and including the 25th day of June, 1917. in
which to prepare, serve, and file its answer to plaintiffs supplemental complaint.
The above time is heieby shortened, at the option of attorney for the plaintiff, upon
giving the attorney for the defendant, Imperial Irrigation District. 10 days' notice.
THOS. MOLLOY,
Attorney f 01 Plaintiff.
PHIL D. SWING,
Attorney for Defendant, Imperial Irrigation Distriet.
MODIFIED RESTRAINING ORDER.
In the Superior Court, Yuma County, State of Arizona, Yuma County Water User's
Association et al., plaintiffs, v. Imperial Irrigation District et al., defendants.
In the above-entitled action, the parties hereto having agreed to the same, the tem-
porary restraining order heretofore issued is hereby modified and made to read as
follows:
On reading the verified amended complaint herein and the stipulation of the parties
herein, it is hereby ordered as follows: Upon the defendants giving bond in the sum
of s| ()0. 000 for the faithful observance hereof, that the defendants are permitted to
construct their proposed dam or weir, but in the construction of the same they are
hereby commanded, enjoined, and restrained from using any rock in the construction
of the said weir, except such rock as may be loaded upon the cars with the steam
shovel now in use by said defendants, or another of similar size, and from using any
rock larger in size than one-half of 1 cubic yard ; and they are further commanded to
commence the removal of any piles or trestle placed by them in the said river not
later than October 1, 191(5. and thereafter to remove the same with diligence, and in
all events to remove the same not later than November 1, 1910, and also thereafter
to remove the other obstructions placed by the defendants in the said river at the time
and in the manner directed by the project engineer of the Yuma project of the United
States Reclamation Service, and in any event shall remove the same prior to January
1, 1917.
Done in open court this 3d day of August. 1916.
BAXTER, Judge of Said Court.
1316 22 PT 3 6
152 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
STIPULATION.
In the Superior Court, Yuma County, State of Arizona. No. 2429. Yuma County
Water Users' Association et al., v. Imperial Irrigation District et al.
In the above-entitled action it is hereby stipulated that the temporary restraining
order heretofore issued may be modified and made to read as the annexed temporary
restraining order.
It is further stipulated that the defendant, Imperial Irrigation District hereby
admits service and summons herein and submits itself to the jurisdiction of said'court,
and agrees to herein file its demurrer or answer within 20 days hereafter.
It is further agreed that the said cause will not be tried until after the 1st day of
October, 1916, and that the plaintiffs may. if they see fit, amend their complaint
herein so as to ask for the carrying out of this stipulation and the temporary injunction
herein, and compel the removal of the obstructions placed in the river by the
defendants.
THOS. D. MOLLOY,
Attorney for Plaintiff.
M. W. CONKIJNG,
Attorney for Defendants.
STIPULATION.
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the county of Yuma, No.
2429, Yuma County Water Users' Association et al., plaintiffs, r. Imperial Irriga-
tion District et al., defendants.
The parties hereto hereby stipulate as follows, to wit:
1. That the temporary restraining order heretofore issued herein, now in full force
and effect as heretofore modified, may be, and the same is hereby, further modified
and shall remain in full force and effect, as so remodified, until the further order of
this court, as follows, to wit: That the defendants are permitted to erect and con-
struct and temporarily maintain across the Colorado River from a point in or near
fractional S. 35, T. 16 S., R. 21 E., S. and B. meridian, in Yuma County, State of
Arizona, to a point on the California or Mexico side of said river near w T hat is known
as Hanlon's heading of the Imperial Valley irrigation project, a brush dam or weir
on the crest of what now remains of a rock dam heretofore placed in said river at
said point in accordance with the stipulation of the parties hereto, duly filed herein,
and in pursuance of the said restrianing order as heretofore modified and in force and
effect, and to so repair and rebuild said rock dam, or as near thereto as practicable;
and that said brush weir or dam, and the materials composing the same, shall be held
and maintained in place by a system of piling driven through and erected upon the
cre?t of said rock dam, or as near thereto as practicable, which said system of piling
may be in the form of a trestle upon which may be operated a railroad for dumping
material other than rock, if necessary said system of piling to be used in conjunction
with certain guy ropes and ties made fast to certain dolphin anchors erected in said
river immediately above said rock dam: and that said dam shall be constructed
without the placing of any rock whatsoever therein, or in connection therewith, and
that the same may be kept and maintained by the defendants at said point in said
river, from July 1, 1919, until July 1, 1920: Provided, hminrr. If during said period
the Colorado River, whether from floods in the Gila River or from other causes, rises
to such a height as, in the judgment of W. W. Schlecht, project manager of the Yuma
project of the United States Reclamation Service, or his successor in office, to immi-
nently endanger the irrigation works of said Yuma project, or any of the property of
the Yuma County Water Users' Association or any of its constituent members, or
any land or lands within the said Yuma project on either side of said Colorado River,
the said defendants shall immediately remove, by adequate means, such as blasting,
said dam to the extent that it will permit the free flow of the waters of the Colorado
River to the southward, and thus remove all danger to the property above described.
2. It is further stipulated, as a condition precedent to this stipulation taking effect.
that said Imperial Irrigation District shall give a bond to the United States of America
and Yuma County Water Users' Association, as joint and several obligees, to reimburse
the United States and said association and its constituent members for any damage
which may result from the repairing, rebuilding, or maintaining of said dam or weir:
and further conditioned that said district shall, on or before April 15. 1921. entirely
remove, or cause to be entirely removed, all and all parts of said dam. or weir, and
all parts of all other dams and weirs placed in said river at or near said Hanlon's
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 153
heading by said district, or its predecessors in the ownership, operation, or maintenance
of the Imperial Valley (Imperial County. Calif..) irrigation project, and all piles and
piling, rock and brush, anchors, guys and ties, and all other materials whatsoever
placed in said river at or near said Hanlon's heading by said district, or its said prede-
cessors, at any time whatsoever, for the purpose or which had the effect of impeding
the flow of said river and raising the height of the waters thereof so that the same would
or did more freely flow into the irrigation canals of said district, or its said predecessors.
and that such removal shall be to the extent that all the waters of the said river shall
. at all times flow a? freely to the southward as said waters did flow prior to the placing
of any of said obstructions therein bv said district, or its said predecessors, and o as
to not endanger the property of said association or the property of its constituent
members.
3. And it is further stipulated and agreed between the parties hereto, that the
granting of the permission by the plaintiffs herein to the defendants herein, to erect
and maintain said brush dam. as hereinbefore stipulated for. and the entering into
this stipulation, and the modification of said temporary restraining order shall not be
admitted as evidence in this, or any other proceeding whatsoever between the parties
hereto; and it shall not be taken, held, or deemed that the construction of said weir,
or other, or like, weirs in the past or in the future is not. and shall not be. of irreparable
injury to the Yuma < 'ounty Water Users' Association, its shareholders and constituent
members; and it is further stipulated that the granting of said permission, and the
entering into this stipulation, is and shall be without prejudice to the right of the
plaintiffs in this action to have entered a decree upon a final hearing herein, and on
sufficient evidence, permanently restraining said irrigation district from constructing
such weir or weirs across said river.
Dated this 5th day of July, 1919.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.
In the Superior Court of Yuma County, State of Arizona. Xo. 2429, Yuma County
Water Users' Association et al., plaintiffs, c. Imperial Irrigation District et al.,
defendants.
To Imperial Irrigation District. ('. R. /{orL-vood, Tom Hines, John Doe, and Richard
Roe, their agents, servants, employees, and attorneys:
It satisfactorily appearing, from the reading of the verified complaint herein, that
if the defendants are permitted to construct a dam across the Colorado River from a
point in Yuma County, State of Arizona, to a point on the Mexican, or California side
of said river, for the purpose of raising and forcing the waters of said river into the
ditches and canals of the defendant Imperial Irrigation District, that great, immediate,
and irreparable injury and damage will result to the plaintiffs therefrom by the
prevention thereby of the scouring, eroding, and washing downward of the bottom of
said river, thereby causing the waters of said river to erode, wash away, and overflow
the levees which protect the lands of the plaintiffs and the persons for whom they sue
herein, and thereby causing the water table underlying said lands to be raised and
thereby impregnating the said land with an excessive quantity of deleterious salts;
and that if notice should be given of a hearing hereon the giving of notice of an appli-
cation for an interlocutory writ of injunction and the delay incident thereto would
permit the defendants to erect so much of said proposed and threatened dam as would
result in immediate and irreparable injury, as aforesaid, to the plaintiffs and the per-
sons for whom they sue herein before notice could be served and a hearing had thereon;
and it further appearing that the damage threatened to be inflicted upon and suffered
by the plaintiffs and the persons for whom they sue herein is not of a nature to be
compensation by a money judgment, and that the defendants can not, in any event,
respond in damages.
You and each of you are, therefore, commanded, enjoined, and restrained, and earn
of your agents, servants, attorneys, and employees are commanded, enjoined, and
restrained, until the further order of this court, and without further notice, from in
any way constructing or erecting, or attempting to construct or erect, a dam or dams
or any obstruction whatsoever across the Colorado River from a point at, in or near
fractional section 3">. T. 10 S.. R. 21 E.. (i. A S. R. meridian, in Yuma County. State
of Arizona, or any other point whatsoever in said Yuma < 'ounty. to a point on the
California or Mexican side of said river about 400 feet below the C. D. heading, or to any
other point whatsoever on the right bank of said river for the purpose of raising and
forcing the waters of said river into the ditches and canals of said Imperial Irrigation
Co., or for any purpose whatsoever; and you are herein- commanded and enjoined to
instantly cease and desist from driving any piles, or doing any other act whatsoever,
154 - DEVELOPMKXT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
in furtherance of the erection or construction of any such dam or dams or in further
impeding the flow of said Colorado River upon plaintiffs giving bond in $1,000.
And you are directed to show cause before said court, in the court room at Yuma,
Ariz., on Thursday the LOth day of August, 1916, why a permanent injunction shall
not issue restraining you from the preformance of said acts.
Done in open court this 1st day of August, 191(5, at the hour of 4.55 o'clock p. m.
FRAXK BAXTER,
J.iiilyr oj sai/l ( 'm/rt.
I, II. B. Farmer, clerk of the superior court of Yuma County, State of Arizona,
the same being a court of record, do hereby certify that the bond mentioned in the
within order has been filed and approved.
[SEAL.] H. B. FARMER, Clerk.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Nickerson. do you wish to present any further facts to the
committee?
Mr. Nickerson. Well, I might say something further.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Can you conveniently remain over till next week?
Mr. NICKERSON. No; I have made arrangements to leave. I can remain only to-day.
Mr. SWING. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Nickerson if he desires to add anything
be given a reasonable length of time to file an additional written statement. He can
probably submit that before he leaves.
Mr. NICKERSON. May I say one more word? We have tried to bring the facts
up to you gentlemen, and if you are not satisfied with them I want to invite you to
come down there, this committee, and see for yourselves. If you do not feel that you
are able to act on the evidence we have produced here, I want to ask you to come
down on the ground, and I will say that we will pay all expenses both ways to get
you there because I tell you we have got to have help. We can not wait until the
next Congress: we want you to do something right now. If you are going to have a
recess, all right, but when you come back we want you to act to save those people down
there from destruction. I can prove to you that every word I have said is absolutely
true, and it is up to you gentlemen and you are the agencies we have got to depend on
to get us out of this trouble.
I thank you for the time you have given me and I wish I had more, but I want
you to have that in mind now, that we can not wait till next August to get something
done for us. If you will only start something it will give us a credit, it will put
confidence in the people, it will put confidence in the banks. Business men there
have come to me, the best men we have got in that country, and they have said to
me, ''For God's sake, Nickerson, get something done, get that flood taken care of,
so it will put value on your land and we can come down there and loan money to
you." We can't get a dollar from the Federal farm loan or the local banks or the
banks in Los Angeles.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I think the committee ought to recognize the emergency
that is confronting the people and the property interests there, but this is a great
question and of course the committee will have to give it consideration and submit
the facts to the House. I do not think there are very many Members of the House
outside of this committee that know much about this.
Mr. RAKER. It would be a wonderful thing if this committee as a committee could
go down there and see that country, see the actual physical conditions as they exist.
Mr. XICKERSOX. Arizona is in Mr. Hayden's country, and the Yuma district is in
nearly as bad a fix as we are, not quite. " They had 2.000 acres covered up last year
and the people had to take their things and go to the hills.
If you people are not satisfied with the information you have gotten, gentlemen,
you ought to get it, because we have gone through the department and have gotten
up to you now, and it is up to you people to act. I feel that if I had not done thig
the responsibility would have been on us. but I feel now that it is on you.
Mr. RAKER. I'think I will come down into that section and see it myself this fall.
Mr. NICKERSON. \Ye will be glad to see you, but we would like to see the whole
committee. We can prove every word that we say, gentlemen.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. We appreciate very much the information that you have given
us, Mr. Nickerson, and we feel that you are very well advised in regard to conditions
on the lower Colorado River.
Mr. NICKERSON. I ought to be: I have been in that country for a good many years,
and the people must think that I know something about it or they would kick me out. I
Mr. HAYDEN. I was unavoidably detained at my office at the beginning of to-day's
session of the committee. I have since been informed that some telegrams and a
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN. 155
letter were included in the record. Mr. Nickerson has also mentioned the interest
of Arizona in this matter. I have some statements, articles, and letters from a number
of engineers who have discussed the Colorado River problem which I consider worthy
of the attention of this committee. I therefore ask leave to have the same printed
as a part of these hearings, together with a letter from the Arizona State water commis-
sioner, extracts from which I have heretofore read.
Mr. SMITH of Idaho. If there is no objection they may be inserted in the record.
Mr. RAKER. What is their attitude in this matter?
Mr. HAYDEN. Varying attitudes, but principally pointing out the great interest
that Arizona has in the control of the Colorado River.
(The matter referred to is as follows:)
PHOENIX, ARIZ., May (>, 1922.
Hon. CARL HAYDEN,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR MR. HAYDEN: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 29,
inclosing copy of the Swing bill. H. R. 11449, which I have read over with a great
deal of interest and some misgiving and will give you my reflection thereon.
In the first section, beginning with line 8 to the end of the section, the language is
objected to for the reason that it takes out of the control of the State of Arizona one
of her largest undeveloped resources, and one to which we have long looked to be of
very great benefit to our State when developed. It would appear from the language
that all persons, municipal corporations, private corporations, or States would be
prevented from constructing or owning any dams or diversion works in the Colorado
Riv'er below the mouth of the Green River. I personally object to this presumed
reservation on the part of the United States of the exclusive right to construct, etc.,
because, as I deem it. the United States has no authority to make any such reserva-
tion, nor can such authority be granted by Congress, and, in brief, my reasons for this
statement are based on many cases decided by our United States Supreme Court, a
very few of which I will cite:
In Martin r. Waddell (16 Pet. 367) it was held when the American Revolution was
concluded, the people of each State became themselves sovereign, and in that char-
acter held the absolute right to all their navigable waters and the soils under them
for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the Consti-
tution to the General Government.
In Pollard r. Hagan (3 How. 212) it was held that the Government of the United
States did not by reason of that enactment possess any more power over the navigable
waters of Alabama than it possessed over the navigable waters of other States under
the provisions of the Constitution, and that Alabama had as much power over thoee
navigable waters as the original States possessed over the navigable waters within
their respective limits. It was also held that the shores of navigable waters and the
soils under them were not granted by the Constitution of the United States, but
were reserved to the States, respectively, and the new States had the game rights,
sovereignty, and jurisdiction over the subject as the original States.
In Hardin v. Jordan (140 U. S. 371), the court said: "This right of the States to
regulate and control the shores of tide waters and the land under them is the same as
that which is exercised by the Crown in England. In this country the same rule has
been extended to our great navigable lakes, which are treated as inland seas; and
also, in some of the States, the navigable rivers, as the Mississippi, the Missouri, the
Ohio, and in Pennsylvania to all the permanent rivers of the State, but it depends
on the law of each State to what waters and to what extent this prerogatory of the State
over the lands under water shall be exercised."
In the same case Mr. Justice Brewer, in his dissenting opinion, stated: "That the
question how far the title of the riparian owner extends is one of local law. For a
determination of that question the siatutes of the State and the decisions of ite
highest court furnish the best and the final authority."
In Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Misissippi Canal Cos. (142 U. S.
254) Mr. JustirejBrown, in delivering the opinion of the court, said: "It is the settled
law of Wisconsin, announced in repeated decisions of ite supreme court, that the
ownership of riparian proprietors extends to the center or thread of the stream, subject,
if such stream be navigable, to the right of the public to its use as a public highway
for the passage of its vessels. * * *
"With respect to such rights we have held that the law of the State, as closed by ita
supreme court, is controlling as a rule of property."
In Shively v. Bowlby (152 U. S. 1) it was held that upon the question how far the
title of the owner of the land extends bordering upon a river actually navigable both
above the ebb and flow of the tide, there is a diversity in the laws of the different
States; and that the title and rights or riparian or littoral proprietors in the soil below
156 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
high-water mark are governed by the law? \ the several States, subject to the rights
granted to the United States by the Constitution.
In the same case it was held: "The jurisdiction of the State over this question of
riparian ownership has always been, from the foundation of the Government, recog-
nized and admitted by this court."
In Weber v. the Board of Harbor Commissions (Wall. 57, U. S. Kept. 85 1. Mr. Justice
Field, in delivering the opinion of the court, among other things, said: "Although the
title to the soil under the tidewaters of the bay was acquired by the United States by
cession from Mexico, equally with the title to the upland, they held it only in trust
for the future State. Upon the admission of California into the Union upon equal
footing with the original States, absolute property in and dominion and sovereignty
over all soils under the tidewaters within her limits passed to the State, with the con-
sequent right to dispose of the title to any part of said soils in such manner as she might
deem proper, subject only to the paramount right of navigation of the waters so far as
such navigation might be required by the necessities of commerce with foreign nations
or among the several States, the regulation of which is vested in the General Govern-
ment."
In Port of Seattle v. Oregon & Washington Railroad Co. and J. F. Duthie cV <',,..
reported in Xo. 8, advance sheets. United States Supreme Court, page 265, March 1.
1921. Mr. Justice Brandeis. in delivering the opinion of the court, among other things,
said, first: "The right of the United States in the navigable waters within the several
States is limited to the control thereof for purposes of navigation. * *
"The extent of the State's ownership of the land is more accurately defined by the
decision of the highest court as being tne land below high -water mark or the meander
line, whichever of these lines is the lower. The character of the State's ownership
in the land and in the waters is the full proprietary right. The State, being the
absolute owner of the tidelands and the waters over them, is free in conveying tide-
lands either to grant with them rights in the adjoining water area or to completely
withhold all such rights."
From these citations and many others that might be made, I conceive the notion
that the United States can not reserve to itself the exclusive control of the Colorado
River from the mouth of the Green to the Gulf of California, for I hold that the State
of Arizona owns the bed of the stream from high-water mark to high-water mark and
the waters flowing in the stream within the confines of the State or Arizona: that
the right of the State of Arizona is a proprietary right ; that under the laws of the State
of Arizona, even the Government of the United States must make application to the
State for a permit the same as any individual, company, or corporation.
The bill appears to view the whole situation from a California standpoint and to
entirely absorb Arizona and its rights in the river.
Section 2 of the bill authorizes the construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam. and
also the construction of the proposed all-American canal, which is a purely California
project. To neither of these projects do we. so far as I am personally concerned, have
any objection so long as the Boulder Canyon Dam is constructed in the place where
and in the manner which w r ould best serve the interests of the State of Arizona, and
that the rights of Arizona are maintained in such development.
Section 3 gives to the Secretary of the Interior the right to dispose of the utilization
of the water for the generation of electric power, and my own opinion is that it should
include the statement that the State of Arizona should have a preferred right to the
extent of the needs of the State.
Section 4 of the bill should also include the statement that the State of Arizona
should have a preferred right to take over the property wholly within the State upon
the payment as suggested in the section.
Section 5 of the bill is a grant to the Secretary of the Interior to allow the purchase
of property in the State of Arizona by such political subdivisions that shall have heen
allocated fights for the generation of power. This, of course, has particular reference
to the City of Los Angeles. Imperial Valley, other cities in Southern California and
the State of California, and it does not appear to me that either the State of California
or any political subdivision of the State of California should be permitted to purchase
and own property that might be determined to be real property, of the character
referred to. in the State of Arizona in perpetuity, and. therefore. I object to section 5
in its present form.
I realize that if the Boulder Canyon Dam were constructed at the present time, it
would be necessary to allow a portion at least of the power to go to California points,
as well as Nevada'and Utah, because there would not be a market for all the power
that could be produced there within the State of Arizona, and I see no objection in
that, but to allow IMS Angeles, for instance, to come into the State of Arizona and
purchase the power plant and lands necessary in its operation, or the dam and the
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN". 157
plant, to hold in perpetuity. I think is goins too far. There should be a time limit on
any possessory right owned by outside political subdivisions, at the termination of
which either the Government of the United States or the State of Arizona should have
the right to take over the property and rights attached thereto.
I see no objection to section (i and the sections following, except that the bill is
practically for the development of California and does not include any develonment
in the State of Arizona, except the development of power generally.
On the whole. I think the bill should be materially amended, for in some particulars
it conflicts with the authority delegated to the Colorado River Commission, and until
the Colorado River Commission compact has been made and ratified we do not know
all the provisions it wil\ contain, but whatever provisions it shall contain, must be
deemed the law of the basin; all other laws of the .States involved pertaining to the
same subject to the contrary notwithstanding.
Very truly yours.
W. S. XORVIEL,
State Water Commissioner.
THE COLORADO RIVER AND ARIZONA'S INTEREST IN ITS DEVELOPMENT.
[By G. E. P. Smith, Irrigation Engineer, Univerity of Arizona.]
It is nearly 400 years since Spanish explorers discovered the canyons of the Colorado
River. During these centuries mankind has coped with many problems and has
surmounted great obstacles. But the 600-mile stretch of canyon of the Colorado of
the West is still under nature's control. No stone has been turned to impede the flow
of water; no revolving wheel converts the power of the flood to useful purposes.
The development of the great river is a stupendous problem. Not alone is the lay-
man staggered by the difficulties involved and by the immensity of the stakes, but
the engineer is challenged and is struggling to conceive of the gigantic works that are
required dams of twice the height of the highest dam yet attempted, reservoirs 12 to
20 times as large as the largest artificial reservoir in the world, and power generation
on a prodigious scale.
GEOGRAPHY AND IRRIGABLE LANDS.
Before presenting the problems of the Colorado River it may be helpful to review
the geography oi the region and to present a digest of the character and extent of the
water supply.
The drainage basin of the Colorado is shown in figure 1. It includes parts of seven
States the southwestern part of Wyoming, the western half of Colorado, the eastern
half of Utah, a strip along the west side of New Mexico, all of Arizona except the south-
east corner, the southeast part of Nevada, and the southeast edge of California in all,
251,000 square miles. The watershed on the east side of the basin is the Continental
Divide, from the Mexican boundary line almost to Yellowstone Park. All of the
northern half of the basin, and part of the southern half, consists of high, mountainous
country, on which there is a heavy annual precipitation.
Until a year ago that part of the stream system draining western Colorado was
called the Grand River. In the southeastern part of Utah that stream unites with the
Green River, the headwaters of which are in Wyoming. Below the junction of the
Grand and the Green the stream was called the Colorado. A year ago, by congressional
action, the name of the Grand was changed to Colorado; presumably geography and,
ultimately, public usage will adopt the new name for the upper river. The principal
tributaries below the junction of the Green and the Grand are the San Juan, flowing
westerly from the northwest corner of New Mexico; the Little Colorado, which drains
the north side of the Mogollon Rim in Arizona; and the Gila, which drains the central
and southern parts of Arizona.
In the upper basin, that is. the basin above the Grand Canyon, there is a large area
of land under cultivation, about 1,500,000 acres, mostly on the headwaters and
tributaries where diversions from the streams are easily accomplished. The irrigation
of the land, however, requires comparatively little water, on account of the high
altitude, cold climate and short growing season, and part of the water applied returns
underground to the stream. An even greater area, now idle, is susceptible of irrigation,
part of it, however, at such high cost as to make the projects of doubtful feasibility.
Studies made by the United States Reclamation Service indicate that the irrigated
area in the upper basin will be increased to 3.000,000 acres.
In the lower basin, below the Grand Canyon, the areas irrigated in 1920 included
39,000 acres between Needles and Yuma, mostly on the California side; 54,000 acres
158 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
in the Yuma project; 415.000 acres in the Imperial Valley; and 190.000 acres south of
the international boundary line a total of 698.000 acres. " This total is almost exactly
double the acreage irrigated in 1913. showing the rapid rate of increase in the use of
water in the lower basin. The possible extension of irrigation in the lower basin has
not been determined fully, but conservative estimates indicate that the following
additional areas can be brought under irrigation: 260.000 acres between Needles and
Yuma, 150,000 acres of which is on the Arizona side; 76,000 acres in the Yuma project;
400,000 acres in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys; and 630.000 acres in Mexico.
WATER SUPPLY.
Engineers have methods, of comparative accuracy, for measuring the quantity of
water flowing in rivers. The record of the flow, day by day, month by month, shows
the extent of the water supply and its fluctuations, and furnishes a basis for the design
of engineering works. On the Colorado River and its tributaries, many gauging
stations, at carefully chosen locations, have been kept for varying periods of time,
some of the records extending over 25 years.
The records of stream flow at Yuma have been kept since January, 1902. The
gaging station is below the mouth of the Gila River and below the Yuma diversion
dam, but above the head gates of the Imperial Canal. The average annual flow at
the gaging station for the period 1902-1920 was 17.300,000 acre-feet. Had the present
irrigated area been under irrigation throughout the period of the record, the average
annual flow would have been about 16,000.000 acre-feet. The average flow at Boulder
Canyon is practically the same amount, since diversions and losses between Boulder
Canyon and Yuma are balanced by the inflow of tributaries.
Most of the water comes from the upper basin. At the junction of the Grand and
the Green, the average annual discharge of the Grand is 6,900,000 acre-feet, and of the
Green 5,500,000 acre-feet. The Green and Grand and San Juan Rivers together,
though draining less than two-fifths of the area of the Colorado Basin, furnish 86 per
cent of the total water supply.
By far the greater part of the precipitation in Colorado and Wyoming is in the form
of snow. During the winter the snow accumulates to great depths. The melting of
the snow during the spring months produces a long period of high water, the annual
flood, which lasts from two to three months and reaches its highest point at Yuma
usually in June. During the June flood of 1909, the flow at Yuma reached 150,000
cubic feet per second. On June 27, 1921, all previous June records were broken by a
flow of 186,000 cubic feet per second. The low-water season begins in August and
lasts from three to seven months. The minimum flow at Yuma has been below 4,000
cubic feet per second during several low-water seasons.
The Gila River drains an area of 57,000 square miles. While the average annual
discharge of the river is not great it is very variable. In 1916 the discharge of the
river at its mouth was 4,500,000 acre-feet: in some other years the total has been less
than 100,000 acre-feet. Short-lived, "flashy" floods, greater than the highest peak
floods in the Colorado, occur at times. The flow on January 16, 1916, reached 220,000
cubic feet per second. It is fortunate that the Gila floods do not come at the same
time as the Colorado floods, in May or June. Should they coincide, the menace to the
Yuma and Imperial valleys would be intensified; the levees would be overwhelmed.
RESERVOIR SITES.
There are scores, hundreds, of storage sites in the middle and upper parts of the
Colorado Basin. Many of them have been surveyed, and at several of the sites the
depth to bedrock has been ascertained by diamond drilling. The Strawberry Valley
site in Utah and the Roosevelt site in Arizona and some small sites have been occu-
pied already. For the complete regulation and utili/ation of the river, there are
adequate natural opportunities: the real problem is as to which is the best. A few
of the largest and most promising sites, those which are of greatest public interest,,
will be discussed.
The Dewey Reservoir site is situated on the Grand River just west of the Utah-
Colorado line. Although one of the last to be discovered, it is one of the best. It is
the only site for a large reservoir on the Grand River except the Kremmling, and
that site is occupied by a railroad. The bedrock at the Dewey site is only 44 feet
below the river bed, and the capacity with a dam only 215 feet high from river bed
to spillway is 2,300,000 acre-feet.
The Flaming Gorge site is on the Green River in Utah just south of the Wyoming
line. The greatest depth to bedrock is 73 feet, and a 215-foot dam will impound
3,120,000 acre-feet. The width of the canyon is 200 feet. The Flaming Gorge and
the Dewey sites control the most important headwaters of the Colorado. Both are
excellent projects and should be under construction to-day.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 159
Another excellent site is on the Yampa tributary, near Juniper Mountain. The
drainage area is small, but the stream flow approximates 1.000,000 acre-feet of water
per year. A 200-foot clam would provide a capacity of 1,500,000 acre-feet. The
depth to bedrock is 21 feet.
The Ouray Reservoir site is on the Green River a hundred miles below the Flaming
_re site. This site is remarkable in that a dam only 210 feet high would impound
16,000,000 acre-feet of water. The greatest depth to bedrock, a factor of great influ-
ence on the cost of a dam, is 121 feet, and the canyon is not narrow. This site should
be held available by the Federal Government until it is absolutely certain that the
site is not needed in the general scheme for development of the river. If the site is
restored to entry, it will be seized at once by the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad. The
railway can be built around the reservoir site.
A reservoir at the junction of the Green and the Grand has been under consideration
for many years. It would regulate partially both streams. A dam 250 feet high
would impound 7,450,000 acre-feet. Borings were made to 120 feet without encoun-
tering bedrock. It is unfortunate that the borings were not carried somewhat deeper.
An apparently excellent reservoir site exists on the San Juan near Bluff, Utah,
but its feasibility has not been established by test holes to find bedrock. A dam 264
feet high would create a reservoir of 2,600,000 acre-feet capacity. The accumulation
of silt in this reservoir would be very rapid.
The Glen Canyon, or Lees Ferry, site outclasses all other proposed sites in its gigantic
possibilities. The maximum development contemplates a dam 700 feet high, 450
feet long at the level of the river, and 1,400 feet long on top. The proposed slopes
are One to six downstream and one to four upstream, making the length of base up
and downstream over a mile. The capacity of the reservoir would be over 50,000,000
acre-feet, and 86 per cent of the entire water supply of the Colorado Basin would be
regulated completely. Over a million continuous horsepower could be developed
without sacrifice of irrigation interests. Complete surveys of the reservoir site have
been made during the last few months. No test borings have been made, and it is
stated that the depth to bedrock is not a crucial matter on account of the radial char-
acter of the dam contemplated. Test borings should be made at once.
Excellent dam sites exist in Cataract Canyon and Marble Canyon. The project
for Marble Canyon provides for a power development of 1,300,000 horsepower, but
the storage possibilities are small. This will be the last of the major projects because
of its magnitude and high cost.
On the Little Colorado River there is a dam site at Tolchaco, where the entire flood
flow of that stream can be controlled by a dam 50 feet high.
The site at the mouth of Diamond Creek is of particular interest to Arizona, on
account of its favorable location and because it is controlled by Arizona people. The
site is only 16 miles from Peach Springs, a station on the Santa Fe Railroad. It is a
power project only, there being practically no storage. Present plans, subject to
modification, call for a dam 284 feet high, 324 feet above bedrock, to the spillway crest,
and the top of the structure would be 25 feet higher. About 110.000 horsepower could
be developed with the unregulated flow of the river, but in case the flow is equalized
by a project with storage farther up the river the ultimate power development may
reach (iOO.OOO horsepower. The canyon at this site is only 220 feet wide at the water
level, and the length of the dam at the top will be 600 feet, about the same as the
Roosevelt Dam. The walls and foundation are of granite. The main electric trans-
mission line would extend through, or near, Prescott, Phoenix, Mesa, Florence, and
Tucson to Douglas, with important laterals to Jerome, Ray, Globe, Clifton, Ajo, and
Yurna.
The Boulder Canyon site is in a similar narrow canyon in granite rock. The canyon
walls are 300 feet apart. Here it is proposed to build a solid concrete masonry dam 600
feet high, 735 feet above bedrock, to elevation 1,300 feet above sea level. The capacity
of the reservoir is 31,600,000 acre-feet, and the estimated cost of the dam alone is
$55,000,000. The great depth to bedrock is the main disadvantage of this site. While
the problems of carrying the foundation to so great a depth and of passing the annual
and occasional floods of the river during the construction period strike terror to the
heart of the engineer, the task can be accomplished if adequate funds are provided.
The power development will be 700,000 continuous horsepower as long as the irrigated
area in the lower basin does not exceed 1,500,000 acres, and will decrease to 600,000
horsepower as the acreage increases to 2,000,000 acres.
The last annual report of the United States Reclamation Service states that an in-
spection of the lower river was made by boat by Homer Hamlin. a noted engineer, in
April, 1920, and that he reports that there is no 9-ood dm site for a storage reservoir
between Boulder Canvon and Yuma.
160 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
THE THREE GREAT PROBLEMS.
Three objects are sought in the development of the Colorado River. They are: (1)
Storage for flood protection; (2) storage to provide more water for the latter half of the
irrigation season and for dry years; and (3) hydroelectric power.
The flood protection is the main incentive which is spurring many agencies to action.
The people of the Imperial Valley, for Hi years, have been lighting a defensive battle
against the Colorado, sometimes gaining, sometimes losing, but in the main losing.
They can not hold out for many more years. At least once every year, in June, and
sometimes at other seasons, the river threatens to change its course frcm the Gulf of
California to the Imperial Valley, as it did in 1905. The only protection at present is
the system of levees, called respectively the first, second, and third lines of defense.
Frequently the floods breakthrough the first and second lines and reach the third line.
Each year the river, through silt deposition, builds up that part of the alluvial fan in
front of the levees, in some years as much as 4 feet, and each year the levees must be
raised an equal amount. Over one-quarter of a million dollars is expended each year
by the farmers of the Imperial Valley in this work. The limit will be reached soon.
Levees 40 or 50 feet high can not be maintained.
The Yuma Valley also is protected by levees, but the danger there does not increase.
Arizona hopes to develop another great irrigated valley farther upstream at Parker,
but much of the Parker Valley is now subject to overflow and must be protected by an
expensive system of levees unless adequate regulation of the flood waters is provided
by storage reservoirs. Regulation of the Green and the Grand will solve the problem
in large measure, but tributaries below the junction must be given consideration. On
one occasion a flood of 150,000 second-feet measured at Bluff, Utah, was contributed by
the San Juan, and the Gila River floods likewise are a menace with which to reckon.
As for storage to equalize the supply for irrigation, the situation is more critical than
is commonly known. Despite the great excess of water which is wasted to the ocean
each year, there is an actual shortage during the latter part of the irrigation season in
dry years. In 1915 the entire flow of the river was diverted into the Imperial Canal at
the end of August, and yet there was not enough water to meet the demand. Since
that time the acreage irrigated from the river has increased 300,000 acres. If the
natural flow next September is as low as it was in 1915, there will be 300,000 acres of
crops without any water to bring them to maturity, and the financial loss and human
suffering will be appalling. Again, it is the Imperial Valley that is in danger, for
other projects have the advantage of location upstream. No further expansion of
irrigation use should be allowed until storage is provided ; it should be admitted that
the natural flow is entirely appropriated. It does not seem practicable, however, to
prevent continued appropriation and use of water in Utah and Colorado.
But how can storage be financed? The Imperial Valley is burdened already with
a heavy bonded indebtedness and is facing the further problem of the all-American
canal, which is expected to cost $30,000,000. The farmers can not finance the
river regulation which they require and must have.
Now enters the third element of the great project power. The power possibilities
are so great, and power is so valuable, that it is estimated the sale of power will pay
for the entire project. A few months ago the proposal was to charge 5 per cent of the
cost of the storage dam to irrigation, 10 per cent to flood protection, and 85 per cent
to power. Now it is proposed to charge the entire cost to the power privileges. About
4,000,000 horsepower can be developed in Arizona at the four sites mentioned above.
Is there a market for so much power? Arizona can take about 100,000 horsepower
to replace present steam plants. Cheap power will permit of increased pump irriga-
tion, the mining of lower grade ores, and the electrification of our railways. We
shall have factories where our own raw materials can be fabricated, cotton mills,
copper and brass foundries; and the electrolytic refining of Arizona copper can be
done in our own State. All city and house lighting will be done with hydroelectric
power, and any excess can be used for making nitrate fertilizers.
But other States, especially California, will compete for the power. A great amount
can be marketed in southern California now. It is estimated that in 15 years all
possible hydroelectric development in that State will have been accomplished, and
California interests are looking much farther ahead than that.
Nearly all of the power requirements of the mining industry in Arizona are now
supplied from petroleum fuel oil. The best opinions regarding the future supply of
fuel oil point to a diminution of the supply and rapidly rising prices. It is essential
that hydroelectric power be developed to replace the failing oil supply.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN. 161
PROPOSAL OF THE UNITED STATES RECLAMATION" SERVICE.
Engineers of the United States Reclamation Service have been studying the problem
of the Colorado for eight years, and have decided quite definitely on what they believe
should be the first project. The service has recommended to Congress that it should
be a project of the Federal Government, and the Secretary of the Interior stated pub-
licly at the Riverside and San Diego conventions in December, 1921, that, because
of the international and interstate character of the river, the Federal Government is
the only competent agency to construct the great dam that must be built, and to
control and operate its gates. He is right, and Arizona should back to the the limit
Federal ownership and operation of the main river-control project.
The Reclamation Service recommends that the dam be located in Boulder Canyon ,
on the boundary line between Arizona and Nevada. On account of the peculiar
situation, the west end of the dam would be re,st on the Arizona side. A transmission
line from that point to Phoenix would be about 250 miles long, and a line to Los
Angeles 277 miles in length. The proposed 600-foot dam provides for storage for
irrigation and for storage of silt for 60 years, and for 5,000,000 acre-feet capacity at
the top to be used only for detention of high-flood crests, such as those of 1907, 1909,
1914, and 1920.
Last July, when Congress was committed to retrenchment, and it seemed impossible
to interest the East in this most necessary undertaking, plans were made to contract
the power privileges in advance to municipalities and States or to other purchasers,
and the purchasers were to obtain the necessary funds through sale of bond issues.
The, city of Los Angeles was ready to take all or as much of the power as would be
allowed to that city. Now, it is believed that there is a good fighting chance to obtain
the money through Federal appropriation, with ultimate return of the cost to the
Government by the sale of power.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS.
Although crystallization of sentiment in favor of Boulder Canyon project has made
considerable headway, still some widely divergent views are being expressed, and it
may not be impertinent to discuss alternative proposals. It is contended that for
many reasons the river development should begin farther upstream. That the Boulder
Canyon site is the one nearest to the best market for power is a sound argument. Of
the other arguments advanced for that site, some are not valid, and fhe others may be
met by the statement that extensive storage in the upper basin can be followed advan-
tageously, and will be, by projects providing additional storage on the lower river.
If the flood hazard is removed or is greatly reduced by means of extensive storage in
Utah, the Boulder Canyon Dam can be built at much less cost and in fewer years.
Further, if the river regulation is effected in the upper basin, the power sites from
Glen Canyon to Boulder Canyon, inclusive, become much more valuable, since the
water supply is equalized and because less reserve space is required for detention
purposes. The upper locations will be developed eventually; why not now?
From that standpoint the Dewey site on the Grand River and the Flaming Gorge
site on the Green offer the best solution. Hoth dams could be built at once, and the
total cost would be only about $25.000,000. The Juniper Mountain Reservoir would
cost $4,000.000. These sites are above the great silt-gathering area of the drainage
basin. The Flaming Gorge and Dewey Reservoirs would provide ample late-summer
water supply for the lower basin for many years to come. The Flaming Gorge Reser-
voir would serve to reduce the spring floods on the Green River one-third, and the
Dewey Reservoir would take the peak off from the spring floods of the Grand. The
Dewey Reservoir would be operated so as to be entirely empty at the beginning of the
flood period. Both dams could be completed in five years. It is premised, however,
that the construction of these dams would be followed by that of one or more others
farther downstream possibly one on the San Juan or at Lees Ferry, and either the
Diamond Creek Dam or Boulder Canyon Dam or both. The dams on the headwaters
should be built under the same theory of government as were the 33 dams on the
Ohio River, that is. to secure river regulation and control, to make the stream man-
ageable and utilizable. Navigation is no more vital to the economic and social welfare
of the group of six States bordering the Ohio than is the taming and harnessing of the
Colorado to the welfare of the seven States along its course. In due time the Govern-
ment might be reimbursed for the investment, for, after the construction of large
storage reservoirs in Arizona, the Utah reservoirs would be of great value for power
production.
The Diamond Creek project is capable of comparatively rapid construction, and is
quite likely to go ahead of the Boulder Dam in point of time. It would be a strictly
162 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Arizona enterprise, and free from the entangling jurisdictions that are inevitable in
the larger projects. It does not in any way lessen the necessity for the Boulder Dam
or some other dam which can provide storage and flood control.
Another proposal is to make Lees Fern- Reservoir the first major undertaking. On
account of the type of dam planned, the extent of flooding in the river during con-
struction would be immaterial. This reservoir as planned would store 30 per cent
more water than the Boulder Canyon Reservoir, the production of power would be
much greater, and the cost would be less. However, on account of the radical design
and proposed methods of construction, the project should be submitted to the best
engineering talent in the world before it can be right or wise to adopt it.
WATER RIGHTS.
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that in the case of interstate-
streams in the arid region, neither the riparian theory of water rights nor the priority
of appropriation theory can obtain, but that each State is entitled to benefit from the
river to substantial benefits. Presumably, the distribution of benefits must be
made by the Federal court. But in the cage of the Colorado River, where there is
water enough for all. there seems to be no necessity for any litigation.
The States of the upper basin seem to fear that the construction of large reservoirs
will serve automatically to appropriate the waters of the river for use in the lower
basin, and that additional development of irrigation in the upper States will be pre-
vented. Oft -repeated assertions of the United States Geological Survey and the
United States Reclamation Service that the water supply is ample and adequate for
all of the irrigable lands of both upper and lower basins have not served to allay the
fear. Another cause of alarm in Colorado is the doubt as to whether that State will
be allowed to divert 310.000 acre-feet of water per year from the Colorado basin, through
tunnels at narrow places in the watershed, for use on the plains north and east of
Denver, as is desired.
The upper States therefore are demanding a guaranty of unrestricted irrigation
development in the upper basin before they will lend their support or consent to a
Federal project in the canyon region. The lower-basin States are asking for an allot-
ment of the water supply among the seven States.
The wisdom of a perpetual guaranty or of an allotment of the waters of the river
is questionable. On no other river basin has either been attempted. It is not possi-
ble to foresee conditions a hundred years ahead, or even 30 years ahead. All irri-
gators who are putting the water to beneficial use should be protected, but in princi-
ple it may be exceedingly dangerous to reserve a valuable water supply for a project
which may prove to be of doubtful feasibility. If an allotment of the water is
attempted, most of the seven States will advance extravagant claims to water. Some
of the States most involved have no adequate conception of the feasibility of their
projects, and no just allotment can be made without thorough surveys of all proposed
irrigation lands. It is unlikely that any allotment can be proposed which will not
be held up in some legislature for many years, and meanwhile the ruin of the Imperial
Valley may be accomplished.
There is no necessity for a distribution of the unused water rights at this time.
If the act to appropriate money for a Colorado River project shall state as follows:
''Provided. That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to affect in any way the
rights to the use of the waters of the Colorado Basin of any State or any part of a State, "
then the upper States can not be affected adversely by the project.
The average annual discharge of the river into the Gulf of California is 13,000,000
acre-feet. The projects of the upper basin are such that probably no more than
3,000,000 acre-feet of water additional can be consumed in those projects, and the
balance of 10,000,000 acre-feet is more than twice as much as the States of the lower
basin can use at least until a different economic order shall prevail.
Congress, through the Mondell Act, has provided for a Colorado River Commission
'(insisting of one representative from each of the seven States and one from the Fed-
eral Government. The commission is now organized, with Herbert Hoover as its
chairman, representing the Federal Government. The purpose expressed in the
Mondell Act is the negotiation of a compact or agreement providing for an equitable
division or apportionment of the water supply among the seven States.
NAVIGABILITY.
The existing treaty with Mexico declares the Colorado River to be a navigable
stream, and a Federal court prohibited any action which might interfere with its
navigability. The diversion of water for irrigation, therefore, is contrary to the treaty.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 163
As soon as diplomatic relations with Mexico are reestablished steps should be taken
to amend the treaty in so far as it affects the Colorado. The river should be declared
to be an unnavigable stream.
ARIZONA'S PROGRAM.
Arizona owns the Colorado River bed, or half of it, for 580 miles. We do not own
the water. We do not have unlimited millions of wealth to invest in the Colorado
enterprises, nor many votes in Congress. We should endeavor to cooperate with our
neighbor States. When the seven States agree upon a plan of action, the extreme
urgency of the case will secure the appropriation needed.
With regard to some features of the project Ari/onans will express their opinions
but should not insist upon them. The immediate construction of the storage dam
and the height of dam and the type of dam are far more vital to California than to us.
Nothing can prevent our obtaining all the power the State can use, both now and for
50 years to come. Our preferential rights to power are recognized. Also it is pro-
posed to grant Arizona and Nevada each a free block of power at Boulder site. Our
concern must be to insure that there shall be no monopoly of power by a single cor-
poration and that every nook and corner of the State shall be able to receive power
at equitable rates.
We should pledge the State's honor to the States of the upper basin that any con-
struction of dams for the benefit of the lower basin shall not prejudice in any way their
equitable rights.
But the irrigation of our lands we must insist on; the development of the Parker
protect of 110,000 acres and of the Mohave Valley of 27,000 acres and of the Cibola
Valley of 15,000 acres, and that the right to double the acreage under irrigation at
Yuma, as is contemplated, shall not be denied. It will require at least two new
diversion dams similar to the Laguna Dam, and they must be started in time to be
finished when the storage dam is finished. The great river control dam and the power
will be secured largely because California is fighting with us. But for the irrigation
of Arizona lands we must fight alone. It does not follow necessarily that our lands
will be irrigated if the Boulder Dam or Lees Ferry Dam is built. Provision for the
Parker diversion dam should, if possible, be put into the act which shall provide
for the larger project. Be it said also that the Parker and Mohave projects do not
have the usual influential citizens and real estate boosters to present their claims.
They are still under the care of the United States Indian Service. Congress passed
an act for their opening to entry several years ago, and the matter is now sleeping.
There are only a few Indians, and they have received allotments. It is the finest
opportunity in the whole United States to provide lands for former service men
not less than 3,500 of them. The State of Arizona has got to speak loudly for those
projects.
Lastly, the high-line irrigation project what of it? It has been claimed that if
the high dam is located in Boulder Canyon, water can be turned into a canal on a
high level, and led through the mountain passes of Mohave County, across Bill Wil-
liams River, through the Bouse Valley to Harrisburg Valley, and down the < Vnlennial
Wash to the Gila River. The writer has studied all the available data, and is of the
opinion that the project is not feasible. Regardless of how desirable it would be
to bring under irrigation from the Colorado River an extensive area of elevated desert
land, yet it is better for the people of Arizona to dream no vague dreams and to con-
centrate all efforts to obtain those developments which arc practicable.
In the first place, the high-line project would require a clam 500 or 600 feet high
to raise the water to the level of the canal. A great reservoir of dead storage water
would be created, for the water level could never again be allowed to fall below the
elevation of the canal. Storage to regulate and equalize the water supply must ix-
provided by building the dam considerably higher than the canal level or by means
of another reservoir, preferably at Lees Ferry. Probably there would be two great
dams required instead of one.
The high-line canal would be built along the rough mountain sides of Mohave
County, but no water could be taken through the Sacramento Valley Pass or through
any other pass to lands behind the mountain range that borders the river in that
county.
Assuming an elevation of 1,200 feet above sea level for the canal at its head, the
elevation in the vicinity of Bouse would be about 1,050 feet, 120 feet lower than the
proposed canal that is designed to irrigate the Bous<> Valley from the Williams Rivet.
About 90,000 acres in the Bouse Valley could be irrigated by pumping from the
canal. By boosting the water 350 feet by means of pumps, the water could be led
to Vicksbiirg, and then another boost of 500 feet would deliver it into the Harrisburg
Valley, or, perhaps it would be cheaper to avoid the last-named lift by tunneling
164 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
through the Little Harquahala Mountains. It would be more feasible to leave the
Little Harquahalas and Coyote Mountain to the east of the canal, but even so, the
pumping lift would be impractical. The maximum area that could be brought under
such a high-line system would be less than a million acres, mostly in Yuma County.
As an alternative proposal, the water for the high-line canal might be dropped at
the high dam, generating power, and this power could be used to lift the water from
the river near Parker into a high-line canal starting at that point. The electrical
transmission losses would be no larger in percentage than the seepage and evapora-
tion losses of water from the 260 miles of canal, and the investment would be less.
About 1 kilowatt would be required per acre irrigated for the main lift to elevation
1,060 at Parker, requiring an investment of about $100 per acre for power equipment,
while the cost of the canal from the high dam to Parker would be more than twice
as much. The value of the power used on this one lift, per irrigated acre, at one-half
cent per kilowatt hour, would be about $30 per year. Neither proposition is feasible,
at least not during the present generation. An investment of over ,$300 per acre
would be required. The best raw valley land in Arizona can not stand a construc-
tion change for irrigation over $150 per acre.
There is one possibility for which plans and estimates should perhaps be prepared.
This is the possibility of pumping from the river at or near Cocopah Point, near the
head of I.aguna Lake, on a lift of about 350 feet, to a canal which would then run east-
erly on the north side of the Lower Gila Valley, crossing the river near Sentinel, and
running thence on grade toward the southwest, covering about 250.000 acres of land.
Power could be generated at Cocopah Point by means of a low rock-fil! dam after river
regulation has been secured farther upstream. This project may be practicable 20
years hence.
THE GILA RIVER SYSTEM.
It seems to have been forgotten that the Gila tributary is a vital element of the
Colorado River, and that the study of Colorado River problems must take cognizance
of the necessity for river regulation on the Gila. Be it remembered that it was the
Gila River floods, five of them, in the winter and spring of 1905 which were responsible
for the great disaster of that year, when in August the whole of the river was diverted
into Imperial Valley. Had it not been for the continuous high water and repeated
floods of the Gila. the narrow cut from the temporary heading of the Imperial Canal
could have been closed easily. The Gila flood of January 22, 1916. was greater than
the highest recorded flood of the Colorado itself. River regulation of the Gila River
is absolutely necessary for the security of Yuma and Imperial Valleys.
About seven years ago when the Federal Government began a comprehensive study
of Colorado River problems, the Gila River was included in the studies. The plans
prepared by the United States Reclamation Service at that time provided for regula-
tion of the Gila by means of a dam 225 feet high near Sentinel. Ari/.. The reservoir
was to be operated for stream regulation only, and would have been of little service
in reclaiming desert lands between Sentinel and Yuma. In 1918 borings were made
at the dam site by the Reclamation Service, and it was ascertained that suitable
foundations for a storage dam do not exist, hence the Sentinel project was abandoned.
In 1920 the Reclamation Service made an extensive study of the Gila River from
source to mouth, examining all possible storage sites. It was concluded that the best
solution of water problems of the Gila River is the construction of the San Carlos Dam.
The report of the engineer. Mr. ( '. ( '. Fisher, favors a dam 250 feet high above bedrock,
about 20 feet lower than the Roosevelt Dam. Mr. Fisher finds that the irrigation
project should have an area of 148.000 acres. In February. 1921, a board of engineers
of the United States Reclamation Service reviewed the Fisher report. The board,
recommends that the dam to be first constructed be 200 feet in height and that in the
next generation. 30 years hence, the height be raised to 250 feet. The board states
that such a project is entirely feasible, provided satisfactory arrangements can be made
with the Arizona Eastern Railroad, the line of which passes through the reservoir
site.
The San Carlos Dam must be constructed. Furthermore, storage must be provided
on the Verde River. Additional storage is needed on the Salt River, and with this
additional storage will come 24.000 additional hydroelectric horsepower at the Horse
Mesa Dam. It is hoped, too, that a feasible storage project on the Agua Fria can be
accomplished, and perhaps the Walnut Grove Dam will be rebuilt at 'some time.
Each one of these projects will reduce materially the flood crests of the lower Gila
River.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 165
Arizona's program, therefore, should be
1. To encourage all development projects, both public and private, on the Colorado
River. In the case of publicly owned projects, the State must receive a block of
free power in lieu of taxes.
2. To demand that as much power be allotted to this State as can be used by this
State.
3. To demand that the Federal project include a diversion dam at Bulls Head
Rock at the head of Mohave Valley and one at Gatehead Rock at the head of the
Parker Valley.
4. To demand that provision for river regulation on the Gila River be included
in the Federal program.
In the above exposition of the Colorado River problems and proposals I have pre-
sented the case from the Arizona viewpoint. Arizona's future is to a high degree
wrapped up in the development of the Colorado. The highest statesmanship is de-
manded at this time that the latent wealth of this great ntaural resource may be wisely
and speedily secured and that this Commonwealth may share in its benefits in the
largest practicable measure.
PHOEXIX, ARIZ., May 31. 19,'.'.
Hon. CARL HAYDEX.
Mfmbtr of Congress. Washington. D. C.
My DEAR <'ARL: I received from vou "Power Development on the Colorado River
and its Relation to Irrigation and Flood Control." by E. C. Merrill, secretary of the
power commission. I have read this verv carefully and believe that Mr. Merrill has
some extremely good ideas and if he had a better knowledge of the country would
probably make a much better story.
I notice by this morning's paper that vou have introduced a bill asking for an
investigation of the Colorado River as to dikes and other river protection, especially
as to Arizona; that this investigation is to be made by the Army engineers.
I would suggest that you incorporate in this bill a provision for the full investigation
at the same time by the same engineers of the Glen Canyon Reservoir for control of
flood waters of the Colorado River. My own opinion from my personal study of the
Colorado River and its conditions is that the Glen Canyon Dam should be constructed
a.- a river control reservoir primarily and that the waters from the Colorado River
should be di si -barged from this dam from a stabilized stream which would protect all
of the lower country both in Arizona and in California. This would enable the con-
struction of the Boulder Canyon Dam at much less cost and in a much shorter time
than to undertake the construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam as a primary construc-
tion on the Colorado.
The Glen Canyon Dam should be a loose rock dam, as conditions are such that this
would be the most economical construction and could be more rapidly built than any
other type, or the construction of other dams suggested. There may be some criticism
as to th'e feasibility of damming the Colorado River by the blowing of the canyon walls
into the river and iilliuirit v ith loose rock. The greatest engineer that the ^outhv.'est,
has ever produced, a man \\ho had the ability to do and he did do. proved beyond a
possible doubt that by the mere dumping of rock into the < 'olorado River it v as possible
to dam the stream in material that no other dam could be constructed. This < ...s done
by him against the advice of the engineers of the Reclamation .-.ervice and. I beiie\e.
the Army engineers, and airain-t the advice of the nationally known and men of
national and international reputation a.s dam builders. I refer to the \\dnderful feat
of Col. Epes Randolph in building a dam a- TOSS the Colorado River \\hen it .-as run-
ning into the Imperial Valley, by the use of loose rock only on a silt foundation and
in a stream that had but silt banks, and if it could be done under these condition.- ii
most assuredly can be done in a canvon where the depth !> bedrock is very iimiled
and the canyon walls are solid so there is no danger of the stream being diverted
around the end* of the (ills.
The topography of the Glen Canyon Reservoir is such that it would permit of the
construction of a discharge tunnel for the discharge of the ( 'olorado River as a st abili/ed
stream at a point that is far distant from the possible dam site and would interfere in
no way with the construction of the dam. The time limit for the construction of this
type of dam at this point is only limited to the time that is necessary for the construc-
tion ot the discharge tunnel.
That the storage waters from the Glen Canyon Dam be used in their stabilized dis-
charge for the generation of electricity.
166 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
That the Boulder Canyon Dam be constructed primarily for an irrigation reservoir
to store the stabalized discharge of the Colorado River from the Glen Canyon Reservoir
and of an added storage capacity sufficient to store the flood waters of the Little Colo-
rado, the Virgin River, and other streams draining the catchment basin of the Colorado
River between these two points.
That the water be discharged from the Boulder Canyon Reservoir for irrigation and
that all the electricity possible be developed under these conditions; that is, that in
the wintertime, when the irrigation demands are at the minimum, that the surplus
stabilized stream of the Colorado River be stored in the Boulder Creek Reservoir.
That in the summer time, when at the peak of irrigation, that the water be discharged
as irrigation requirements so that the horsepower developed at this point would be
erratic horsepower, depending on the amount of water necessary for the irrigation of
two and a half million acres of land in Arizona and two and a half million acres of
land in California including the Imperial Valley.
That the canyon between these two reservoirs with the stabilized flow of tho
Colorado River be used by the construction of power dams for the generation of
electricity, and as the river is stabilized in its flow the electric development would b
constant.
I would further suggest that the Boulder Canyon Dam be used as a diversion dam.
That the Army engineers make a study of the possibilities of diverting the water
from the Boulder Canyon Dam in the neighboorhood of the 1,200 or 1,300 foot contour.
According to the Government contour map this could be accomplished by the driving
of a tunnel about a mile in length; water diverted at this elevation would be able to
be discharged by gravity for irrigation of the country as far east as the Buckeye country
on the Gila River 30 miles west of Phoenix. The Gillespie Dam could be used for
the diverting of the gravity water of the Colorado and the Gila Rivers, or for the
crossing of the Gila River by waters of the Colorado River, using an enlarged Gillespie
canal for the main irrigation canal on the south side of the Gila River, and this canal
could be extended by gravity to cover the enormous acreage on the low valleys in
western Maricopa and Yuma Counties, creating an empire in southwestern Arizona,
as gravity waters of this canal could be carried to the south of the Mohawk Mountains,
covering all of the Gila Bend, the Sentinel, the Stovall, and that wonderful valley
and mesa lying between the Mohawk and Fortuna Mountains and bringing the water
by <n - avity covering the entire Yuma mesa with its wonderful frost less climate.
It would permit the construction of a high-line canal from Boulder Canyon diversion
on the California side of the river covering a large acreage in the neighborhood of Nee-
dles, Calif., the entire Blythe country, going through the Chuckawalla Valley into the
Imperial Valley, putting the lands that lie under the 500 or 600 foot above the sea level
contour of the Salton Basin, under irrigation. This would mean that this high-line
canal would cross the "White Water River above the Palm Springs that are near the
Southern Pacific Railroad west of Indio and at the base of San Jacinto Mountain
peak.
The carrying out of this plan would eliminate the building of the proposed "all-
American canal : ' for the Imperial Valley with its cost of 840,000,000 and would add
to the California empire at least one million and a half acres of land that would not be
capabable of being irrigated from the waters of the Colorado River by gravity under
any other plan.
I do not know if the United States Senate and the United States Congress and the
people of the East appreciate how serious a question the Colorado River is to-day as
to the Imperial Valley and the Yuma project. Since the diversion of the waters of
the Colorado River into the Imperial Valley the floor of the Colorado River has been
building up an average of about 1 foot per year and to-day the river is running on the
top of the Hogback and is held there by dikes that have required additional height
of a foot a year to protect the people, the homes, the wealth, and the civilization that
has been created in the Salton Basin. If a complete break is made by the Colorado
River into the Imperial Valley it. will destroy the entire Yuma project, the Southern
Pacific Railroad at the Colorado River and west of it. the Laguna Dam, the irrigation
by gravity of the Blythe country, and all the Parker Indian Reservation, as before
the Salton sink is filled the erosion of the Colorado River at the Yuma Bridge will be
in the neighborhood of 80 feet.
It would take a book to write you a full description of the possibilities of the Colo-
rado River developed under this plan, but if you will take a map of Arizona and realize
that, the gravity waters in a high-line canal, as suggested here, will cross the Arizona &
California Railroad in the neighborhood of Bouse, Ariz., covering the Harqua Hala
Plains and tailing into the Centennial Wash that discharges its water into the Gila
River above the Gillespie Dam. This will give you a foundation for the studying
of the possibilities of this development. If there are points that you would like to
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN". 167
have more definite information on, if you will advise me I will try and give them to
you. It is a big question and one that to date sufficient data has not been gathered to
make a detailed estimate of cost or possibilities of such a scheme.
Thanking you for the courtesies of the past, I am,
Sincerely yours,
JAMES C. DOBBINS, Civil Engineer.
AN ARIZONA ENGINEER'S VIEWS OF THE COLORADO PROJECT.
[By A. G. McGregor, Warren, Ariz.]
The relation of the Colorado River project to mining in Arizona is well expressed
in the following excerpt from an address delivered on December 15 last, to the
Arizona Industrial Congress by Dr. L. D. Ricketts, whose first-hand knowledge of
Arizona's mining industry is unsurpassed. In discussing its problems, he said:
"The other and much more serious question is that of fuel. Several years ago
when the mining companies requested bids from California we were told by the
large producers that they had no fuel oil for sale, but we were fortunate enough to
make an advantageous contract for Mexican oil. I believe it is only a question now
of a few years when this commodity will become so costly that we can not afford
to use it. We probably can get an ini->rior coal at high cost that will be sufficient
for smelting purposes, but I hope we will not be obliged to use this coal for power.
"I have had the subject of power carefully canvassed.- I find that the mines and
smelters of the Southwest, including northern Sonora. now use about 70,000 horse-
power in addition to the power they recover from waste heat, and my report shows
that it is probable this demand will increase to over 100,000 horsepower in the next
four or five years. I wish most urgently to bring to your attention the fact that
Arizona needs cheap power and is faced with the most serious menace if it does not
get it. and the only source of cheap power that I know is the Colorado River. * *
If cheap power can be obtained in Arizona. I believe there will be an extension of
leaching in contradistinction to smelting, and that the refining industry and the
production of electrolytic copper in Arizona will become a great and important
industry. I have to-day able chemists at work trying to devise methods of leaching
certain classes of mixed and sulphide ores in order to provide in the future for con-
tingencies of which I speak."
Normally about 60.000 tons of ore is mined in Arizona per day. In mining and
smelting this amount of ore, the fuel used for power and for furnaces amounts to the
equivalent of about 8,000,000 barrels of oil annually. This fuel could be entirely
replaced and conserved for other purposes by the direct use of hydroelectric power
in mining op- i-ations and for electrolytic copper precipitation and electric furnace
smelting. There ; enough power going to waste annually in the Canyon of the
Colorado to replar- all the fuel now consumed in Arizona for industrial purposes
tenfold.
Arizona has another important interest in cheap power. Considerable land is now
cultivated in Arizona that receives its water for irrigation through expensive power
pumping from depths van-ing from 10 feet to 75 feet. With cheap powei vastly greater
acreages would be reclaimed in this way. The additional land to be reclaimed by
direct diversion from the Colorado will be small compared with the land to be re-
claimed through cheap power for pumping in Arizona and California.
The conditions are such that cheap power can only be obtained in the canyon
through enormously large developments, and herein lies the reason why all the poten-
tial power of the Colorado is still going to waste. For the best ultimate results from a
single dam in the canyon, it should have sufficient reservoir capacity back of it for
equalizing the flow of the river throughout the year. Such a dam at a suitable loca-
tion would be 500 feet high and would have a capacity of BOO. 000 horsepower. Due
to the fact that some time will be required after the completion of the first project to
develop a market for a block of power as large as 000,000 horsepower, it is difficult for
a private corporation, which must have interest on its r-apital from the start, to finance
so large a development.
DEVELOPMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT.
The Government should promptly build a dam for flood control and for equalizing
the flow of the river, with a view of not demanding an immediate return on the invest-
ment, but with the assurance it will be returned many fold, just as it had at the time
1316 22 PT 3 7
168 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIX.
of investing in the Louisiana. Alaska, and other purchases, and the Panama Canal.
The Government's investment in a dam is fully justified by any one of the following
consideration? :
(a) The removal of the flood menace to the Imperial Valley.
(b) The direct financial return in the sale of cheap power, and the industrial and
agricultural development that will result.
(c) The conservation of the great quantities of fuel now being consumed yearly.
THE PACT BETWEEN THE STATES OP THE COLORADO BASIN.
It is very desirable that the seven States of the basin agree as to their respective
rights to the use of the water of the Colorado in order to prevent future interstate
disputes and litigation. After a suitable storage dam is built in the canyon, I believe
there is no likelihood of a shortage of water in the lower States for irrigation by direct
diversion, for generations, if ever. I believe, however, no State should be asked to
subscribe to a policy that will specifically prevent its citizens from diverting water
from the Colorado for irrigation, as long as there is no use for the water elsewhere in
the basin. Also, a lower State should not be asked to subscribe to a policy that will
permit diversion of water on new lands in an upper State, if .such diversion will cause
the abandonment in a lower State of lands and homes already developed at great
expense.
The active opposition of the upper States can undoubtedly delay a Federal appro-
priation for the proposed Colorado River Dam, and make it difficult to secure. The
upper States, however, should not take advantage of this situation and strive to gain
concessions from the lower States now which are unjust and uneconomical to the best
interests of the people of the United States as a whole. I believe the best interests
of the United States as a whole is the proper criterion upon which to base a pact.
On this basis, I believe the use of water for power should not be given any priority
over the use for irrigation, at least until after the last feasible power dam is built in
the canyon.
ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
If the proposed pact between the States proves a stumbling block or, for other
reasons, the Federal Government can not be induced to construct the dam promptly,
then the States of Arizona and California should finance the construction of the first
storage dam. They can be assured of an ample return, direct and indirect, on the
investment within a comparatively short time to justify the outlay.
The States interested will benefit so much more from the development of the
Colorado River than a private corporation can possibly benefit, that they should not
hesitate to finance the project, the burden of which will last only a comparatively
short time. If they will not finance the project directly themselves, then they should
assist private capital in every way possible to do it. 1 believe the States of Arizona
and California, on account of their close contact and vital interest, could probably
be depended upon to direct the work through the ordinary methods of handling
public work, more efficiently than the Federal Government. I believe, however,
that a better plan must be worked out for handling some of these superpower projects
now being discussed if the full benefits are to be derived. I believe a cooperative
organization of the prospective power users, who will eventually pay all the bills,
could be worked out that would handle such a project as effectively and as efficiently
as a private corporation could.
LOCATION OF THE DAM.
There are two locations for dams in the canyon having reservoir sites back of them.
One is at the head of the canyon, near Lees Ferry or Glen Canyon, having storage
capacity for about three years' average flow of the river. The other is at Boulder
Canyon, near the lower end of the defile, having a storage for about a year's. flow of
the river with the same height of dam. There are a number of good sites for power
dams, having little storage capacity back of them, between the upper and the lower
storage sites. Eventually there will be six or eight dams in the canyon, developing
a total of 6,000,000 horsepower.
So far most of the noise has been raised in favor of Boulder Canyon: however, from
every standpoint, I believe the upper site has a decided advantage:
(a) For flood control, while the upper site does not intercept the floods of several
small streams which would be intercepted by a dam at Boulder Canyon, the upper
dam with its much greater storage capacity and area, under the conditions, would
constitute a safer control for the extraordinary floods of the main river, which are the
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN. 169
real menace to the Imperial Valley, and the upper larger reservoir will be none too
large to take care of such a flood when it comes.
(6) For reclamation there is not much choice, though on account of the wide varia-
tions in the total flow from year to year, the larger storage would have an advantage
if the lands of the basin are ever developed to the extent that there is a shortage of
water for irrigation in Arizona and California. On account of the very excessive cost
of the necessary canals in the canyon, neither dam can be used as a diversion dam for
irrigation.
(e) From the standpoint of power, the upper site has many important advantages
over the lower site.
(1) By putting the liver under control at the head of the canyon, the cost of con-
structing subsequent power dams below will be greatly reduced.
(2) By equalizing the flow at the head of the canyon, each 500- foot power dam below
will have a continuous capacity of 1,000.000 horsepower instead of only about 250.000
horsepower duiing the long low-water season each year, which would be the case with-
out the large storage above.
(3) To insure safety to the Imperial Vaile. , it will be necessary to draw down the
water in either reservoir each year in order to make room for the enormous June
floods of the river. Naturally the reservoir having the larger capacity can be safely
maintained at a higher head and as a consequence can be depended upon for a greater
power output throughout the year.
(4) On account of the wide variations in the total flow of the river from year to year,
the larger reservoir has a decided advantage from the standpoint of the amount of
power it can deliver continuously.
(5) The windings of the river above Lee's Ferry, the vertical walls 1,400 feet high,
and the flat at Lee's Ferry are all so related as to afford a dam and power plant that
is safer and less expensive to construct and one that can be operated with greater
comfort and satisfaction to the attendants as compared with the Boulder Canyon site.
(6) The upper reservoir and power site is closer to the great bulk of the Arizona
power load.
The only disadvantage Lee's Ferry has over Boulder Canyon is its greater distance
from the prospective power load of southern California. This is important, but due
to the recent developments in high voltage transmission I believe it is of much less
importance than was anticipated by the reclamation engineers when writing their
recommendations, and I believe would be readily offset by almost any one of the
first five advantages set forth above.
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION.
The late distinguished engineer, Epes Randolph, who dammed the Colorado River
in 1907 and saved the Imperial Valley, suggested taking advantage of a means that
nature has so generously provided for bringing the river under control. He suggested
making a rock fill dam by blasting off the vertical cliffs of the canyon at a suitable site.
I believe a wide, properly constructed rock fill dam, with flattened slopes, similar
to the Gatun Dam at the Panama Canal, which is 1 miles long and 115 feet high, will
be the safest that can be devised and will withstand the changes of time with the
least possible danger of disaster.
I believe the feasibility of building the concrete dam at Boulder Canyon, with
foundations 150 feet below the water level as proposed by the reclamation engineers,
is not only questionable from an engineering standpoint under the adverse conditions
obtaining, but is a great waste of valuable time and many millions of dollars, and,
with the possible changes of time, may constitute a serious menace to life and prop-
erty below. While the rock-fill dam would not be a monument of art, it would appeal
to Epes Randolph as a monument of good engineering. Why shouldn't the first
dam on the Colorado be a "Randolph" dam?
In conclusion I wish to emphasize my contention that the location and type of
construction of the dam in the Colorado River are strictly engineering problems,
and if the Government undertakes the work, which I hope it will, promptly, those
questions should be settled by a proper board of engineers.
APRIL 27, 1922.
COLORADO RIVKR DEVELOPMENT ARIZONA VIEWPOINT.
[By Cleon T. Knupp, Histiec, Ariz.]
Power development on the Colorado River is a problem of immediate importance
to Arizona. The agricultural, industrial, and other interests of the Stale require
some immediate utilization of the power possibilities of the river.
170 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
The people of Arizona feel a proprietorship in the Colorado River and look upon
it as one of the State's greatest and most important natural resources. It flows through
Arizona for approximately 250 miles and then for an additional 200 miles or so forms
the boundary between Arizona and the States of Nevada and California. Ninety per
cent of the water of the river that empties into the Gulf flows into Arizona at the
Utah line. Many thousands of acres of arid land in western Arizona can be reclaimed
through the construction of a large impounding reservoir on the Colorado River at
Boulder or Glen Canyon and placing the water on the lands by gravity flow, but it
is safe to say that a greater acreage of arid lands in Arizona can be reclaimed through
the development of cheap power from the river. In any part of Arizona not over an
altitude of 3,000 feet, water is easily available for reclamation purposes were cheap
power possible for pumping it to the surface. The agricultural interests of Arizona
are vitally interested in the problem.
The principal industry of Arizona is mining, which represents more than 50 per
cent of the assessed valuation in the State. That industry employs at least 75 per
cent of the employed labor in the State. Anything that aflects it reflects at once
upon the prosperity of the State. This has been clearly shown during the past year
when practically all of the mines in the State have been closed down, and thousands
of employees have been out of work and many in want. The mining companies have
emerged from the war period with high material and labor costs. The price of copper,
the leading metal, has fallen so low that successful operations of some properties are
commercially impossible. And in addition there has been practically no market for
copper. The mining companies use vast quantities of fuel oil. and its high cost and
fast diminishing supply makes it imperative that the mining interests look elsewhere
for a source of power. And they, like the farmers, are looking to the Colorado River.
But not 15 or 20 years from now, but at once. Cheap power under present operating
conditions may prove to be the determining factor, as to whether or not certain pro-
perties can operate. And power 35 years from now will not help those mines that will
become exhausted before that time. So it would seem safe to say that the problem
of the mining industry, in this respect, is likewise the problem of the State. There
are, of course, the usual municipalities that would receive the beneficial results
from any power development on the Colorado River. And it is quite probable that
manufacturing interests would be at once attracted to Arizona as a field for operations,
through the inducement of cheap power. Even copper, which is now shipped East,
might be refined in Arizona. The possibilities are great, and the problem is one that
is of immediate importance to Arizona and its prosperity.
GIRAND PROJECT.
Fortunately for Arizona a power project is proposed to be immediately developed
on the Colorado River at Diamond Creek. This is known as the Girand project,
application No. 121, before the Federal Power Commission. This is solely a power
project, with a limited storage capacity, and no water will or could be taken from the
river. James B. Girand, of Phoenix, Ariz., in November. 1913, filed application for
this power project with the Secretary of the Interior under the then existing law.
He was the first to visualize the possibilities and to act upon his faith and judgment.
In May, 1915, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture issued a preliminary permit
to Girand. In May, 1920, and before the enactment of the present Federal power
act, Girand filed his application for a final power permit. The filing was made with
the Secretary of the Interior, and was accepted as being in due and proper form.
During all the years intervening between 1913 and 1920 Girand complied with all
the requirements of the law, and with such limited capital as he commanded, pre-
served his legal rights, in spite of obstacles that would have discouraged many. Dur-
ing that period he expended approximately $75,000 to protect his legal rights and to
furnish the data and maps required under the law.
In June, 1920, and before Girand's application for a final permit was acted upon
by the Interior Department, Congress enacted the present Federal power act. Girand,
at the suggestion of the Federal Power Commission, thereupon transferred his applica-
tion and files from the Interior Department to the Federal Power Commission, in
December, 1920. In June, 1921, the Federal Power Commission issued a preliminary
permit to Girand, and asked for further data and information. The preliminary
permit provides in article 4 that a license will be issued to Girand when it appears
that his scheme of development is adaptable to the best utilization of the site. Girand,
relying upon that assurance and the terms of the preliminary permit of June. 1921,
thereupon expended approximately $25,000 additional to furnish the further data
requested by the Federal Power Commission. In February, 1922, Girand filed that
data and maps, and made application for a license. It is now pending before the
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 171
Federal Power Commission, and Girand is asking for immediate action. He has the
necessary financial support to develop this project. Its development will come at
once and bring to Arizona the power which will answer the imperative needs of the
agricultural, industrial, and municipal interests. Arizona needs this and wants it
now.
The Girand project will not interfere with any flood control, reclamation or power
project on the Colorado River. It will help the flood control to the extent of its limited
reservoir capacity. It can not affect reclamation, because no water can I e taken
from the river at this site. All water impounded must flow through or over the dam,
and therefore the water supply is not diminished one drop. The development of
power at the Girand project would be helpful in the event of Government construc-
tion at Boulder Canyon, through power that could be furnished during the construc-
tion period at Boulder Canyon, and in the regulation of the flow of the river.
Girand claims that under the law and the terms of his preliminary permit, that he
is legally entitled to a license now. In other words, that the Federal Power Commis-
sion has no alternative but to issue the license. We confidently assert that such must
be the legal interpretation of the law. Girand, for eight years, has complied with
every requirement of the law and of the Secretary of the Interior and Federal Power
Commission, with the asurance and distinct understanding that a license would be
isued to him. His preliminary permit is an agreement signed by both Girand and the
Federal Power Commission, setting forth the terms upon which the license would be
issued. Girand has complied with those terms. He has expended approximately
$100,000 and given years of his time, to comply with the conditions imposed upon
him by the Government, under an agreement that by so doing the Government would
issue him a license. It would seem clear that the Government is both legally and
morally bound to do so.
FACTORS DELAYING LICENSE.
The Colorado River Commission is composed of a representative from each of the
seven basin States, with Secretary Hoover as chairman. Under the laws creating
the commission, it is designed to arrive at an agreement among the seven basin States
of the Colorado River, allocating the waters of the river. It has no jurisdiction over
power projects solely. After Girand filed his application for a license on February
27, 1;)22. with the Federal Power Commission, a letter was written by the Federal
Power Commission to the Colorado River Commission asking if there were any objec-
tions to the issuance of the Girand license. Chairman Hoover and several members
of the Colorado River Commission had no hesitancy in stating that in their opinion
the Colorado River Commission had no jurisdiction over the Girand project as it was
solely a power project. At a meeting of the Colorado River Commission held in
Phoenix, Ariz., on March 15, 1922. the commission took action upon the letter of the
Federal Power Commission and held that it had no objection to the issuance of the
Girand license. A formal letter, however, has not yet been filed with the Federal
Power Commission so advising. The failure to file such letter is holding up action
by the Federal Power Commission.
Shortly after March 15, 1922, a purported interview with Arthur P. Davis, chief of
the Government Reclamation Service, appeared in certain Los Angeles papers, to
the effect that the construction of the Girand project would kill the proposed Govern-
ment construction at Boulder Canyon, which Mr. Davis has so strongly urged. The
reason given was that the (iirand project would sell power to the prospective customers
of the Government, should it eventually build at Boulder Canyon; Boulder Canyon
is situated on the river touching Nevada. There has never been any claim that from
an engineering or physical standpoint the Girand project would interfere with the
Boulder Canyon project. On the contrary, it would be helpful. The Girand project
would, from an engineering and physical standpoint, be helpful in at leant two ways.
It would regulate the flow of the river, and could furnish power to Boulder Canyon
during its construction period. Now. forgetting for the moment lhal Girand. under
the law and his preliminary permit, is legally entitled to a license now. is ihe position
taken by Mr. Davis, either fair or sound? Should a man who has proceeded in good
faith: who has given years of his life and a large sum of money in acquiring and pre-
serving certain water-power rights, be deprived of those rights arbitrarily and without
legal reason or justification? Should he be denied that to which he 'is legally and
morally entitled, for the reason, as Mr. Davis advances, that he might be a power
competitor of the Government? It has not been determined that a dam can be built
at Boulder Canyon. It has not been determined that Congress will appropriate
money for such construction. But assuming both facts, are they sufficient reason for
denying to Girand the legal rights he has been assured were his? In ihe lirst place,
it is Girand who should be most fearful of competition with the Government.
172 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
If the theory of public ownership adherents is correct, the Government utility can
always undersell the privately conducted utility. Girand would be required to pay
State and Federal taxes, amounting annually to hundreds of thousands of dollars. He
would pay an annual fixed fee to the Federal Power Commission. It would seem that
not the Government, but Girand, should fear competition. But if the danger lies
in Girand taking the market away from the Government before Boulder Canyon is
constructed, then all applications for licenses now pending before the Federal Power
Commission, covering projects in Southern California, should likewise be denied, for
the reason that such projects, if developed, would be brought into competition with
the Government. The unfairness of such a position, aside from Girand 's vested
rights, is obvious. Girand has no objection to construction at Boulder Canyon. He
is in favor of any construction there or elsewhere that will be helpful to flood control
and reclamation. It is quite probable that many years will elapse before Congress
will appropriate the necessary money or construction will begin at Boulder Canyon.
Arizona can not wait. Arizona wants the Girand license issued now.
SWING-JOHNSON BILL.
A bill was recently introduced in the House and Senate known as the Swing-Johnson
bill. It. proposes an appropriation of $70,000.000 for the construction at Boulder
Canyon, together with certain canals . But the bill further provides that the GoA'ern-
ment shall reserve to itself the exclusive right to construct, provide and control dams,
reservoirs or diversion works on the Colorado River below the mouth of the Green
River. As the Green River is north of Arizona in Utah, this would mean that if
Arizona is ever to obtain any benefits from the Colorado River, through development
of power or otherwise, she must depend solely upon the Government to provide same.
In other words, this bill proposes that never at any time, or at any place within the
State of Arizona, can any private utility company develop power on the Colorado
River. Just why the States of Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and other States to the
north, should be left free to obtain any power development or other beneficial con-
struction on the Colorado River and Arizona be denied the same right, is not clear.
Obviously the discrimination is unfair. From the Arizona viewpoint competition is
to be desired. Arizona interests will best be served through competition, rather
than through a monopoly of the river by either the Government or private capital.
Arizona does not propose to he deprived of any of its rights in or to the Colorado
River. The Swing-Johnson bill discriminates against Arizona. Arizona is in favor
of Government construction at Boulder or Glen Canyon, but it is also in favor of
private utility construction. The Girand project is ready to proceed. It will in-
crease the taxable wealth of Arizona about $40,000,000 and mean hundreds of thou-
sands of dollars annually in taxes to the State and county. Government construction
will mean nothing in taxes. The Girand project will provide employment within
the reasonably immediate future to many people. There is no assurance that the
Government will ever construct at Boulder Canyon, or, if so, for years. The Girand
means immediate power for Arizona interests. There is no legal or logical reason for
delayin^ the issuance of the Girand license. Arizona asks that it be issued at once.
MAY 18, 1922.
TENTATIVE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 789-FooT ROCK-FILL DAM ON THE
COLORADO RIVER AT LEE FERRY, ARIZ.
[By E. C. La Rue, Hydraulic Engineer, U. S. Geological Survey.]
SYNOPSIS.
It is proposed to build a rock-fill dam in a narrow canyon of the Colorado River by
blasting in the canyon walls. The dam described in this paper was designed to raise
the water 700 feet above the bed of the river. Both the height of the dam and the
plan suggested for its construction are unique features. The walls of the canyon rise
1,300 feet above the river, and the width of the canyon at the water surface is 450 feet.
During the past six years the writer had has in mind the plan herein outlined for
the construction of such a dam. As a dam of this type may be built on the Lower
Colorado within the next year or two, it is believed that the presentation of this paper
at this time will be of interest to many engineers. There may be a difference of
opinion as to the feasibilitv of the plan as presented. Some engineers may have
studied this problem carefully, but to the writer's knowledge no one has ever made
the results of his studies available to the engineering profession. It is hoped that
engineers will present their views in the form of constructive criticism of this paper.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
173
INTRODUCTION.
In the southwestern part of the United States the demand for power is increasing
rapidly. In California alone construction plans which call for the expenditure of
several hundred million dollars have been adopted for the development of hydro-
electric power. As a result of these plans the ultimate development of the power
resources of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Range Mountains, in the southern part of
California, is in sight.
The construction of high rock-fill dams by blasting down the towering canyon
walls has been suggested in connection with the studies of both power and irrigation
development. This paper deals primarily with the practicability of constructing
such a dam in the Colorado River. A particular site (Lee Ferry) has been chosen
in order that the discussion might be based on definite dimensions. It should not
be construed, however, as advocating this or any other specific project.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
General features. The Colorado River is formed by the junction of the Green and
Grand Rivers in southeastern Utah. The combined length of the Green and the
Colorado is 1,700 miles and the total fall is about 14,000 feet.
The Colorado River and its tributaries drain an area of 244,000 square miles. This
area comprises the southweastern part of Wyoming, the eastern half of Utah, the
western part of Colorado, practically all of Arizona, and small parts of California,
Nevada, New Mexico, and Mexico.
The water resources of the Colorado River Basin are enormous. About 14,000,000
acre-feet of water is wasted annually into the Gulf of California. Practically all this
water could be used for irrigation and, in addition, a large amount of hydroelectric
power could be developed. In order to utilize fully the water resources of the Colorado
River Basin the flow must be regulated to meet the demands for both irrigation and
power. The storage of the flood waters would serve a threefold purpose: Water would
be available for irrigation when needed; the possibilities for the development of
hydroelectric power would be greatly increased; and with the ravaging floods under
control property on the lower river, exceeding 100,000,000 in value, would be safe.
Storage-reservoir sites. A comprehensive plan for the development of the water
resources of the Colorado River Basin will undoubtedly call for the utilization of
most of the reservoir sites mentioned in Table 1 .
TABLE 1. Storage-reservoir sites in the Colorado River Basin.
Name.
Stream.
Height of
dam,
In feet.'
Capacity,
in
acre-feet.
Flaming Gorge
Junipor Canyon
Ourav
Green River, Utah-Wyo
Yampa River, Colo
255
200
300
4, 720, 000
1,400,000
28 000 000
KremmliDg
Grand River. Colo . .
230
2 200 000
Howey
Green-Grand
Grand Kiver, Utah
.Junction of Green and Grand Kivers, Utah
213
270
2, .100, 000
8, 600, 000
Blufl
San .1 nun River, Utah
264
2 600 000
Lee Forrv
Colorado and San Juan It Ivors, Utah- Vriz.
700
- 50 000 000
Boulder Canvon
Colorado River, Nev.- Ariz
600
31,600 000
' The figures in this column indicate the elevation of spillway above river bed.
! Ksiimalo.l.
These storage sites and their use were discussed in the writer's report on the "Colo-
River and its utilization." (Water Supply Paper No. :<!);">. l'nit'd Suites < ieological
Survey, 191(5.) An analysis was made of the records of stream (low, and the mass
curves indicated that the flow of the Lower Colorado could be equalized if properly
located reservoir sites having an aggregate storage capacity of 25,000,000 acre-feet
were utilized. This study also indicated that, if no allowance is made for evapora-
tion from the surface of these reservoirs, a uniform flow of 21,800 second-feet could be
maintained below the San Juan River. The irrigation of additional lands in the
upper basin would further reduce the quantity for the uniform flow that might be
maintained by storage.
Undeveloped iratcr /)or/- hi'turen Green River and Roulder Camion. In the (i7() miles
between the town of (Jreen Kiver. Utah, and Boulder Canyon, Nev.-Ariz., the fall is
about 3,350 feet. As this part of the Colorado and that part of (irand River below
the elevation of th e town of Green River are in practically a continuous canyon, the
174 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIX.
use of the water for irrigation v ithin tin's stretch is impossible, but conditions are
favorable for the regulation of flo :id for the development of power.
The entire regulated :'o- might prof tably be used for the irrigation of extensive areas
of arable land 'tu;ited belo" - Boulder ('an von.
The data now available indir-ate that the water-power r< : the 070 miles of
the river between Green River and Boulder ( anyon may be utilized by developing
five projects.
Orecn-^nrnd projer'. A 170-foot dam built on the Colorado River immediately
below the mouth of < K-en River would make possible the development of J10>000
horsepower. The capacitv of this pr ( > r e<-T for power ma-- be L'n-atly Li hen
the flow of the Green and C^rand Pi dated by addii i pper
basin of these str>
Lrc Ferrti project. BY building a dam at I.ee Ferry to raise the water 700 feet
1, COO. COO horsepower may re develc
fe Canyon proj.Tt. A spuming that the f r ; - er is regulated by storage
above, it mav prove feasible to develop norsepower between Lee Ferry and
the ^ estern boundary of the Grand Canvon National Park.
ff-t. Between the western boundary of the Grand Canv..n
v ational Park and Diamond Creek the Colorado River falls oOO feet. This part of the
river may be developed by building two dams, each dam to raise the water 250 feet.
The capacity of this project would be 830,000 horsepower if the flow of the ri\
regulated by storage above.
BouMfr < :med that at Boulder Canyon the flow will be
reregulated to meet the demand for water lor irrigation. Under this condition a
dam 550 feet high will make possible the development oi" 700,000 horsepov. er.
More than 4.000. GOO continuous horsepower may be developed between Gieen River
and Boulder Canvon. The aggregate installed capacity of the power plants would
probably be more than 5,000,000 horsepower.
THE LEE FERRY PROJECT.
Eight miles above I ee Ferry, Ariz., is a site which has been selected as particularly
favorable for both the regulation of flow and the development of power, the possibilities
of which vill be disclosed by the surveys and investigations now in pr<x
Present information indicates that to construct a 780-foot dam at the Lee Ferry
site may prove feasible. A dam of this height would form a reservoir with a capacity
of about 50,000.000 acre-feet. The maximum back water would extend upstream
nearly to the junction of the Green and Grand Rivers and to within 230 feet of the
elevation of the piers of the railroad bridge near Green River. Utah.
The capacity of the upper 100 feet of the Lee Ferry Reservoir would be about
20,000.000 acre-feet. Allowing for evaporation from the reservoirs and for the use of
water in the upper basin for the irrigation of additional lands, the 20.000,000 acre-
feet of storage capacity may be sufficient to equalize the flow through the canyons
of the lower river. With a* 100-foot drawdown, the average head available at Lee
Ferry for power would be about 650 feet, and with the flow of the river equalized at
this point, power plants in the canyon below could be operated under heads almost
equal to the full height of the respective dams. The dam farthest downstream, how-
ever, should provide sufficient storage capacity to regulate the flow to conform to the
demand for irrigation. Under these conditions, it seems probable that an aggregate
effective head of 2.800 feet may be utilized out of the 3,350 feet of fall between Green
River. Utah, and Boulder Canyon.
The mean annual flow at Lee Ferry has been about 15.000.000 acre-feet, but allowing
for the reduction in flow for ultimate irrigation development in the upper basin,
this quantity may be reduced to 10.000.000 acre-feet. It may be 50 years before
ultimate irrigation development in the upper basin is reached. To assume that a
uniform flow of about 19.300 second-feet can be maintained at the Lee Ferry site
and in the canyons below would seem reasonable.
The depth to bedrock at the dam site has not been determined, but the writer
believes that rock is near the surface in the river channel. When he examined this
part of the river in August. 1915. the river was at a very low stage, and downstream,
about 8 miles from the Lee Ferry Dam site, the bedrock appeared to extend across
the channel of the Colorado River at the surface.
At the dam site the red sandstone walls of the canyon rise 1,300 feet above the river,
and the width of the canyon at the water surf act is 450 feet. The course of the river
at this point is in the form of the letter s> thus making two spillway sites available.
By constructing tunnels through Jhe bluff, the water may be carried about 3.000 feet
to a forebay and power house which is 6 miles by river from the dam site. The site
is easily accessible by automobile and a railroad could be built at a comparatively
low cost, connecting with the nearest railroad point. Flagstaff. Ariz.. 133 miles to the
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BAS1X. 175
south. After considering the conditions at the dam site, the facilities for spillways,
site for power house and auxiliary structures, storage capacity above the dam. and
the accessibility of the project, the writer believes the Lee Ferry site to be one of
tli" most promising on the Colorado River below the junction of the Green and Grand
Rivers.
Should this project be developed, water would be available for irrigation on the
lower river for at least a generation to come, and the menace from floods would be
removed (except floods from the Gila River) .
The conditions favor the construction of a 780-foot dam of the rock-fill type. Al-
though such a high rock-till dam has never been constructed, the writer believes that
one can be built at this site and made practically water-tight at a much less cost than
any other type of dam.
']', nt(iti;< design for rock-fill flam. In designing a rock-fill dam for the Lee Ferry
site a slope of 3:1 was used for the upstream face, for the downstream face 6:1 was used
to the 300-foot level, and 4:1 for the remainder. The rock for the dam can be blasted
from the canyon walls. With this plan of construction the slopes of the finished dam
would be uneven. but the writer believes that the general slope of both faces of the
finished dam should not be greater than those mentioned.
It is assumed that lied rock lies at a depth of 100 feet below the bed of the river, that
the channel is iilled Avith line sand and silt to a depth of 60 feet, and that the next 40
feet is composed of sand and bowlders. If the canyon walls were blasted into the
river, the heavy mass of material would settle to the level of the bowlders assumed to
be 60 feet below the bed of the river, and some of the fine sand and silt would be forced
up. Under these conditions the finished dam would contain 50,000,000 cubic yards
of material. The center 50-foot section of the dam would contain about 1,000,000
cubic yards.
Prior to construction the outline for the dam could be plainly marked on the canyon
walls. A plan for mining both walls of the canyon could be worked out from detailed
topography of the site of the dam. To obtain 500,000 cubic yards of rock from each
wall for the center 50-foot section of the dam, it would be necessary to blast the wails
back on a slope slightly steeper than 2:1, and here it may be necessary to rehandle
some of the material. Up and down stream from the center 50-foot section of the dam
the walls of the canyon may be blasted from a lower level, and the required quantity
of material obtained by blasting back on a much steeper slope. The space occupied
by the loose rock in the dam will be about 15 per cent greater than the space occupied
by the same material in its natural compact state. If the mines are propeily placed
in both walls of the canyon the first shot will blow enough rock into the river to form
a dam 250 feet high, having a gradual slope to the lower toe, more than a mile down-
stream.
The discharge of the river may be expected to range from 4,000 to 10,000 second-feet
during the eight months following the flood period. Perhaps 50 per cent of the ma-
terial in the dam would consist of rock weighing from 1 ton to 1,000 tons. If the un-
expected should happen, and a flood of 100,000 second-feet should pass over the un-
finished dam, some of the material might be moved downstream. The unfinished
dam would have a slope of about 5 per cent and the bed over which the flood would
pass would be rough. Under these conditions the water, 8 feet in depth, might
attain a velocity of 30 feet per second. Since weight of bodies that can be moved by
a current varies as the sixth power of the velocity, such a flood would have an enor-
mous ability for destmction. The lighter materials would be carried downstream
and rock that could withstand the force of the water would settle. However, floods
which occur outside the normal flood period last only a few days. To believe that
after the flood the unfinished dam would retain a height of 100 feet or more above the
average low water level seems more reasonable than that all of it would be carried
away. Such a flood might prove to be a blessing in disguise, since that part of the
dam remaining would form a solid foundation on which to build the superstructure.
However, flood water should not be permitted to flow over the dam, and it is sug-
gested that no material be blasted into the river until a temporary spillway has been
provided 200 feet above the bed of the river. A spillway tunnel would be about
3,000 feet long and could be given a fall of 200 feet. A spillway tunnel, 30 feet in
diameter, with a properly designed entrance, would have approximately the follow-
ing capacity:
Elevation of water above Capacity, in
gate sill, in feet: second-feet.
10 5,000
20 13,500
Elevation of water above
gate sill, in feet:
60 38,200
70 42,000
80... . 45,000
30 22,500 ! 90 47,400
40 28,500 j 100 50.000
50 33,700
170 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
With the spillway completed and the flood stage passed, the mines may be dis-
charged and about. 20,000,000 cubic yards of rock would be blown into the river.
This mass of loose rock would not be water-tight, which feature is the most uncertain
in the plan here presented.
This mass of rock, weighing about 40,000,000 tons, would displace the fine sand and
silt and would tend to form a mud bank immediately upstream from the dam. Such
a mud bank would be practically water-tight and, until overtopped, it would cut off
the flow of the river. This material might make the rock fill water-tight to an eleva-
tion of 50 to 100 feet above the bed of the river, and thus form a reservoir having a
storage capacity of from 100,000 to 700,000 acre-feet. If the flow of the river was
5,000 second-feet, the supply of water for irrigation might be cut off for a period of
from 10 to 70 days.
Water for the irrigation of more than 400,000 acres of land on the Lower Colorado
must be available each month of the year. To cut off the supply of water for the
irrigation of these lands, even for a 10-day period, might result in serious damage to
crops. An understanding should be had with the irrigation interests in order that they
mav take proper steps to protect the crops, should the supply of water lie cut off.
Therefore, unless a temporary spillway is provided at an elevation of 50 feet above
low water, it will be necessary to discharge the mines when the river is in flood so
that the storage reservoir above the dam may be quickly filled, and permit the
water to flow either through the upper part of the unfinished dam or through a tem-
porary spillway located at the 200-foot level. The writer believes that the temporary
spillway should be located at the 200-foot level and that the mines should be dis-
charged after the peak of the summer flood, when the discharge has fallen to about
50.000 second-feet. This feature of the project deserves consideration, and a thorough
study of the stream-flow records should be made to determine the proper time for
the first discharge of the mines.
Practically all the rock fill can be blasted into place, thus making it unnecessary
to rehandle the material except for finishing a small section at the top of the dam.
The 50.000,000 cubic yards of rock could probably be blasted into pi. -i <>f
10 cents or less per cubic yard. To determine the quantity of fine material necessary
to make the rock fill water-tight would be difficult, hut the writer believes that
about 10.000.000 cubic yards of fine rock, sand, and silt would be required.
The upper face of the dam would be permanently submerged to the 600-foot
level, and. therefore, below this level no protection against wave action is necessary.
The water in the reservoir would fluctuate between the 600 and 700 foot levels. The
reservoir would be located in a deep box canyon the circuitous course of which would
prevent excessive wave action. On the upper face of the dam. above the 600-foot
level, rock 2 feet in diameter should probably be placed. This section will be wet
and dry periodically and will require care in its construction if the back fill is to
be kept water-tight.
Making the rock fill water-tight. Several methods have been used in the past to
make rock-fill dams water-tight, but most of these methods appear unsatisfactory
when applied to such a high dam.
A concrete core wall extending to bedrock is often used. If this plan were adopted
at the Lee Ferry Dam site, it would be necessary to excavate the river channel to
bedrock. To take care of the flood water during the period when the core wall is
being built from bedrock to the former water surface would be both hazardous and
expensive. For such a high dam there would be danger of the core wall becoming
fractured on account of uneven forces being exerted by the rock fill.
A steel core, having a concrete base, would be even more objectionable than a con-
crete core, for besides requiring a concrete facing to prolong its life, it would have
all the objectionable features of the concrete core.
The rock fill might be made water-tight by lining the upstream face of the dam
with concrete, but it would be necessary either to carry this concrete faring to bed-
rock or to provide an impervious base for the dam with a series of cut-off walls.
Otherwise, the water would pass under the concrete facing and undermine the dam.
In addition to these odjectionable features, the settlement of the rock fill would
make it almost impossible to prevent the concrete facing from becoming fractured.
The writer believes that with the river under control the rock fill can be made
water-tisrht by sluicing fine material into the dam.
The discharge of the river ranges from 4.000 to 10.000 second-feet after the flood
period. This quantity of water might find its way through the rock till. At this
stage of construction every attention should be given to the work of making the
rock fill water-tight. It would be necessary to place fine material on the upper face
and perhaps as far down stream as the center of the finished dam. This material
should be graded in size from that which would pass through a 1-inch to a 6-inch
mesh. On the right bank of the river, a few hundred feet upstream from the upper
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN. 177
toe of the dam. there is a talus which could be moved to the dam at a low cost. The
back water above the dam might have a depth of from 75 to 100 feet and would extend
up the river a distance of at least 25 miles.
Assuming that the rock rill rises 250 feet above the bed of the river, and that there
is 100 feet of water above the dam, the flow of water through the dam would be as
follows: The water would rush through the open spaces between the large rocks.
flow through the spaces between the smaller rocks, percolate through the sand, and
seep through the clay or fine silt. The rush of water through the spaces between
the large rocks would be partly stopped by the coarser material that is. the rock
(i inches in diameter; and the flow through the spaces between the smaller rocks
would be partly stopped by the finer material that is, rock that would pass the 1,
2. 3, or 4 inch mesh. Large quantities of sand may then be deposited on the upper
face of the dam. Due to the flow of water under high pressure, this sand would
be carried into the dam. The deposit of fine clay or silt on the upstream face and
on top of the dam should produce a practically water-tight structure. Owing to
the enormous pressure, water would always seep through the dam but probably
not in quantities sufficient to cause erosion.
When, in 1915. the writer made a trip by boat through 150 miles of the canyon
of the Colorado River between Hite, Utah, and Lee Ferry, Ariz., large silt deposits
at the mouth of Xavajo Creek were observed. This creek joins the Colorado from
the south, at a point about 18 miles upstream from the site of the Lee Ferry Dam.
Large silt deposits also were observed at many other points in the canyon below
the mouth of San Juan River. These deposits could be located before they are cov-
ered with the back water, and as the water reached the respective deposits, the
material could be loaded on barges by dipper or suction dredges. It might prove
more economical, however, to place rock crushers on the plateau above the dam
and transport the crushed material to the dam by chutes. It is thus seen that there
is plenty of accessible material for use in the final process of making the rock fill
water-tight.
When the rock fill becomes water-tight and the reservoir fills, the water may per-
colate through the 40-foot layer of sand and bowlders. This water would be forced
to travel a distance of about 5,700 feet. The indicated hydraulic gradient is about
1:8, and the .writer believes that the frictional resistance to the passage of water
through the 40-foot layer of sand and bowlders would be sufficient to consume the
head of 700 feet before the lower toe of the dam is reached, in which case the velocity
of the percolating water near the lower toe of the dam would not erode the founda-
tion. Under these conditions the dam as designed would be safe against blowouts
caused by the upward hydrostatic pressure of the percolating water on the base of
the dam.
It is said that the silt-laden waters of the Colorado would be sufficient to tighten the
dam. This silt, however, would be deposited at the head of the back water and not
at the dam, which condition favors the completed project. With reservoir full, the
back water would extend up every side canyon and tributary of the Colorado, and
would probably extend up the San Juan River, a distance of 80 miles or more.
The San Juan, which carries a large quantity of silt, would have its own stilling basin
and. perhaps, 100 years would pass before the silt would reach the canyon of the
Colorado. As each side canyon would have its own stilling basin, the water in the
main canyon of the Colorado above the dam would remain practically clear. This is
important when it is considered that the water is to be used for the development of
power.
Since it is proposed to blast about 20.000,000 cubic yards of rock into the river
channel wiih the lirst discharge of the mines, arch action may result when this enor-
mous quantity of material falls into the canyon, thus leaving a large open space
within the proposed dam. Although such arch action is only a remote possibility, it
might be advisable to discharge the mines in both walls of the canyon at the same
instant, so that much of the material may meet over the river channel and fall ver-
tically. Perhaps better results can he obtained by discharging the mines in one wall,
after those in the other wall, but the writer believes it is impossible to determine just
how the roc'k will fall when the mines are discharged.
Care of inili-r //urini/ ctitixtrdction.The writer I, Sieves it imm-fessary to have the
river under control until the dam is raised to an elevation 250 feet or more above the
bed of the river. If the mines were discharged immediately after the flood period has
passed, at least eight months would elapse under normal conditions before the river
would again be at flood stage. During these eight months, it is expected that the
upper face of the dam can be raised 100 feet, or to an elevation of 350 feet above the
bed of the river. The storage capacity of the reservoir between an elevation of 200
and 350 feet is about 8,000,000 acre-feet.
178 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
The writer has described (Engineering News-Record. March 6. 1919) the flood of
1917. during which the peak at Lee Ferry was about 147.000 second-feet, one of the
highest floods of record originating above that site. An analysis of the records of
daily discharge for this flood period shows that the water level in the Lee Ferry
Reservoir would have been raised from an elevation of 215 feet to an elevation of
332 feet above the bed of the river. The accumulated storage above the 200-foot level
would have been about 7.300 000 acre-feet and the total volume discharged through
the temporary spillway would have been nearly 7.500.000 acre-feet. It is seen,
therefore, that in order to prevent such a flood overtopping the unfinished dam. it
would have been necessary to raise the dam at least 332 feet above the bed of the
river. For the plan of construction herein presented the writer believes that the most
dangerous period would be that during which the dam is being raised from the 200
to 350 foot level. Luring this period, it may be necessary to take care of a summer
flood such as that which occurred in 1917.
The water level in the reservoir during construction might be controlled most
economically and efficiently by constructing only one tempoiary spillway at the 200-
foot level controlled by a Johnson valve having a capacity of 60.000 second-feet
under a static head of ICO feet. As this spillway is to be used only during construc-
tion, it would not be necessary to provide slide gate? so that the Johnson valve may
be unwatered for inspection and repairs. If a summer flood, such as that which
occurred in 1917. miist be taken care of when the dam is nearing the 300-foot level,
the temporary spillway will be taxed to its maximum capacity of 60,000 second-feet.
As the dam is raised aJ-ove the 300-foot level, the storage capacity of the reservoir
becomes much greater, so that a spillway capacity of lew than 60.000 second-feet
would be required. Under this plan, the dam could be built to its full height without
fear of its being overtopped by a flood during construction.
The tunnels leading to the power house may be located at the 600-foot level. Since
this paper deals primarily with the design of a rock-fill dam. no attempt will be made
to determine the most feasible location for the power tunnels.
The summer floods are caused by the melting snows in Colorado. Utah, and Wyom-
ing. From the records cf precipitation, the volume of t,he coming summer flood can
be determined with fair accuracy 60 days in advance. A permanent spillway should
be provided at the 600-foot level so that the water level in the reservoir ciay be drawn
down to provide sufficient capacity to take care of a flood much greater than any
heretofore recorded.
These in charge of the operation of the reservoir would be more concerned with the
volume of run-off than with the magnitude of the flood peak. The quantity of snow
in the upper basin would indicate whether the expected run-off would be high, low,
or average in volume, ^n extended period of high temperatures, accompanied by a
warm rain or "chinook" wind, would cai se a flood of great magnitude but of short
duration. It would be impossible to predict such conditions 60 days in advance,
but a study of the run-off records for the past 20 years would afford a fairly accurate
basis for a prediction as to the time the summer flood may be expceted.
Pout vnstrtietion. As coal is abundant within 15 miles from the site, a
steam plant could be built to furnish powfr during construction. After the dam has
been raised above the 200-foot level and the water is passing through the temporary
spillway, power may be had by constructing a hydroelectric plant at the outlet of
this tunnel.
CONCLUSION-.
1. At thp site of the Lee Ferry Dam. the canyon is narrow and the red sandstone is
of good quality. These conditions favor the construction of a rock-fill dam. It seems
probable that practically all of the 50.000.000 cubic yards of rock for the fill can be
blasted into place. However, it will be necessary, or at least advisable, to resort to
the hand-and-derrick method in placing a part of the rock in the portion of the dam
above the 600- foot level. The slopes of the finished dam are not expected to conform
exactly with those shown on figure 3, but it is the writer's opinion that the average
slope should not be steeper.
2. (Kdng to the favorable conditions at the site of the dam. the writer believes it
entir-r-ly tVa-ible to raise the dam to the 250-foot level with the first discharge of the
mines. The quantity of material required to form a dam 250 feet high depends on
the depth to the layer of boulders and the depth to bedrock. It would be advisable,
therefore, to test the river channel for bedrock by diamond-drill borings.
3. It would not be necessary to by-pass the flood water until the dam has been
raised to an elevation of 200 feet above the bed of the river, except that provision
must, be made to meet the demand for water for irrigation.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX. 179
4. Provision should be made to control the water level in the reservoir above an
elevation of 200 feet in order to facilitate the sluicing of fine material into the rock
fill to make it water tight.
5. Flood water should not be permitted to overtop the dam after it has been built
higher than 200 feet above the river bed.
I. A permanent spillway should be provided at the 600-foot level.
7. The raw materials necessary for the construction of rock-fill dam are conven-
iently situated.
S. "in this project it is planned to do on a large scale what has often been success-
fully accomplished on a smaller scale. The writer believes the most uncertain
feat'ure of the project is the work of making the rock fill water-tight. If the seepage
through the dam is sufficient to cause erosion it would not be very expensive, con-
sidering the magnitude of the project, to blast in the canyon walls and produce a
0:1 slope from the crest of the dam to the lower toe.
9. The writer believes that a rock-fill dam properly constructed would be fully as
safe as a concrete dam. To the design herein presented for a rock-fill dam. the unit
stresses developed in the foundation and abutment walls are low and need be given
minor consideration. This type of dam. however, may be subject to failure due to
a blowout which might be caused by the upward hydrostatic pressure of the water
percolating under the foundation. The writer believes that the rock-fill dam de-
scribed in this paper would be safe against blowouts or erosion. Should erosion
occur, no doubt the trouble could be remedied long before there was any real danger
of the dam failing.
Should either the rock-fill or a concrete dam be overtopped by a flood, the damage
mi^ht be sufficient to cause failure. A flood passing over the top of the rock-fill dam
would cause at least a partial failure of the dam. The seriousness of the damage
would depend on the magnitude and duration of the flood.
Because the capacity of the reservoir is enormous, it is a comparatively simple
matter to provide adequate spillway capacity, and the chances of a dam being over-
topped by a flood are remote.
10. A concrete dam built at the Lee Ferry site to raise the water 700 feet above
the bed of the river would have a volume of about 5.400,000 cubic yards and would
probably cost, including spillway structures, about fSO.OCO.OCO. It is difficult to
estimate the cost of a dam of the rock-fill type, but a liberal estimate indicates that
it would be little more than half that of the concrete dam.
XE\V YOKK, July 1, IB
Hon. CARL HAYDEN,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR SIR: Inaccordance with my letter of the 23d ult., lam inclosing herewith
a proof of the discussion by Arthur P. Davis, past president American Society of Civil
Engineers, on the paper by E. C. LaRue, entitled "Tentative plan for the construction
of a 780-foot rock-fill dam on the Colorado River at Lee Ferry, Ariz., " for the use of the
Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands.
Yours very truly,
ELBERT M. CHANDLER,
Acting Secretary American Society of Civil Engineers.
TENTATIVE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 780-FooT ROCK-FILL DAM ON THE
COLORADO RIVER.
[By Arthur P. Davis, Director United States Reclamation Service, Washington, D. C., past president
American Society of Civil Engineering.]
The first proposition known to the writer for constructing a high dam in a large
stream on an alluvial bottom by dumping loose rock into the flowing water without
diverting the river or excavating; the foundation was made by the late A. (i. Menocal,
member American Society of Civil Engineering, chief engineer of the Maritime Canal
Co., who proposed such an operation for a dam about 65 feet in heighth on the San
Juan River a few miles below the mouth of the San Carlos at a point called Ochoa,
where the river forms the boundary line between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The
following extract from a paper prepared by Mr. Menocal for the water commerce
congress at Chicago in 1893 describes the dam and method of construction:
It consists in dumping from an aerial suspension conveyor large and small material
properly assorted, across the river from bank to bank until a barrier is created suffi-
ciently high and strong to arrest the flow and hold the waters at the required level,
the body of the dam to be made up of large blocks of stone, weighing from 1 to 10 tons,
and smaller material to fill the voids. Its base will be quite broad as compared with
180 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
the height, probably from 400 to 500 feet between the foot of the up-stream slope and
the end of the apron. The top is estimated 30 feet wide, the rock up-stream slope 1
to 1 , and the apron, or downstream slope , 4 to 1 , with the lower portion flattening down
to 5 or 6 to 1. On the upstream side small material, such as stone, fragments of gravel,
clay, etc., selected as circumstances may require, will be deposited as the work ad-
vances, in sufficient quantity, as tight as wanted. It is not expected or even desirable
to have a water-tight structure, the object sought being simply to oppose such an
obstruction to the river as may be necessary to hold the waters at the required level.
The minimum flow of the river is about ten times the water needed for working the
canal. Consequently, nine-tenths of it can l>c wasted with advantage. That the
dam will eventaully become tight there can be no doubt, as the small drifts and detritus
forced in by the current will gradually fill the voids and consolidate the structure.
"The method of construction will be quite simple. After protecting the abut-
ments against possible erosion, large pieces of rock will be dumped in the bed of the
stream from three or four cableways spanning the valley. The material should be
distributed uniformly over the area under the main portion of the dam, commencing
upstream and keeping up, as nearly as possible, an even level. Scouring will soon
cause settling of the blokes into firmer soil, the upper level in the meantime being
constantly raised by depositing more stone, while the small material is being forced
by the current into the voids, and the overflow dislodging and rearranging the unstable
blocks until they reach a final resting place. This process to be continued until the
resistance at the bottom becomes so great as to check scouring due to maximum
pressure, when the dam will be carried up to the desired level. The river, in the mean-
time running over the mound, will readjust the material in and adapt the apron to
the necessary conditions of stability to withstand the effect of the fall, and carry off
the water safely. If the dam is then raised so as to shut off a whole or the largest part
of the river flow, which can by that time be discharged over the waste weirs, the struc-
ture will be permanent." (H. Doc. 279, 54th Cong., first sess., p. 53.)
It was proposed that this dam be an overflow weir, and this feature has been gen-
erally condemned.
The Nicaragua Canal Board, consisting of the late Col. William Ludlow, member
American Society of Civil Engineering, Admiral Mordecai T. Endicott, and the late
Alfred Noble, past presidents American Society of Civil Engineering, studied the
plans of the company and made the following comments on this design :
"It appears from this account of typical existing dams that, although rock-fill
dams are not new, and although weirs have been built on sand and maintained suc-
cessfully, the Ochoa Dam is actually without precedent in its more serious aspects,
and its construction will be far more difficult than any that have been mentioned.
The successful rock-fill dams have impervious foundations and are made water-tight
by sheathing or masonry.
" The materials in them are in great part hand laid, adding greatly to their stability,
and none of them has been built in conflict with the forces of a great river or was in-
tended to be used as a weir for the discharge of floods.
"As to this last point, the board is clear in its judgment that no such endeavor
should be made in the case of the Ochoa Dam, as involving an unwarrantable hazard
to the safety of the structure and of the canal navigation.
* * * * * * *
"The weakest point of a dam built as the company proposes would probably be at
the river bank, where the loose rock will meet the steep clay slope. The method
proposed for protecting this point by lines of sheet piling and concrete core seems
entirely inadequate. A better construction would involve the use of a caisson on
each side of the river, located so as to be partly in the river channel and partly in the
firm clay bank, and sunk by the pneumatic process to bedrock if within reach by that
means, or if not at least below reach of scour. It seems probable that either bedrock
or a mass of bowlders would be found near sea level, elevation O. The caisson should
be surmounted by a concrete wall, extending up the hillside beyond the caisson to
the highest elevation to be reached by the water surface after the completion of the
dam. say 114 or 11(5. A trench 20 feet or so in depth, or deeper if necessary to reach
firm material, should be excavated in the hillside for the core wall. This work done,
the river banks and hillsides below high-water level should be covered with a heavy
mass of large stones and an additional amount held in reserve before depositing any
rock in the river. The result of this would be to contract somewhat the width of the
river channel, which would at once scour out so as to maintain its normal cross section.
A considerable scour would be desirable, because it is important that the rock mass be
sunk deeply into the river bed. since, if rock or a bed of bowlders or heavy gravel
can be reached, the safety of the structure will be increased greatly. In depositing
rock in the river those methods should be used which will indxice scour, and possibly
the building out from each side may best answer this purpose.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIN. 181
"The rock mound would be quite permeable, and the water pressure against it
would vary with the volume of the discharge. To make it hold water, an embank-
ment, which would form the real dam, the rock mound serving as its support, must be
built on the upstream side. It is proposed to make the embankment of fine stone,
gravel, clay. etc.. with the view that a quantity of these materials should be carried
well into the rock mound. An embankment composed largely of clay dumped in the
wat'T would take a much flatter slope than 3 : 1. For these reasons the quantity
estimated by the company would have to be increased largely, and means may have
to be adopted, not contemplated by the company, to render the dam tight enough to
answer its purpose, as the permissible leakage is much less than the company has
assumed.
" I>v the addition of the embankment, and the retardation by friction of the flow
of water through the underlying sand bed, the dam will be rendered more secure
from undercutting and consequent settlement; but some doubt as to ultimate security
will still remain. Confdenee would be gained to a certain extent during the con-
struction of the dam if no breaches were caused by the annual floods, but it would
require a considerable period of time after the completion of the dam to allay all
apprehension. If a site can be found where the dam can be built above a rock or
other stable foundation, the permanence of the structure will be rendered much
more probable and the uncertainties of construction reduced.
"l< such a dam becomes breached with the great volume of water standing at a
high level against it. destruction would follow quickly. The crest, therefore, should
be raised so far above the surface of the water in the pool that a considerable settle-
ment could be sustained without sinking the crest below the water surface." (H.
Doc. 279. 54th Cong.. 1st sess., pp. 61-64.)
It should be noted that the board places emphasis on the importance of scour in
settling the foundation as far into the sand as possible. It is also to be noted that
this eminent board of engineers was doubtful of the permanent safety of a dam even
of this height under these conditions.
The practical application of the method of damming a large river by dumping
rock on a bed of silt while the river flowed over it was made by the SoutKern Pacific
Co. in 1906, in the spectacular control of the Colorado River when it was flowing into
Salton Basin. The same method was used in constructing a cofferdam across the
Colorado River in making the final closure for the Laguna Dam. In neither case,
however, was the water allowed to flow permanently over the rock-fill as proposed
by Mr. Menocal, and the rock used was settled deep into the silt by the erosion of
the water during construction.
The author proposes no means for effecting a water-tight junction between the
rock-fill and its abutments, and the writer sees no effective method of accomplishing
such a junction between the proposed silt filling and the rock. Under such a head,
water would follow the rock with a velocity likely to become erosive at many points,
and thus open avenues of danger. The best solution seems to be a concrete pavement
cemented to the abutments with all the care and precaution that the highest skill
can suggest. Cracks which might appear should be sealed with a cement gun on
the first opportunity.
In considering the construction of a loose-rock dam in Boulder Canyon during the
past fe - v years the ( iovernment engineers and those whom they have consulted have
regarded the settlement of the loose rock into the soft material as deeply as possible
as one of the most important and difficult operations to accomplish, and it seems
obvious that it can not be made perfect without excavating the loose material, but
might perhaps v ith many precautions be made of sufficient extent to secure safety.
The author's proposal to deposit enough rock in the river at one blast to bring the
dam to the 250-foot level seems especially designed to prevent any water action in
the direction of scour and of sinking the rock into the silt. lie says:
"If the canyon walls were blasted into the river, the heavy mass of material would
settle to the level of the bowlders, assumed to be 60 feet below the bed of the river,
and some of the fine sand and silt would be forced up."
No reason is given for this important conclusion, and the methods proposed seem
likely to prevent this desirable result.
If this dam were built by the methods suggested by the author, there would be a
considerable part of the structure below the river bed founded upon sanxl and silt.
As the water rose in the reservoir after the dam was completed, the head on this .-ilt.
would gradually increase, and no assurance could be given that a critical point might
not be reached when the reservoir is nearly full, and sufficient percolation through
the foundation might take place to start erosion and cut a channel through the sill.
A free channel ever so small resulting from the slight arching of the rock, which would
conduct water through the sand at a velocity due to more than 700 feet of head, would
scour rapidly, carrying considerable rock until a channel was excavated large enough
182
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
to allow the rock above to settle, and unless this was accomplished in one motion the
scour would continue until the main rock-fill fell into place. If it was arched suffi-
ciently, it would not do so promptly, and the scour would continue until the opening
would carry a flood much larger than normal and do great damage below. It seems
inevitable, however, that eventually the rock fill would fall in place and stop this.
If in so doing it should fall below the level of the water in the reservoir, the dam
would be overtopped. No loose rock dam has ever been overtopped without failing,
and some have failed. None of them has had a 780-foot head nor 50.000.000 acre-feet
of stored water behind it to complete its destruction.
It should be remembered that the proposed reservoir of 50.000.000 acre-feet has an
area of 235,000 acres and a discharge of 1,000,000 acre'feet would lower the reservoir
only about 6 feet. This would afford an average flow of 500.000 second feet for 24
hours. No one can do'ibt that this would destroy the dam faster than it would lower
the reservoir. The writer will not attempt to describe the results of suddenly releas-
ing 50.000,000 acre-feet of water. It would at least submerge and destroy the great
Imperial Valley and all improvements along the lower Colorado River, and doubtless
many lives would be lost.
It is readily seen that the danger of failure and the magnitude of the disaster aro
both greatly augmented with the height of the dam. This law applies especially to
an unprecedented or doubtful design.
Where the necessary structure so far exceeds precedent, to build it any higher than
needed would be inexcusable. The author appears to consider a capacity of 20,000,000
acre-feet sufficient to regulate the river. The writer agrees with this estimate, l;ui
would provide 20 per cent more to store silt and prolong the usefulness of the reservoir.
There can therefore be no reason for building a reservoir of greater capacity than
about 24,000,000 acre-feet, except for the increased head for power development.
This site is so remote from markets and so much farther than many other available
sites that there is at present no excuse, and for many years or decades there will be
no justification, for developing power at this point. The available head can be
utili'/ed by building dams of moderate dimensions at other points without such
unprecedented and hazardous characteristics.
The author states (p. 845) that the construction of a dam near Lee's ferry would
remove the menace from floods on the lower river, except floods from the Gila River.
That statement is erroneous, as the proposed dam would leave about 50,000 square
miles of drainage are unregulated, besides that of the Gila. It is perfectly proper, as
the author does, to except the Gila River, which for brief periods sometimes furnishes
floods as great as those of the Colorado: but the area of 50,000 square miles between
the mouth of the Gila and Lee's ferry should also be excepted. Most of this area can
be intercepted by a dam at Boulder Canyon, which is the lowest point in the basin
where this can be done, and is accordingly the proper place for storage purposes if
the floods are to be controlled.
The author's table on page 836 sn'ows a capacity for Lee Ferry Dam of 50,000,000
acre-feet and Boulder Canyon Dam of 31,680,000 acre-feet. The results of the actual
surveys were probably not available to the author when he submitted his paper.
These surveys have been in progress for a long time and the results are now available
and are shown roughly in Table I, giving comparative area and capacity for each
given height of the dam as high as the surveys have been carried at Boulder Canyon:
Table I.
Height of dam above river bed in feet.
Boulder Canyon
Reservoir.
Glenn Canyon
Reservoir.
Area in
acres.
Capacity
in acre-
feet.
Area in
acres.
Capacity
in acre-
feet.
50...
3.500
7,500
15,500
25,000
33,500
44,000
57,000
73,000
90,000
109,000
132,000
157,000
88,000
362,000
937,000
1,950,000
3,413,000
5, 350, 000
7, S75, 000
11,125,000
15,200,000
20,175,000
26,200,000
33,425,000
4,000
7,000
10,800
16,600
24,000
34,000
47,000
63,000'
85,000
114,000
145,000
178,000
100,000
375.000
820,000
1,505,000
2,520,000
3,970.000
5,995,000
8,745,000
12,445,000
17, 420, 000
23, 895, 000
31,970,000
100...
150.
200
250.
300
350. .
400
450...
500
550
600 .
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN". 183
Table I shows that for the heights given the Glenn Canyon reservoir would have
less rapacity than Boulder Canyon.
A dam 780 feet in height in Glenn Canyon near Lee's Ferry would introduce not
only unnecessary' hazards hut would waste a large quantity of water by evaporation,
A reservoir of 24, 000, 000 acre -feet capacity in Glenn Canyon would have an area of
about 125, 0'X) acres, according to the available surveys, whereas one of 50,000,000
acre-feet capacity would have a surface area of 235,000 acres and unnecessarily expose
to evaporation 110,000 acres. This would be at its highest stages during the hot
months of June. July. August, and September. Assuming an average excess area of
100,000 acres, and an annual evaporation of 6 feet from the extra area, 600,000 acre-
feet of water would be wasted annually, all of which would be lost for use at the num-
erous high dams eventually to be built in the canyon below.
The utter absence of anything approaching a precedent to the proposed plans
leaves the writer in much the same doubts as those which remained in the minds of
the Nicaragua Canal Board previously quoted, and there certainly is sufficient doubt so
that it would be inexcusable to attempt such a structure where more conservative
designs are possible or to build the dam under these conditions any higher than
necessary.
( >pinions concerning the safety of the proposed design can hardly be considered of
much value until something is known of the underground conditions, which have not.
been investigated at Glenn Canyon. Still less is it possible, under these conditions,
to make intelligent estimates of cost of any type of dam. These conditions.at Boulder
Canyon have been carefully investigated, and comparative estimates of high concrete
and rock-fill dams have been made by men with large experience in the construction
of high dams. These estimates lead to the conclusion that the rock-fill type, with
proper precautions for safety, could not be relied on to be much cheaper than a massive
concrete structure the safety of which would be without question.
POWER DEVELOPMENT ON THE COLORADO RIVER AND ITS RELATION TO IRRIGATION
AND FLOOD CONTROL.
[By O. C. Merrill, executive secretary, Federal Power Commission.]
One of the most important and interesting of our present-day engineering problems
is the control and development of the Colorado River. Its interest and importance
arise from the fact that it involves the irrigation of millions of acres of land, the pro-
duction of millions of water horsepower, and the protection from floods of millions
of dollars of property values, and that it affects the general economic interests of seven
of our Slates and two of the States of Mexico. It is of interest also in its political
relations using this term in its etymological, not its ordinary, sense. Seven sovereign
States claim in the use of the waters of the Colorado rights which in the aggregate'
mav exceed its possibilities. Its waters can not be put to use without, the sanction
of the States in which the use is proposed and without the concurrent sanction of the
Federal Government, which owns the lands necessary for such use and which possesses
a general control over the river from the fact that it is an international stream. It
remains to be seen to what extent political considerations will modify engineering;
considerations in the solution of the problem.
The two main branches of the Colorado rise, the one in southwestern Wyoming,,
the other in central Colorado. The length of the river from the headwaters of the
Green to the Gulf of California is about 1.750 miles. Its basin, with an area of about
250,000 square miles, includes practically all of Arizona, nearly one-half of Colorado
and of Utah, one-fifth of Wyoming and of New Mexico, one-tenth of Nevada, and a
narrow strip in California along the California-Arizona boundary.
The Imperial Valley in California, though not topographically a part of the Coloroad
Basin, should also be included because of its dependence upon the waters of the river
and because of its intimate relation to the general problem of river control. Of the
area of the basin some 5.000,000 acres, or about 1 acre in 30, appear economically
irrigable. Claims, however, have been made that there is a much larger amount of
available irrigable land. The annual run-off of the river at Yuma averages about
18,000,000 acre-feet. The average discharge is about 24,000 cubic feet per second, with
variations from a minimum of 4,000 second-feet to a maximum of 150,000 second-feet
on the main river and to 240.000 second-feet by inclusion of the Gila. The steep slope
of the river and its large volume make it capable of producing some 6,000,000 water
horsepower, or two-thirds as much as is developed in the United States to-day.
1316 22 PT 3 8
184 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
A discussion of the general problems of the Colorado will be made clearer if we divide
the river into three sections and consider the characteristics of these sections and their
relations to each other.
The upper section from the headwaters to the Utah-Arizona line, just below the
mouth of the San Juan, comprises about 40 per cent of the area of the basin and affords
about 87 per cent of the total run-off, or an average of about 15,000.000 acre-feet per
annum. In this section are some 2, 500, 000- acres of irrigable land, one-half of the
estimated total in the basin. It also has power possibilities aggregating 2.000,000
horsepower. In this section, both upon the main stream and upon its tributaries, are
many favorable reservoir sites by means of which it would be practicable to regulate
the flow of streams for irrigation within the section, or for power development both
within the section and outside, or. if desirable, for flood control on the lower river. In
so far as the tributaries arennvolved. these several uses would conflict to a considerable
degree and only a careful study of the whole section could determine the best com-
bination of uses. At the lower end of the section is the so-called Glenn Canyon re-
servoir site, which has an important bearingon all developments and uses of water below.
The middle section from the mouth of the San Juan to the mouth of the Williams
comprises about 35 per cent of the area of the basin and supplies about 7 per cent of
the annual run-off. There are no irrigable lands along the river in this section and
only some 250,000 acres on the tributaries, none of which can be reached from the
main river. In this section, however, there is a total drop of about 3,000 feet, capable,
if fully utilizing the average annual run-off entering the section, of producing 4,000.000
horsepower. Except for the Boulder Canyon site near the lower end of the section,
which would have no effect on the greater part of this section, there appear to be no
storage sites capable of providing any considerable amount of seasonal storage. Dams
erected for power development would be primarily for the purpose of concentrating
head and of providing pondage for daily load regulation. Seasonal regulation would
be dependent upon storage in the upper section.
The lower section from the mouth of the Williams River to the Gulf and including
the drainage of the Gila and the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in California com-
prises some 25 per cent of the total area of the basin and furnishes about 6 per cent of
the average annual run-off. Its power possibilities are relatively unimportant, but it
contains some 2,250,000 acres of irrigable land, the most fertile and most valuable in
the basin, a large part of which is periodically endangered by floods. There appear
to be no reservoir sites of consequence below Boulder Canyon on the main river, but
there are such sites on the Gila which could be used both for irrigation and for con-
trolling the Gila floods.
Mewed solely from the physical standpoint, the upper section of the basin might
have its primary development directed either toward irrigation or toward water power;
or it might, as it probably will, have a combination of these two uses. On the other
hand, the middle section, with the exception of storage below the mouth of the Vir-
gin and of relatively small irrigable areas on the tributaries, is suitable only for power
development . Eq ually clearly the waters reaching the lower section should be devoted
primarily, if not exclusively, to irrigation, and the storage sites should be employed
for irrigation or flood control, or both.
The most immediately pressing problem on the Colorado River is flood control for
the protection of the Imperial Valley in California. I shall not attempt, however,
to discuss it in detail, but merely to present certain aspects of that problem in the
relation they bear to water power and to a general plan of river development.
The Gulf of California originally extended northwesterly into what is now the State
of California. The silt-laden water of the river gradually formed a delta cone extend-
ing across the gulf, cutting off the northern end and deflecting the flow of the river to
the south. The water inclosed in the northern end evaporated, leaving the depres-
sion known as the Imperial Valley and the Salton Sea, with its surface 250 feet below
sea level. The silt-formed delta is unstable. The river is constantly depositing
more sediment and shifting its channel back and forth over the flat ridge some 30
feet above sea level which forms the crest of the delta, and there is danger at each
flood season that it may break northward into the Imperial Valley instead of continu-
ing southward into the gulf. The river did break through in 1905 and for more than
a year and a half discharged into Salton Sea before it was turned back with great
difficulty and expense into its old channel. The levees which were later built to
protect the valley have several times been awash in periods of floods. It is necessary
to raise them about a foot a year to keep pace with the rise of the river channel, and
it is only a matter of time when the river will break through again unless steps are
taken to control the floods. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the
works for protecting the Imperial Valley are situated in Mexico. It is this condition
of affairs which has placed primary emphasis on flood control in all plans for the devel-
opment of the Colorado River.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 185
Flood conditions on the lower Colorado may be caused either by high water on the
main river or high water on the Gila. Flood eonditoins on the main river occur
annually in the summer season, are due to the melting of snows on the headwaters of
the streams, and continue on the average from two to three months. The maximum
flood from the main river in the years of record, 1902 to 1914, inclusive, has been
150,000 second-feet. The average mean monthly discharge during the three high
months of >fay, June, and July for this same period of record has been: May, 42,600;
June, 73,100: and July, 43, 500* second-feet. While the floods from the Gila approach
in magnitude those of the main river, they occur in the winter season, are caused
by. local rains, and are of short duration. Should it happen, however, by any com-
bination of circumstances that extreme flood conditions on the Gila should coincide
with similar conditions on the main river, a break through into the Imperial Valley
would be almost inevitable.
On account of the volume of water involved, it is apparent that protection from
Colorado River floods can be had only by storage and by storage of large capacity. It,
is also apparent that full immunity from flood damages can be had only by storage on
the Gila as well as storage on the. Colorado. Since, however, storage on the Gila has
only an indirect relation to the general problem of the Colorado River, it will be given
no further consideration here.
There appear to be three practicable locations for flood control reservoirs of the
capacity necessary. These are on the headwater tributaries, on the main river at
Glen Canyon, and on the main river at Boulder Canyon. Storage on the headwaters
would require several reservoirs, and even though practicable from a purely flood-
control standpoint, such a plan involves at least two serious objections. The opera-
tion of such reservoirs to meet the needs of the lower river would be likely to interfere
to a considerable degree with the use of the waters for irrigation in the upper section
and to a lesser degree for power development, depending upon their location and their
manner of operation. If duplication of investment is to be avoided, flood-control
reservoirs must also provide irrigation storage for the lower river. To operate for this
purpose reservoirs located hundreds of miles above the lands to be irrigate d would be
an extremely difficult problem and would inevitably result in wastage of water and
consequently in a storage capacity greater than would otherwise be necessary.
Adequate storage for both flood control and irrigation could apparently be had at the
Glen Canyon site at the Utah-Arizona line. From an irrigation standpoint this site
presents similar objections, though less in degree, to sites on the headwaters, since
the reservoir would still be a considerable distance from the lands to be irrigated.
From a flood-control standpoint, however, it appears adequate. It would intercept
87 per cent of the run-off of the basin, and would include every tributary of conse-
quence above the Gila, except the Little Colorado. This stream is subject only to
flash floods and enters the main river so far above the Imperial Valley that its floods
can not be considered as dangerous. Storage at this point is of sufficient capacity
to provide for power development and irrigation as well as for flood control, and
hence would not interfere with, but be a distinct aid to, power development in the
middle section.
The proposed Boulder Canyon site has certain distinct advantages over all other
sites if considered wholly from the standpoint of the flood control and irrigation re-
quirements of the Imperial Valley. It is comparatively near to the irrigable lands,
and operation difficulties would be reduced to a minimum. It will intercept all floods
on the river, except those from the Gila. It would even be possible to ameliorate
flood conditions from the Gila by stopping all discharge from the main river while the
Gila is in flood. If nothing but the flood control and irrigation requirements of the
Imperial Valley were 1 to be considered, ihere would appear to be no doubt of the su-
perior advantages of the Boulder Canyon site. When, however, consideration is given
to the problem of development of the river as a whole, the situation is by no means so
clear.
Both the Glen Canyon and the Boulder Canyon sites are likely eventually to be
built, and both present engineering problems of magnitude. To provide the proposed
minimum storage capacity of 21,000,000 acre-feet at Boulder Canyon and an equal
amount at Glen Canyon will require dams of unprecedented height. Preliminary plans
propose a masonry dam at Boulder Canyon some 530 feet in height above the river chan-
nel. When it is realized that the river channel has a depth of l:)"> I'eet below \\aier
level, that the river flows through a narrow canyon, and that floods in excess of 100,000
second-feet are likely to be encountered during construction, the magnitude of the
engineering problems to be met will be appreciated.
Detailed investigation, particularly borings, have not yet been made of the Glen
Canyon site, and the type of dam has therefore not been determined. If foundation
conditions are not more unfavorable, this site should from the construction standpoint
186 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BA.-IX.
have certain distinct advantages over the Boulder Canyon site. The river forms a
double loop at the dam site, one-half of which is 28,000 feet around, but at its nan
parts only 3,000 feet across at water level, and only 2.000 feet at 500 feet above water
level. This condition provides better opportunity for handling water during con-
struction than at Boulder Canyon and also affords better opportunity for ' obstructing
outlet works and spillway independent of the darn carrying by the one through and
the other over the narrow section whkh separates the two sides of the loop.
When we consider the relation of irrigation to power development u~e find that
only about one acre in thirty in the Colorado basin i.s irrisrable. but that it has ]> <>r
resources more than sufficient to meet its needs for generations. v ii l ce it is likely to
require all the agricultural products that its lands can supply long before it has put
to use all its potential water powers, it would appear the part of wisdom to dedicate
the waters of its streams to irrigation to the extent they can be efficiently used for
such purpose, leaving water-pov <-r di'\elopment to take the second phve. If reason-
ably conservative practices are followed and all unnecessary . i<'d. there
appears to be ample water in the Colorado and its tributaries to irrigate all lands
v ithin economic reach of the streams. The problem of water supply for such pur-
! is, therefore, one of e >uitab!e distribution: and this is the problem which the
Colorado River Commission has been created io solve. I shall not discuss it further
than to say that, if irrigation be assumed as the dominant UPC. tlu-'v v. uiiM still be
opportunity to develop hundreds of thousands of horsepower in the upper basin ui:di r
properly developed plans and that, from the water which would be reli-;i-"<J from the
upper section for the irrigation requirements of the 1" mild still
be available millions of horsepo ' er in the middle section.
Since there v- ill be no irrigation development in the middle section of the river
other than the probability of the provision of irrigation storage at the lov er end of
the section, and since no water v ill be withdrawn from the river in ; - :i for
such purpose, there w ill be no coil: ict bet ' een irrigation and po > er. In the upper
section, hov ever, such conflict is certain to exist. >ot only v ill water be permanently
withdrawn from the river, but storage reservoirs can not be fully used for both pur-
poses. For this reason, a? well as on account of the greater volume of v ater and the
greater fall, the middle section is the most favorable for po'^er development. But
power development on the Colorado, as well a.s irrigation and Hood control, requires
seasonal storage. This is necessary not only to produce a regulated lio v. but, in the
canyon section at least, as a protection airainst floods, for the narrowness of the river
channel and the consequent restricted spilhvav length is likely to produce depths of
discharge in flood season that might seriously restrict the height of dams that it
would be safe to construct.
Sufficient capacity for seasonal regulation can not on account of topographic condi-
tions be secured in the middle section except at Boulder Canyon, and that of course
is available only for use at that site or below. For the greater part of the section
storage must be either at the head of the section or in the upper river. If it shall prove
feasible of construction. Glen Canyon reservoir is peculiarly well adapted for the pur-
pose. It is situated at the crest of the steep canyon slope, and appears to have a
capacity sufficient to equalize the flow of the river over a series of years.
The fact that this reservoir must eventually be built in connection with power
developments below and that when built it is likely of itself to solve the flood prob-
lem of the main river has naturally raised the question, why build both Glen Canyon
and Boulder Canyon, or, if both, w-hy build the latter first? The construction of Glen
Canyon reservoir by eliminating flood conditions would make the construction of all
dams in the river below far easier, cheaper, and safer. Nothing which may be done
at Boulder Canyon will obviate in any degree the eventual necessity for Glen Canyon
reservoir or reduce the difficulties of other construction in the canyon above. On
the other hand, if Glen Canyon is built, the greater part of Boulder Canyon storage
as storage would become useless. It would seem, therefore, that the prior construc-
tion of this dam could be justified only on one or both of two grounds: Either that the
imminence of the peril to the Imperial Valley justifies the cost of the Boulder Canyon
Dam even if only temporarily required for flood control purposes; or that the cost is
justified, independently of storage, by the additional power that could thus be pro-
duced by a dam of the height proposed. In any event, some storage below the Virgin
is desirable, if not necessary, even if Glen Canyon reservoir is constructed, in order
to regulate the water at that point to meet immediate irrigation requirements farther
down the river. Which reservoir should be built first and whether the full capacity
of both is needed are questions about which there is considerable difference of opinion.
I shall only say that there appears to be enough doubt to warrant a thorough study
of the upper site before commitment is made to Boulder Canyon, and that in such
study due consideration should be given to power developments in the middle section
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BA.S1X. 187
as well as to irrigation and flood control on the lower section. I have placed emphasis
upon this question of the location of primary storage, whether at the head or at the
foot of the middle section, because it is a factor of great importance in the problems
of power development and may determine the entire course of such development
upon the river.
The extent of the interest in the power possibilities of the Colorado River may be
judged from the fact that there are on file with the Federal Power Commission 20
applications affecting the Colorado River and its tributaries aggregating four and one-
half million primary horsepower and (i. 000, 000 horsepower of estimated installation.
It is, however, quite apparent that no such amount of power will be developed in the
near future simply because it could not be disposed of. The rate of power develop-
ment on the Colorado is a question of markets. The sites at the headwaters will
gradually be developed to supplement the existing Utah and Colorado power systems.
When we turn to the middle or canyon section, however, we find that local demands
for power in this part of the Colorado Basin are hardly sufficient to justify at the
present time any large-scale development. The mining market of central Arizona
probably would justify an initial development of some 100,000 horsepower, but to
justify large-scale development utilizing any such storage as proposed at either Boulder
Canyon or Glenn Canyon would require that primary markets be sought outside
the basin, a situation involving long-distance high-tension transmission.
The only section which at present seems capable of furnishing the requisite demand,
and the section which gives greatest promise of increasing its demand in the near
future, is the southern half of the State of California. Notwithstanding the great
power resources of that State, objection is already being raised against the diversion
southward of the electric energy generated from the waters of the central and northern
sections of the State. With the continued depletion of its oil reserves and with
increasing industrial and agricultural development, the time appears not far distant
when California, sould it maintain its present growth of power demand, would be
required to go outside its boundaries for new sources of power, even if economic
considerations did not lead it to do so at a much earlier date.
The development of power in the basin of the Colorado for use outside will, however,
be an advantage, not a disadvantage, to the people and the industries within the
basin. The potential power available is more than the basin itself is ever likely to
require. If power is developed on such a scale and at such a cost that it can be
economically delivered in large quantities, hundreds of miles from the point of genera-
tion, it. can be economically delivered near at hand in smaller quantities, and this
fact, if the power is developed under proper auspices, would result in the extension
of facilities to existing local markets and in the development of new ones; for the
most complete disposition of its products is the ultimate object of power develop-
ment. The mining areas within the basin, the railroads which traverse it. the towns
within it and along its margin, all would be sought out as users of power once develop-
ment were made and the main t-ansmission system established. Distribution of
power throughout a sparsely settled area is, however, likely to be attempted only
through extensions from a transmission network constructed primarily to serve other
and more extensive markets elsewhere. The States within the Colorado Basin would
never have secured the railroad sendee they now possess had they not been on the
main routes between the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific Coast. They will be in
a similarly favorable position with respect to electric power service when trunk trans-
mission lines are constructed across their territories.
The final factor which determines whether power sites can be utilized, the degree
to which they may be developed, and the distance to which the power may lie trans-
mitted is, of course, the unit cost of energy delivered. To a considerable degree unit
costs are less as quantities increase. Particularly on a stream like the Colorado,
where, irrespective of the sixe of the project, large preliminary expenses will be
involved and long and expensive transmission lines will be required, large-scale
development is likely to prove much cheaper in construction costs per unit of avail-
able output than small-scale development. The extent, therefore, to which the
water powers of the Colorado are to be developed and the degree to which they will
be made to serve the interests of the Colorado Basin itself are likely to depend largely,
if not primarily, upon whether the power is developed in isolated independent units
or in a system of interconnected plants with a trsnamission network extending '>ver
the entire territory. If development proceeds by independent units, a few re.-uicted
areas will get the benefit of such part of the resources as are developed. If the other
plan is followed the entire basin and all the adjacent territory may share in t he 1 .ene. (its.
Such a plan, however, can be carried out only by agencies whose authority is not
circumscribed by State lines agencies in whose own interest it will be to extemi as
widely as possible the territory which they serve. Such a plan does not necessarily
188 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
imply either a single ownership, and it does not imply Government ownership; but
it does imply such an interrelationship, at least, as will insure the operation in one
interconnected system of the power developments on the Colorado River.
We come now to a brief consideration of what we have called the political rela
tions of the problem. Under the provisions of the Federal water power act. appli
cants for license must present evidence of having secured from the State rights nec-
essary for the diversion and use of water. It is the general rule of law within the
Colorado Basin that he who first puts the waters of a stream to use has a first right
in their use. On this doctrine of priority of appropriation . extensive rights to the
use of the waters of the Colorado have been acquired on the lower river, for it is that,
section of the river which is being the most rapidly developed. The fear has con-
sequently arisen in the States in the upper section that, before the time when thev
can put what they believe is their share of the water to use. rights to such share will
have been acquired on the lower river, particularly if power developments utilizing
the full flow of the stream should be authorized on the middle or lower river. Because
of this fear and in the hope that the matter might be settled without the endless
interstate litigation that would otherwise be almost inevitable, a proposal was made
that the several States affected enter into a treaty or compact by which they should
mutually agree on the apportionment among themselves of the waters of the river.
Under the provisions of the Constitution, such a compact or agreement between
States requires the assent of Congress. This assent was given by act of Congress of
August 19, 1921, which authorized the creation of a commission to be composed of
one representative from each of the seven interested States, who, together with a
member appointed by the President, should form a compact ccmmissicn, and should
report their conclusions to Congress on or before January 1. 1923. This ccmmisi-ii n
has been appointed with Secretary Hoover as the representative of the United States
and chairman, has held several sessions, but has thus far come to no agreement.
Under the terms of the act creating the comrnissicn. its authority is limited to the
determination of an "equitable division and apportionment " of the waters of the
river among the States. It has no authority to grant rights itself, and its powers
do not conflict with those of the Federal Power Commission or other Federal or State
agencies. Since, however, its conclusions might affect or be affected by the approval
of applications by the Federal Power Commission, action upon such applications
has been suspended awaiting the conclusions of the Colorado River Commission.
There are also international relations involved. The Colorado RiA'er forms the
boundary between the southwestern tip of Arizona and the Mexican State of Lower
California. Below the Arizona line it separates Lower ( 'alifornia from Sonora. Some
100.000 acres of land in Mexico are now being irrigated from the river, and it is esti-
mated that fiSO.OOO additional acres are irrigable, a total of 820.000 acres or 40 per cent,
of the irrigable area tributary to the river below Boulder Canyon. Under such cir-
cumstances it is manifest that international comity, if no other reason, requires that
this situation be taken fully into consideration in any plans of Colorado River devel-
opment. In its preliminary report on the problems of Imperial Valley and vicinity
of January, 1921, the Reclamation Sendee recommended equitable participation by
the Mexican Government in the cost of storage works, and arrangements with that
Government for the construction and maintenance of flood protection works on Mexi-
can soil. Such participation and arrangements could, of course, be brought about
only by the concurrent action of the two Governments.
There is also the question of the degree to which the United States should itself
take part in power or other developments along the river. It is argued, and with
apparent, justification, that the cost of flood and irrigation storage is greater than the
irrigation interests alone can bear and that, therefore, the Government should itself
construct the works and recoup itself by sale of power, some (iOO.OOO horsepower of
which could be developed at Boulder Canyon. Whether this arrangement would or
would not effect an equitable distribution of benefits among irrigators and power con-
sumers. I am not prepared to say.
There are. furthermore, those who advocate development at Government expense
of all the powers along the Colorado River, the distribution of such power by the Gov-
ernment at cost, and the prohibition of any development by private capital on the
river. This is, of course, merely an instance of the age-long contest between advo-
cates of public and of private ownership and operation. On account, however, of
the probability that it may be found necessary that the Government participate in
the development of the river at least to the extent of furnishing flood protection,
general action is unlikely to be taken upon the applications before the Federal Power
Commission until conclusions have been reached upon the extent, if any, to which
the Government should thus participate.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 189
Finally, agreement among the several interested agencies should be reached on the
general procedure and the general plan of development to be followed on the river,
in order that whatever work is done or projects constructed may n't into a scheme for
the fullest practicable utilization of the river for all uses to which its waters are adapted .
There is an apparent existing need for additional power in certain sections within the
lia.-in. The several interested agencies should, therefore, reach their conclusions at
the earliest practicable date so that the present order of suspension may be lifted.
The primary elements of a general plan for river development appears to be as fol-
lows: (!) storage at the headwaters for irrigation in the upper section and for such
power developernent in this section as can be accomplished without undue interfer-
ence with irrigation; (2) storage below the San Juan of sufficient capacity to control
floods and to regulate the* water available at that point for power use in the middle
section; and (3) storage below the Virgin sufficient, at least, for re-regulation to meet irri-
gation requirements of the lower river and for such additional flood protection as may
be necessary or desirable. If this or some similar plans can be agreed upon, and an
equitable apportionment of the waters effected, the details of the immediate applica-
tion of the waters of the river to their respective uses in the individual sections will be
greatly simplified, and work may be started on the series of developments upon which
the economic progress of the whole Southwest primarily depends.
: Whereupon, at 11.25 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned until 10.30 o'clock
a. m., Wednesday, June 28, 1922.)
PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS
SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H. R. 11449
. By Mr. SWING
A BILL ,TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
PART 4
JUNE 28, 1922
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
131fi 1922
3V3CI
5! OQAflC
Vfi
.
COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.
MOSES P. KINKAID, Nebraska, Chairman.
NICHOLAS J.'SINNOTT, Oregon. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona.
EDWARD C. LITTLE, Kansas. C. B. HUDSPETH, Texas.
ADDISON T. SMITH, Idaho. JOHN E. RAKER, California.
JOHN W. SUMMERS, Washington. HOMER L. LYON, North Carolina.
HENRY E. BARBOUR, California. WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD, Alabama.
E. O. LEATHERWOOD, Utah.
WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, South Dakota.
SAMUEL S. ARENTZ, Nevada.
MANUEL HERRICK, Oklahoma.
A. R. HUMPHREY, Clerk.
II
PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO
RIVER BASIN.
COMMITTEE ox IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Wednesday, June 28, 1922.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward C. Little (acting
chairman) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO.
Senator PHIPPS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to file with the committee a copy of a
telegram received by Senator Nicholson and myself from the mayor of Denver.
Colo., expressing a desire on the part of the citizens of Denver to be heard
before any final action was taken on this bill, or before the hearings were
closed.
.Mr. VAII.E. I have filed a similar telegram.
Senator PHIPPS. It is not necessary to read it now, but I will file it with the
committee.
(The telegram referred to is as follows:)
DENVER. COLO., June 23, 1!>.>2.
Hon. LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS,
Hon. SAMUEL D. NICHOLSON.
Washington. D. C.:
Our attention just called to H. R. 11449 by Congressman Swing and S. 3511 by
Senator Johnson and to hearings on same before House committee. The future
growth and development of Denver and vicinity, as well as nearly one-half the
total area of the State of Colorado, are and will be wholly dependent upon the
future use of a part of the waters of the Colorado River which have their rise
in this State, and we protest- against any legislation by Congress for the con-
struction of enormous works upon the lower reaches of the river which may
interfere with the future development of the State of Colorado and the neces-
sary future diversions for municipal and irigation supplies by Denver and ad-
joining territory. The bills in question do not afford such protection. The
consideration of such legislation at this time is a surprise to us in view of the
present activity respecting the same subject matter by the interstate compact
commission appointed by the President and the governors of the seven Colorado
River States, and we protest against further activities by Congress until the
future rights of this State and city have been assured by interstate compact.
In any legislation on this subject adequate provision should be made for lower
development for vise of States in the upper basin as well as the lower basin.
Before any report is made on this bill Denver desires time and opportunity
to be heard.
D. C. BAU.F.Y, Mui/ur.
Senator PHIPPS. My attention has been called to the Swing bill, which, as
I understand it, is practically a duplicate of a bill introduced in the Senate
by Senator Johnson, of California, but I have not had an opportunity to see
the hearings that have been so far conducted by your committee. Therefore.
I am not aware as to what interests are behind the proponents of this measure,
but so far. as rny personal information is concerned and I have made some
inquiries I have been unable to learn of any community of citizens in the
Imperial Valley or the Coachella Valley of California who are asking for the
construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam at this time.
Mr. HAYDEN. I can briefly tell you who has appeared here.
191
192 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Senator PHIPPS. I can post myself later with regard to thar.
Mr. HAYDEN. Director Davis, of the United States Reclamation Service, made
a statement based upon his printed report on the problems of the Imperial
Valley, which, undoubtedly, you have seen. Secretary Hoover, of the Depart-
ment of Commerce, appeared before the committee, and discussed the bill.
There have also been present representatives of the City of Los Angeles,
Pasadena, Riverside, and other cities and towns in Southern California, us well
as the President of the Imperial Irrigation District, all of whom advocated the
passage of the Swing bill. Mr. Yager, representing the Coachella Valley, is
present this morning and desires to be heard.
I can further advise you that this is the last day on which hearings are to
be held on the bill at this time. The committee may again take the bill up for
consideration after the proposed recess of the House, sometime in August or
September, at which time, as I have advised everyone who has asked me, the
committee will undoubtedly be glad to hear at length all persons having views
on the bill.
Senator PHIPPS. Mr. Chairman. I do not change my statement at all that
upon inquiry I am not aware of any community of citizens in California who
are asking .for action at this time on any measure of this character, and I sub-
mit that since the various Staves that are interested in the waters of the Colo-
rado River have appointed commissioners, who, in conjunction with the Federal
representative, Mr. Hoover, acting as chairman of the commission, are consider-
ing the matter of the allocation of the waters of the Colorado River, iv would be
very strange indeed if the Federal Government should be making an appropria-
tion of some $70,000,000 to enable one community or one section of the country
that can use the waters of the Colorado River for irrigation purposes to set up
a prior claim or right by the use of those wavers while these negotiations are in
progress. Of course. I have no idea that any affirmative legislation can be had
at this time, nor do I think that any legislation should be had until the possi-
bilities of other reservoir sites on the Colorado River are considered in connec-
tion with the Boulder Canyon site.
Mr. LITTLE. I might say that the suggestion you have made has already been
made to the committee, and the committee, I think, is fully convinced of every
proposition you advance.
Senator PHIPPS. Without having had an opportunity to know what has already
passed before your committee
Mr. LITTLE (interposing). I think if you will read over the hearings, you will
find that the situation is satisfactory in that regard.
Senator PHIPPS. I would like to point out vbis fact, that the committee should
give consideration to all those other matters in connection with this bill.
Mi-. LITTI.K. I am sure that you would be satisfied with what has been done
by the committee.
Senator PHIPPS. The principal object of this bill, or that would be. at least,
inferred from a reading of it, is the control of flood waters, with the incidental
use of them for irrigation purposes and for the development of hydroelectric
power. Now. the great damage which occurred in the Imperial Valley by rea-
son of the flood some years ago when the Southern Pacific Railroad saved the
situation, and for which. I believe, it has never been reimbursed by the Federal
(Government, was caused, according to my information, by an unusual flood in
the Gila River, which comes into the Colorado River below the Boulder Canyon
Dam Site. The high flow of this present season which has just passed within
the present month, did not come out of the Gila, River but from the upper wa-
ters. By reason of the Pescadero Cut, which has been reopened at an expend-
iture of some $300.000 by the people of the Imperial Valley, the flood waters
were safely carried by without danger of inundation to the Imperial Valley.
This bill has, among other provisions, one giving priority in the matter of de-
veloping hydroelectric power possibilities to communities, which would, to my
mind, have the effect of cutting out competition on the part of public-utility
companies, such as the large companies now supplying California and Nevada
with hydroelectric power.
Mr. HAYDEN. Would you object to my asking you a personal question at this
time?
Senator PHIPPS. No.
Mr. HAYDEN. I have been told that you have considerable financial interest
yourself in the California power companies. Is that true?
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 193
Senator PHIPPS. I am interested, and have been for years, in one of the
smaller companies out there, and in a company that, by the way, has furnished
hydroelectric power to the Imperial Valley.
Mr. HAYDEN. What company is that?
Senator PHIPPS. The Nevada and California Electrical Corporation. I think
they furnish the Imperial Valley with current through one of their subsidiaries,
either the Holton Power Co., or the Southern Sierra Power Co. I am not
familiar with the details of the business, because I have no part in the man-
agement, but it goes without saying that having established distribution lines
in there, any further development of hydroelectric power in that neighborhood
would put that company in an ideal position, as it would benefit through being
allotted its proportionate share of the hydroelectric power developed.
Mr. SWING. You are short of power now, are you not?
Senator PHIPPS. I do not think so.
Mr. SWING. In other words, there is more demand than you can supply?
Senator PHIPPS. Like every other company out there, they have not been
able to keep up with the demand for hydroelectric power. There is an absolute
field for further development of that industry there and in all the other
Western States. At the present time agriculture, perhaps, is the field upon
which those companies depend for their greatest consumption that is, in pump-
ing for irrigation purposes. New things are being developed all the time, so
that really the hydroelectric business is only in its infancy. There will be a
growing and ever-increasing demand for power, and I think we are only on
the eve of that development. So far as that is concerned, I think the possi-
bilities of the Colorado River should be carefully considered, and that they
should be developed, but we must be careful to develop them along proper lines.
I do not want to see Los Angeles, with its very apparent desire and I say that
unhesitatingly to bond its citizens for the purpose, going into the hydro-
electric j tower business, in competition with public utility companies, which com-
panies are financed by private resources.
Mr. SWING. There is no competition by the city of Los Angeles, is there?
Senator PHIPPS. I am not sufficiently posted to say, but my information is
that they bought out public utility companies that had put in distributing lines
by which they were furnishing current to citizens of the city, where, as in
ether States, they were under the regulation of the railroad commission. Where
their earnings are regulated, they are not allowed to earn above a certain
percentage on their investment, based upon the appraised value of their prop-
erty, with a certain amount set aside for depreciation, etc. Therefore, the
consumers were protected in the matter of charges. Now, in this Boulder
Canyon proposition, it seems to me very apparent that there is a definite intent
and purpose on the part of the administration of Los Angeles to definitely
establish the city of Los Angeles, a municipality, in the business of develop-
ing, producing, and distributing hydroelectric power in competition with public-
utility corporations, whose earnings are regulated by the commission.
Mr. HAYUKN. I am sure that you will be interested in reading the state-
ment before this committee made by Mr. Crisswell, the president of the City
Council of Lets Angeles, in which he discussed that very feature.
Senator PHIPPS. I am sure that I shall not miss reading a page of the
testimony.
The people of Denver in the development of their city will have to look
to the waters of what we term the western slope, or the Western part of the
State, over the divide, to supplement the water needed for domestic purposes
in the city of Denver eventually. At the present time, it is proper and urgent
that they should be looking ahead, as the city of Los Angeles did when it
went 200 to 2.~tO miles in the interior tit take up water rights. If the city
of Denver should look ahead with a view to acquiring water, it would have
to be diverted on the headwaters of the Colorado River.
Mr. HAYDKN. I presume that the question of the diversion of water out-
side of the basin will be considered by the Colorado River Commission before
it reaches any final conclusion as to the allocation of the waters of thsit
stream.
Senator PHIPPS. Undoubtedly : that is one of the problems that must be
attended to out there. So far as that is concerned, my feeling personally is
that there should be no difficulty on the part of the States getting together
in u proper agreement for the allocation of the waters of that stream. So
far as Colorado is concerned, and I believe that Wyoming is in the smne sit-
194 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
uation, the volume of water carried through those States is largely in excess
of what either or both Stares can expert to use under any future plans that
any man living to-day can devise.
Mr. LITTLE. Did you say Colorado and Utah?
Senator PHIPPS. I said Colorado and Wyoming. I would not like to say
as to Utah. Utah is a little farther down the stream. It is a great and
growing State, with wonderful agricultural possibilities, and I do not know
to what extent its territory can be irrigated by water from the Colorado
River.
Mr. LITTLE. What do you think of the Glen Canyon irrigation project in
Utah?
Senator PHIPPS. I do not know about that. There is one strong reason for
developing the waters at the head of the stream for beneficial use. and that is
because the water goes back into the river through seepage. The return flow
to the stream is very great. In the San Luis Valley, in Colorado, at the head-
waters of the Rio Grande. I can show you places where the water, after having
irrigated large areas of land, requires sulnlrainage in order to take it away.
There are many places where water which has already irrigated land is brought
to the surface and used again for the irrigation of other lands, and then goes
into the river.
Mr. LITTLE. How far down from the dam?
Senator PHIPPS. For instance, up at the headwaters of the Rio Grande, there
is the so-called farmers' dam, which is less than half a mile wide, impounding a
vast volume of water. There is another dam on one of the main tributaries,
known as the Santa Maria Dam. which is away up in the hills. At certain
times, when they desire to irrigate, they take the water out through the liead-
gates into the river channel. The water is conducted down to the point where
they take it out for use. For instance, the town of Del Xorte is between 75
and 100 miles farther down the stream than the farmers' dam and (><> miles
below the Santa Maria Dam. They there turn the water into the main ditches.
which are as wide as the length of this room, say 30 feet. That is the width
of one of those principal ditches, and they range in depth from 5 to 7 feet.
Perhaps 6 feet is the average.
They take the water out into the laterals and distribute it over the territory,
and in covering an area of three miles square they will get enough drop or
enough dip of the land to take the underflow out again and bring it to the top
of the land. Then it will go 3 or 4 miles farther, and find its way back into
the stream. That water is used over and over again. I am familiar with the
fact that in irrigation there are great losses through evaporation. That is gen-
erally conceded, but, at the same time, there is a great recovery through seepage
and the return of the water to the stream. So in the case of Glen Canon. Utah,
the amount of water that would be taken out would irrigate the Utah lands, and
a portion of the water would return to the main channel of the stream.
Mr. HAYDEN. The Glen Canon Dam site is located in Arizona, instead of Utah,
and there is no irrigable land in Utah below it.
Senator PHIPPS. I am confusing that with another site in Utah.
Mr. HAYDEN. I think that you must have in mind the Flaming Gorge Project
which has been highly recommended by some eminent engineers.
Senator PHIPPS. There are several reservoir sites further up the Colorado,
and I believe the experts on irrigation problems would generally testify that the
greatest benefit that can be derived from water for irrigation purposes is by
beginning its use as nearly as possible to the headwaters.
Mr. LITTLE, I was talking about this project in Utah.
Senator PHIPPS. I will not detain the committee any further, except to sa.T
that in a matter of this kind it is very necessary to take into account all of tin-
questions that enter into the consideration of the subject rather than to con-
fine your investigations to the possibilities of one project.
Mr. SWING. May I make this suggestion, that I am going to ask the com-
mittee at the first opportunity after the recess, probably the last of August or
the 1st of September, to have the hearings printed and a copy sent to the Colo-
rado River Commissioners and other persons interested in the matter, with
an announcement of the date of the future hearings. Then they can read
the hearings and have the advantage of preparing their statements in relation
to them, and they can be here at that time to present their case to the committee.
Senator PHIPPS. That would be the ideal way in which the committee mem-
bers could get the information they want.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 195
Mr. SWING. I think you will agree with me that the development of the Colo-
rado River is one of the biggest propositions before the American people to-day.
It is simply a question of evolving a workable scheme.
Senator PHIPPS. You spoke of the power possibilities of this stream : There
is a dam site above the Grand Canyon as well as below it. ^ There is a dam site
at the junction of the Grand and Green Rivers where the hydroelectric power
that might be generated would be more centrally located with reference to the
points of use than would be the case if it were generated at the Boulder Canyon
site.
Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Swing, will you point out to the Senator where the projects
are? Will you point out the Flaming Gorge Project to him on the map?
Mr. SWING. I think the Senator is about as familiar with that as I am.
Here [indicating} is the Flaming Gorge Site, and here [indicating] is the
Boulder Canyon Site.
Senator PHIPPS. I do not know that I have anything further to say this
morning. I thank the committee for its attention.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL D. NICHOLSON, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO.
Senator NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman, of course, it is agreed by everybody that
the distribution of the waters of the Colorado River presents quite a problem,
and I take it that there will be no money appropriated by Congress until the
Colorado River Commission makes its report. I feel quite confident that there
will be no measure enacted by the Senate appropriating money for the pur-
pose of building the Boulder Canon Dam until such time as the Commission
makes its report.
Mr. SWING. It was suggested by Mr. Hoover that an appropriate paragraph
could be put into the bill protecting the upper stream States, and not continue
to carry as a hangover several projects in California and Arizona that are con-
stantly menaced by Hoods, such as was experienced in the Palo Verde Valley.
You know of the destructive floods there.
Senator NICHOLSON. That is true from what I have read.
Mr. SWING. You could have your rights protected by a reservation in the
bill that when the commission reaches an agreement, that agreement shall
cover the projects authorized to be constructed in this bill.
Senator NICHOLSON. If an agreement that would protect our rights on the
Colorado River could be arrived at we would not want in any manner to prevent
the construction of a dam.
Mr. SWING. I mean if the legislation carried a paragraph which provided
that when the Colorado River Commission readied an agreement that agree-
ment should govern all the works constructed hereumler. Would not that
be sufficient?
Senator NICHOLSON. No, I do not think so. I would not want to say that
I would agree to that, or that we would bind ourselves to accept the findings
of this commission as final. That would be a question of whether we felt
that our interests had been properly protected.
Mr. SWING. I mean if it is ratified. Of course, you are acquainted with the
Hood menace down there?
Senator NICHOLSON. Yes.
Mr. SWING. And you know that it is a real and actual menace.
Senator NICHOLSON. 1 agree that we are making pretty rapid progress now,
and that the appointment of this commission was highly desirable and neces-
sary. Now when they make a finding, I think all of us will have a better
viewpoint from which to see what our relative rights are in the matter.
Mr. LITTLE. Did you know that Mr. Hoover, the chairman of that commission,
has been before the committee and has quite fully presented that side of it?
Senator NICHOLSON. I did not know that.
Mr. LITTLE. He made quite a statement.
Senator NICHOLSON. What did he say?
Mr. SWING. He said that this legislation should be pui through without
further delay, and that it could carry a paragraph amply protecting all up-
stream situations.
Senator NICHOLSON. Where is this paragraph?
Mr. SWING. Mr. Hoover suggested it.
Mr. VAILK. The bill was prepared before Mr. Hoover appeared before the
committee.
196 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIX.
Senator NICHOLSON. Let us look at it from another viewpoint : Suppose we
should agree to the proposition that you gentlemen have submitted, that there
should be such a saving paragraph in the bill, binding us as to the finding of
this commission, or to abide by its findings
Mr. SWING (interposing). The commission's findings can only be binding
when unanimously adopied by the legislatures of the seven Stsites concerned
and confirmed by the action of Congiv
Senator NICHOLSON. That is another question that has been developed, be-
cause it is necessary to have the legislatures of the seven States to agree to
the findings of the commission before they can be ratified by Congress.
Mr. SWING. That would not alter your rights.
Senator NICHOLSON. Now, if that be true, and I have no doubt it is, you
can readily see that we should proceed along common-sense lines. We must
deal with one another in an honest, just. ;md straightforward manner. It must
be a settlement that is equitable to all of the States, or they will not adopt
or approve the findings of the commission. Therefore. I take it that if we
work along together and attempt to help one another, we will not obstruct
the work of the commission, and we will get somewhere.
Mr. SWING. You have kept in touch with this matter, have you not?
Senator NICHOLSON. Not as closely as I should have liked.
Mr. SWING. I mean in touch with the work of the Colorado River commission.
Senator NICHOLSON. Just in a general way.
Mr. SWING. Do you not recognize from the hearings that the principal ob-
struction to the reaching of :in agreement by the Colorado River commission
has been the contention or claim on the part of representatives of States that
all of the water and snow that fell within their boundaries in the basin of this
river belonged to them forever that is, water that they could not possibly use
now, and could not possibly use 100 years from now? You know, of course,
that that was their contention, and that has been the reason why the commis-
sion could not reach an agreement.
Senator NICHOLSON. I know that has been the contention.
Mr. SWING. You do not defend that proposition before this committee, do you?
Senator NICHOLSON. I can tell you very briefly my position in the matter :
As you gentlemen know. 62 per cent or 64 per cent of the water in the Colo-
rado River has its source in Colorado. I think 17 or 18 per cent of it has its
source in Wyoming. In other words, about 80 per cent of the water in the
Colorado is furnished by Colorado and Wyoming. The city of Denver now has
a population of nearly 300,000 people, and we have no reserve waters upon
which to fall back to meet the future increase or growth of the city of Denver.
Of course, naturally, in the next 2.1 or 30 years Denver will be a city of 600.000
people, and we will then be compelled to go to the western slope and get
water for future use. Of course, it is quite difficult at this time to say what
quantity of water is going to be required for the future use of the city of
Denver, but the citizens of Colorado will have to be guaranteed, or they will
have to be protected in their full rights, as to the quantity of water that they
feel the future will require. It is not a question as to the quantity of water
that we will require to-day, but the quantity that we will probably require
forty or fifty years hence, based on increased population. That relates not
only to the needs of the cities, as there is a great deal of land in Colorado
that is available for reclamation purposes, and it can be reclaimed by irrigation
when the waters are diverted across to it, either from the Rio Grande River
or the Colorado River. Now, the citizens of Colorado, I think, can be relied
upon to extend to you people a square deal. All that they ask for is that you
extend to them a square deal in the matter. That is the way I look at the
matter.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM N. VAILE, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
FROM FIRST COLORADO DISTRICT.
Mr. VAILK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement along the
same line. We have in Colorado four principal streams that rise in that State,
namely, the Platte. the Arkansas, the Rio Grande, which flow to the east, and
the Colorado, which flows to the west. The mountains of Colorado furnish a
large part of the water supply for that whole western territory on both slopes of
the Rockies.
Mr. LITTLE. Which of those rivers will furnish the most water to the Colorado?
Mr. VAILE. There is more water in the Colorado River. The Rio Grande does
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 197
not stay very long in Colorado. It flows southeast, and goes out of the State.
The people of Colorado have been rather injured by the construction of works
outside of the State which have established priorities, or, at least, have estab-
lished equities, in the judgment of the Interior Department.
Mr. HA YUEN. And, also in the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Mr. VAILE. Well, it has worked both ways. They have confirmed the doctrine
of prior appropriation, upon which we rely. They decided with us on that in
the Kansas and Colorado case and against us in the Colorado and Wyoming case.
Mr. HAYDEN. It is evident from the Supreme Court decisions that if an
equitable arrangement could be made between the several States of the Colorado
River Basin that it would be highly advantageous.
Mr. VAILK. Yes; ami that was the purpose of the law providing for that com-
pact between the several States. In the first place, there was a treaty with
Mexico that guaranteed the flow. I do not know the exact proportion, but the
general effect was to guarantee the flow of water along the boundary line, and
under that treaty irrigators in southeastern Colorado have been deprived of
water to which they are justly entitled for their homesteads which, in many
cases, were located before the treaty with Mexico was made, or, at least, at
a very early date. Then there was the construction of the Elephant-Butte
Dam. with the result that the Hio (irande waters have been tied up as far as
their use by Colorado people is concerned. Denver is a city of more than
250,000 population, and is growing rapidly. There is a very large territory
to the east of it.
Mr. SWING. Is it agricultural land?
Mr. VAILE. Yes.
Mr. SWING. You want to divert water from the Colorado River for the irri-
gation of lands, from which the water will not again enter the river by seepage?
Mr. VAILE. Certainly; we rely upon the doctrine of prior appropriation to
beneficial use. of course, there are two extreme views. One extreme view is
that a State is entitled to all the water that rises within its boundaries, and
the other is that the State through which the water flows is entitled to it. Of
course, as between those two positions, there is ground for reasonable com-
promise.
Mr. SWING. If the State of Colorado claims all of the water that flows from
within its boundaries, let them pay the millions of dollars of damages done by
those waters in Hooding the I'alo Verde Valley.
Mr. VAILK. They do not claim that responsibility.
Senator NICHOLSON. That is what we are proposing to do that is. to take
this water and divert its course so that you will not be damaged by floods in
the river.
Mr. VAILE. .We do rely upon that doctrine of prior appropriation to bene-
ficial iise, but that doctrine will evidently have to have some modification in
the interest of States below as well as States above, wherever State lines in-
tervene. That can be worked out through agreements among the seven States
interested. I do not know that the city of Denver will oppose this legislation,
but we do want to be sure that rights shall not. be acquired before an agree-
ment is reached among the States.
STATEMENT OF MB. EDGAR WALLACE, LEGISLATIVE REPRE-
SENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, sometime ago I appeared before this com-
mittee on a general reclamation bill. It was the Smith-McNary bill and the
Bankhead bill that were pending before the committee at that time. I then
stated the general position of the American Federation of Labor on matters of
reclamation. Since that time a committee has been appointed by the American
Federation of Labor, and they made a report which has been adopted. With
your permission. I would like to read one paragraph from the report, and will
insert the balance of it in the hearing.
Mr. LITTLE. Without objection, the report will be included in the hearing.
Mr. WALLACE. The paragraph definitely pertainim: to the bill before the
committee is headed "The Colorado." ami reads as follows:
"The possibilities of the Colorado system dial lenses adequate description.
Immense tracts of land, the richest in the world, can throughout this valley
and the deserts, be brought under a hiirh state of cultivation which will neces-
sitate towns and cities, manufacturing and railroads, as the development
continues.
198 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
" The reclamation of desert and swamp, the building of good roads and canals.
and adequate housing plans might well absorb our attention and interest MS
in these crucial times. That nation that can build, while other nations decay,
is the nation that will endure."
Now. Mr. Chairman, that last phrase, of course, "the nation that can build
while other nations decay," is the crux of the matter, according to our ideas.
The American Federation of Labor recogni/es that to-day there is a vast amount
of unemployment, even though there is a little betterment on account of the
farmers getting a little better price for their products. We know, gentlemen,
that then- are millions of men unemployed. I call your attention to the fact
that the coal miners have been on strike for almost three months, and yet
there is no shortage of coal. What does that mean? It means that the indus-
tries are not running, or they would have absorbed that amount of coal that
was on hand long ago. Therefore, as I have said, there are many millions of
men out of employment. We see in every project for the reclamation of land
possibilities for homes and possibilities for other industries in other sections
of the country that will be called upon to furnish the materials for building
dams, for building homes, and for building the railroads that will go into those
possible reclamation projects.
Now, we favor this project, as we do the others referred to. We see the
extreme necessity and the evidence that there is not only possible the reclama-
tion of more land, but there is danger at the present time of homes already
built and to land already reclaimed of be'ng destroyed. It would intensify
the situation throughout the country if that calamity should come to pas*.
It seems to us that at a time like this speed is necessary. The opportunity
is here and the necessity is here. Men should be given an opportunity to build
homes, and men should be put to work. Our foreign relations are out of joint,
and our foreign trade is out of joint. Why should we not now put all of our
energies into developing this country, and making this a happy country for
working people, with an opportunity to employ themselves and to employ each
other? Is it a question of economy V Yes: but I do not think it is good
economy to save money at the cost of the people of this country who arc looking
for work, while there is urgent need for the work that they can do. I do not
believe that we should hesitate to mortgage the future for the benefit of pros-
perity, and that is what reclamation means. We are making homes for our
children, and in order that their children may live on in the future. Hence, if
we spend money in order to do this work, and if. in order to spend the money.
we must mortgage the future, we are doing it in behalf of future generations.
I do not believe there is anything more I wish to say.
Mr. HAYDKX. The committee is always glad to have the benefit, of your views.
Your previous statement in behalf of the Smith-McNary bill was very helpful.
The support that has been given to the entire problem of the reclamation of
waste land in the United States by the American Federation of Labor is
sincerely appreciated by this committee and by everyone interested in that
great question.
(The report submitted by Mr. Wallace is as follows:)
" Your committee, after carefully considering the matter submitted to it,
beg leave to render the following report:
" We feel that, while the present dislocation exists throughout the world,
with industry stagnant and unemployment and its attendant suffering grow-
ing worse each day, it behooves us, in the name of humanity and of our
country, to work out a constructive program that will, in addition to al-
leviating the existing situation to a large extent, establish those works that
will ever redound to the dignity and progress of our Government and the
welfare of our people.
"We have carefully analyzed the need and opportunity for real, necessary
constructive works, and have considered what we think are of the most im-
portance, in housing, reclamation, and water transportation and power con-
struction.
"We have generalized this entire matter under three captions, name'y : Re-
clamation of the desert contiguous to the great Colorado River system and
including other worthy reclamation projects in other parts of the country :
development of the plan to connect the Great Lakes with the St. Lawn-nee
for deep-water shipping; and the fullest development of the Mississippi sys-
tem in its entirety.
" In the general reclamation of the Colorado and other similar though
smaller projects, we have in mind the inclusion of reclamation plans in general.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 199
" THE COLORADO.
"The possibilities of the Colorado system challenge adequate description.
Immense tracts of land, the richest in the world, can throughout this valley,
and the desert, he brought under a high state of cultivation which will
necessitate towns and cit : es, manufacturing and railroads. as> the development
continues.
"The reclamation of desert and swamp, the building of good roads and
canals and adequate housing plans might well absorb our attention and
energies in thesv crucial times. That nation that can build, while other na-
tions decay, is the nation that will endure.
"All general plans of reclamation of swamp, arid and cut-over lands might
generally be classed with this enterprise. The price of one dreadnaught would
go a long way toward financing one of these enterprises. It has been, esti-
mated that the value of the land reclaimed under the Mississippi projec>
would triple the cost of construction.
" THE MISSISSIPPI.
''(me of the ideas that has come under discussion for many years, is the full-
est development of the water system of the Mississippi and its principal tribu-
taries. Most of the activities of local politicians in the years gone by have been
in the direction of the " i>ork barrel" method, trying to improve some locality
or creek, in a temporary manner, when it was often really tributary to a larger
system.
" The development of the Mississippi system in its entirety would automat-
ically do many things, beside making seaports of some of our inland cities.
With the enterprise under way, building from the headwaters of the Missouri,
the Ohio, and the Illinois Rivers down to New Orleans, it would create an out-
let by water for the produce of St. Louis, Chicago. Kansas City. Pittsburgh, and
other localities directly to Mexico, either coast of South America, or to the
world.
"This would also he true of imports. The leveeing of this wonderful water
system would automatically do many other things. It would prevent the
periodical disastrous floods, it would reclaim millions of acres of rich laud, and
do away with disease. It would require many years to construct This work
properly, and in the meantime while the rest of the world is writhing in trou-
ble and uncertainty, this gigantic enterprise would stimulate to its best form
every line of human endeavor in our country, our unemployed would be put at
useful and profitable work, it would require clothing, housing, food, and pay
rolls, steel, concrete, and machinery, and in the meantime the public would
have something healthier to think about other than the "open shop" fights or
the beating down of labor, and all other values.
" \Ve are well equipped to embark on such an enterprise. The idea of a canal
connecting the Atlantic with the Pacific Ocean, across the Isthmus baffled the
world. Annies of men died like flies in the effort of France to build the canal.
We did it and did it so well that before it was completed, hundreds of tourists
and sightseers were gong to the Canal Zone for their health.
" We believe that the general conference should authorize the drafting and
the introduction of three separate bills, one dealing with the Mississippi project,
one with the St. Lawrence project, and a general reclamation bill to deal with
the great Colorado project in the entirety, and similar smaller plans as they
exist in the various parts of our country.
"These are necessary and worthy enterprises at all times, and will redound
to the comfort and profit of all generations to come. It is especially proper
that the people at large should lend every effort to inaugurate at least one of
these projects at the earliest possible moment, and thus bring industry and
progress hack into our national life."
STATEMENT OF MB. THOMAS C. YAGER, ATTORNEY FOR
COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT.
Mr. YAGEU. Mr. Chairman. I appear here in behalf of the Coachella Valley
County Water District. That organization covers most of the territory of the
Coachella Valley. We have approximately K'.s.ooo acres of irrigable land, or
land that is susceptible of irrigation by gravity flow from the Colorado Hivei.
We are interested in this project, not entirely from the satndpoint of the
200 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
development of our new area, hut we are interested in it from the standpoint
both of irrigation and protection. Most of our valley is below sea level. The
town of Indio is '22 feet below sea level, and gravity flow into the district
would extend a short distance north. The Salton Sea. which ran into the
valley in 1905, covers a jxirtion of the Coachella Valley, and if it were not
stopped, it would have covered all of it. Therefore, we are interested in this
project from the standpoint of protection, and vitally so. We are also inter-
ested in it from the standpoint of development in the Southwest. Four years
ago we were here pleading with this committee and with Congress for legisla-
tion which would permit of the development of this territory, and. in your
wisdom, you saw lit to pass a bill asking for a further investigation.
Those investigations have been made and the re]K>rts submitted to this Con-
gress by the Secretary of the Interior recommending the construction of this
project. It has been indorsed by Secretary Hoover, after he had familiarized
himself with the project through all the hearings, held in the West by the
Colorado River Commission. It has been indorsed by the engineers of the
Reclamation Service, and it has been indorsed by many competent engineers
of the West. We believe in the possibility and the feasibility of this project,
and I am instructed by the Coachella Valley County Water District as its repre-
sentative to give to you our unqualified indorsement of the Swing bill, 11. U.
11449. This development, gentlemen, is the life of our valley. We are prac-
tically at the limit of our present water supply. The irrigated area 'that we
now have is irrigated from artesian wells. We have approximately 10,000 acres
under cultivation, and our supply is about at its limit. We are using about
the limit of the water supply at the present time, and if we intend to go
ahead in that valley, we must look to other sources for water, and this is the
only source we can look to. Therefore, we ask you to pass this legislation.
AV'e need it for protection and we need it for development.
We have no disposition or desire to interfere with any of the rights of the
upper States, nor do we believe that the construction of the Boulder Canyon
Dam will interfere with any rights of the upper States. Over 17,000.000 acre-
feet of water are passing the Yuma project yearly that is going to waste, and
that water could be placed upon the arid lands of the West, making an agri-
cultural empire. It would not interfere at all with development in the upper
States, as all agree there is sufficient water for every acre in the watershed.
It would supply power, and, by the way. this power is a by-product of the de-
velopment. We need that power to help pay for the construction. It is a
part of the development, and this territory is not entering into this project with
the idea of being a competitor of any power company, but it is an asset that
Hows from this development.
Mr. SMITH. How many acres are under irrigation in the Coachella Valley?
.Mr. YAGER. Approximately 10,000 acres.
Mr. SMITH. How many additional acres could be placed under irrigation by
this proposed project?
Mr. YAGER. There are approximately 138,000 acres susceptible of irrigation
from gravity How of the Colorado River.
Mr. SMITH. At what price could the agricultural industry there take ad-
vantage of this opportunity for additional water, or what price per acre could
they afford to pay?
Mr. YAGER. Mr. Hayden has made the statement that that land is reasonably
worth $200 per acre. I think we can go further that that. We raise a class
of crops there that are very valuable, such as dates, grapes, etc. There is
really no price that we can place on an acre of dates. There is no competition
in the United States to the production of dates, and enormous returns can be
made.
Mr. HAYDEN. My statement was that every acre of irrigated land in the
lower Colorado Valley was worth at least $200.
Mr. YAGER. I think we can absolutely concur in that, although in this par-
ticular locality the land is probably worth a good deal more. The grape crops
there are the 'first on the markets. They receive from $500 to $1,000 per acre
from grapes yearly.
Mr. SMITH. Is the additional land to be irrigated in the public domain or in
private ownership?
Mr. YAGER. A portion of the land in the Coachella Valley is in the public
domain, and a portion of it is in private ownership.
Mr. SMITH. How was that land in private ownership acquired? They could
not take it up under the homestead law, could they? How was title acquired
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 201
to the land that was in the public domain? I am referring to the land that is
now under irrigation.
Mr. YAGER. The public land in that vicinity has been withdrawn from entry,
but prior to its withdrawal, it was taken up by homesteaders and tinder the
desert land law. water from wells, or underground water being used for its
reclamation.
Mr. SMITH. The district only includes the lands there in private ownership?
Mr. YAGER. It includes practically the entire valley at the present time.
The people of the Southwest are a unit in their desire to have this project
constructed, and have shown their good faith and sincerity by contributing
heavily to the cost of the report and investigations, submitted to you by the
Secretary of the Interior in order that your committee and this Congress might
have full and complete information upon which you could base intelligent legis-
lation, providing for the development of this great national resource.
We further appeal to you and submit that it is the proper duty and function
of this Government to help its citizens in this case as it has in others and to
relieve them from the constant flood menace that threatens their destruction
when they themselves have spent millions of dollars and exhausted every re-
source in their efforts to control the floods of this river, and failing now look
to you for help.
In 1905-6 the Colorado River broke its banks and ran rampant through
tl'.e cultivated area of the Imperial Valley, inundating that vast stretch of
land now lying in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys and doing millions of
dollars of damage, and formed what is now called the Salton Sea. Just recently
the Colorado River broke through the levees of the Palo Verde Valley, River-
side County. Calif., and has again done millions of dollars of destruction and
damage to the cultivated area in this district, although this district has built
numerous levees and is to-day carrying a heavy bonded indebtedness for moneys
it has spent to protect itself from the ravages of this river. Other districts along
the lower reaches of the Colorado River have been seriously damaged and have
si tent large sums of money in their efforts to protect their lands from floods,
but all these expenditures have been made at different points along the river
in the construction of dikes and levees ; draining the pocketbooks of the farmers
in this vic'nity and yet they have not gone to the heart of the problem and
permanently protected themselves.
The Secretary of the Interior under your direction and the direction of Con-
gress here presents to you a solution of the problem', which has received the
indorsement of some of the most competent engineers of the West.
The construction of this project as provided in this report, in addition to the
desilting and equating the flow of the river and protecting this property from
damage, provides an adequate and practical water supply and irrigation canal
for the irrigation of approximately a million acres of land within the United
States and this land, one of the most productive areas the United States has;
and. gentlemen, here let me emphasize again the fact that very little, if any. of
the produce and crops that will be grown on this acreage will come in competi-
tion with crops grown in any other part of the United States. On account of
the early season and extreme heat, the grapes, cantaloupe, onions, lettuce and
all such crops are harvest CM!, sold, and used before the crops of other localities
are mature. This produce to a large extent is shipped East to supply the eastern
demand and upon a bare market and the money received from the sale of this
produce is spent with your eastern manufacturer in buying farm implements
and machinery, dry goods, automobiles, and general merchandise, nearly all of
which is manufactured on the eastern coast or at least east of the Mississippi
River. This development thus is of great benefit to the eastern manufacturer,
merchant, railroads, and other business branches.
oiiu-r witnesses have told you of the demand for power in the Southwest and
the value of the power to be developed by the construction of the Boulder I>am
and that the power is of sufficient volume and value to bear the entire cost of
the dam. affording primarily flood protection and the equating of the river for
irrigation.
We thus present to you a problem that will solve itself if you will provide the
legislative machinery and start it in motion.
Private power companies have fded upon the river and have offered to build
such a dam for the power alone, showing their faith in the financial and engi-
neering soundness of the project, but, gentlemen, that river is a great national
asset, belonging to the people of this country, over which this Congress has juris-
diction, and this Government is the only agency that can properly allocate the
202 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
benefits to be derived in its development and is the only agency in which the
people of the Southwest are willing to entrust this undertaking.
I can do no more than assure you gentlemen that the people* whom I here
represent are desirous and anxious that this project he built and that they urge
you to pass this legislation, the soundness and feasibility of which have been
passed upon by competent engineers.
Mr. HAYUEN. As this is the concluding hearing of the committee on this bill
until after the recess of the House. I ask permission to insert in the record
two letters that I have received from the Director of the United States Geologi-
cal Survey, and a telegram from the State water commissioner of Arizona with
reference to the proposed investigation by representatives of the State of
Arizona, the United States Reclamation Service, and the Geological Survey of
the irrigation possibilities in my State from the waters of the Colorado River.
Mr. George H. Maxwell, who appeared before this committee not long ago.
has conceived the idea that there might possibly be irrigated from the Colorado
Kiver as much as two and a half million acres of land in Arizona. Of course,
an engineering investigation will be required to determine just what can be
done. In a letter to me sometime ago lie stated:
"I have an engineer now at work on plans and estimates of cost of the
Arizona cut-off and the Arizona Highline Canal, and you will be surprised when
I am able to send you a statement of the results of his calculations. They will
demonstrate beyond question that the cost of this work will be more than
covered by the additional power developed, leaving only the cost of the com-
paratively inexpensive distribution systems below the divide to be borne by the
lands reclaimed with water brought through the Arizona Highline Canal."
(The letters and telegrams submitted by Mr. Hayden are as follows:)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL STKVEY,
\Vnxliiniitoii. Mill/ /N, _/.'>.?.'.
Hon. CARL HAYDKX,
House of Representatives,
MY DEAR MR. HAYDEN : With reference to your interview on May 1(5 with
Mr. P. S. Smith and Mr. G rover relative to the suggested survey of a higli-
line canal from the proposed Boulder Canyon reservoir to lands in the Gila
River Valley :
It is believed that a survey of a single canal line, which would be very
expensive, might not lead to a conclusion in regard to the feasibility of watering
all or a considerable part of the lands suggested for irrigation, because of the
possibility of alternate routes some one or more of which might be cheaper and
better. I believe that it would be better to make topographic surveys of critical
areas; such, for example, as the upper end of the proposed canal line where
the topography will probably be found to be very difficult for canal location
and construction, the region where the crossing of the Williams River would
have to be made, and the divide between Bouse Valley and the Harqua Hala
Desert. Such surveys would yield informaion which might lead to a definite
decision as to the feasibility of the project and at the same time give informa-
tion which would be of value in connection with other projects.
Yours very cordially,
GEO. OTIS SMITH, Director.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL STRVEY,
\\'<ix}riti</toti. .linn- .'T, /.').?.>.
Hon. CARL HAYDEN,
Hotise of Representatives.
MY DEAR MR. HAYDEN : In reply to your telephonic inquiry relative to recon-
naissance of lands irrigable from Colorado River in western Arizona :
Arrangements have been made for an investigation to be made during this
field season by three engineers to be detailed from the office of the State water
commissioner, the Reclamation Service, and the Geologival Survey. Mr. F-. C.
La Rue will represent the Geological Survey, but I am not advised that the rep-
resentatives of the other two organizations have yet been designated. It is ex-
pected that these engineers will determine the location and approximate area
of lands which may be irrigated economically either by gravity diversion or
pumping from Colorado River.
Yours very cordially,
GEO. OTIS SMITH, Director.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIIST. 203
PHOENIX, ARIZ., June 28, J!>.>.!.
Hon CARL HAYDEN.
House of J'eitrcxcntatircx. WaxJiiiififtD). I). C.:
Arrangements practically made with Reclamation Service and Geological Sur-
vey for an engineer from each department with our engineer to head a party
to investigate and determine all possible irrigable lands in Arizona from Colo-
rado River. Arizona has about $18.000 for the purpose, which is insufficient
for complete detail work.
W. S. NORVIEL,
State Water
Mr. HAYDEN. If these representatives of the two bureaus of the Interior De-
partment and the State of Arizona make this proposed engineering investiga-
tion at an early date. I am sure that much valuable information will be ob-
tained which I hope will ultimately result in the reclamation of considerable
areas of land in 'Arizona which have heretofore been deemed worthless for
agriculture.
Furthermore, I would like to direct the attention of the committee to the
fact that there are three areas of land in the Colorado River Valley in Arizona
that have long been recognized as susceptible of irrigation. The first is Mo-
have Valley above Needles, comprising about 27,000 acres. The second includes
over 100,000 acres in the Colorado River Indian Reservation near Parker, and
the Third consists of about IN. (XXI acres in the < 'ibola Valley.
Much data has been published by the Government relative to irrigation in
the Imperial Valley. There are also accessible a number of Government pub-
lications containing detailed information regarding the Yiuna project, but little
or nothing has been printed with respect to the irrigation possibiltes of any
of the three projects I have just mentioned. I have here a report prepared by
C. A. Engel, an engineer of the Indian Service. His report was prepared at
an expense of over $100,000, about half of which came from the proceeds of
the sale of lots in the town of Parker. I ask to have this report printed as
an appendix to these hearings, omitting therefrom most of the maps, drawings,
and photographs.
Mr. SMITH. Is Mr. Engel an official of the Government?
Mr. HAYDEN. Yes: he is an engineer of the United States Indian Service.
He has made a full and detailed engineering report covering a gravity irriga-
tion project on the Colorado River Indian Reservation. I also have here an
irrigation report on the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation. I shall boil it down
so as to make it as brief as possible, and will omit all the photographs. I
likewise have some information relative to the Cibola Valley. I ask unanimous
consent to have all the data that I have mentioned printed as an appendix
to the present hearings.
Mr. SMITH. I am under the impression that we are limited as to the amount
of money we can spend for such a purpose, and we will put the request in this
way, that if the appropriation of the committee is sufficient we will have it
printed.
Mr. SWING. I think it would be especially interesting to know what lands
can be developed in both California and Arizona by the average flow, and how
much could be developed by waters stored in a reservoir. I think this would be
Interesting information.
Mr. SMITH. I think it would be very valuable as a supplement to the report
we have already had printed.
Mr. HAYDEN. There is no doubt about the authority of the committee to have
this data printed.
Mr. SMITH. If we have sufficient appropriation for the purpose, the clerk will
please send it to the Printing Office to lie printed in the manner indicated by
Mr. Hayden.
STATEMENT OF MB. ELMER W. HEALD, REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN LEGION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Mr. HKALD. I desire to state very briefly that the American Legion of the
State of California, and. also the National American Legion, are in favor of
the Swing bill. We desire to see this legislation passed, because it will make
possible the reclamation of about 4iV2.00M acres of Government lands which can
be made available for soldier settlement. This bill in that respect is directly
in line with the policy of the Federal Government, because in I'.tl!) the United
204 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIX.
Suites Government appropriated $110,000 for the purpose of making a survey
of all Government land to find possible locations for soldier-settlement schemes.
This money was turned over to the United States Reclamation Service, and
was used by them in making this survey. That survey showed that the largest
contiguous body of Federal land still unentered was in the lower Colorado
River Basin. This will make possible soldier settlement for a large number
of ex-service men.
This bill provides preferential settlement rights for ex-service men, in direct
line with the policy of the United States Government, as set forth in the
reclamation act and as recommended by Secretary Fall. I want to submit for
the record some resolutions indorsing the Swing bill. There is one other reason
why the American Legion is vitally interested in the Swing bill : You probably
know that the only successful soldier-settlement plan in operation today is
in the Imperial Valley. This plan was put into operation entirely by the
American Legion, and we have there now about 200 ex-service men. Judge
Swing showed me a clipping from a paper showing that a large number of ex-
service men, who are now receiving vocational training, are making application
for land under their scheme now in operation in the Imperial Valley. I will
tell you briefly what that scheme is under which the American Legion is help-
ing ex-service men to procure farms : The ex-service men who are receiving
vocational training under the Veterans' Welfare Bureau locate on a piece of
land, and they do not have to pay anything for three years. The owner of
the land is protected, because it is obligatory upon the trainees to plant crops
of a permanent character and the land is in this way greatly benefited and
improved. After three years he starts to paying on the purchase price.
Mr. SMITH. Does he pay interest during the first three years?
Mr. HEALD. No, sir.
Mr. BARBOUR. What is the rate of interest?
Mr. HEALD. The rate of interest is all the way from 5* to 7 per cent. At
the end of three years he starts to paying on the purchase price.
The legion works out a budget for the man in which a certain per cent of the
receipts obtained from crops grown on the land is paid to the land owner on
the purchase price ; practically all over and above the cost of operating the
farm is paid over to the land owner on he purchase price. He has 30 years in
which to purchase the land.
These men are interested in the Swing bill for two reasons: First, it is hard
for them to get credit at the present time, as has been explained here time
and time again by members of the southern California delegation, and testi-
fied to before the committee, that it is impossible to borrow money because of
the flood situation, and bankers are refusing to loan money any longer except
at a very exorbitant rate of interest. Consequently, these men are desirous of
seeing that condition changed so that they can secure loans on their farms.
At the hearings in 1919 before this committee the farm loan bank, through
Mr. Joyce, made a statement that they could not lend any money in the Im-
perial Valley because of the flood situation, the insecurity of the Imperial
Valley made it impossible for the farm loan banks to let out any money ; it was
too great a risk.
Mr. SWING. And because their water system was in Mexico.
Mr. HEALD. And because their water system was in Mexico. I have a letter
here which Mr. Joyce wrote to Mr. B. D. Irvine, in which he makes the state-
ment that if this legislation is passed it will solve the financial problem of the
Imperial Valley, so far as the Federal loan bank is concerned, and I want to
submit this to be included in the record also.
Mr. SWING. I ask also that this resolution be made a part of the testimony.
Mr. SMITH. If there is no objection, that will be done.
(The letter and resolution referred to are as follows:)
TREASURY DEPARTMENT.
Wailiinr/ton, May 16, 1M2.
Mr. B. D. IRVINE.
DEAR SIR: Pursuant to our conversation to-day. I desire to assure you I
am heartily in favor of S. 3fftl, the bill recently introduced by Senator Johnson,
of California.
If enacted into a law. the provision of this bill will, in my opinion, solve
the major problems of the Imperial Valley, which are to my mind the ques-
tions of adequate, dependable water supply and the flood menace.
It goes without saying, that when these two problems are solved, general
credit individually and collectively would be enhanced. In my opinion, the
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 205
enhancement of this credit will tend to lower interest rates, and to render
the financing of district improvements, such as drainage, etc., comparatively
easy, and under more favorable conditions than have prevailed in the past.
As you are aware, I am somewhat acquainted with the general conditions
of the Imperial Valley, and I should be glad indeed to render any assistance
of which I am capable in promoting its welfare and future development. You
are at liberty to call upon me any time I can be of assistance in advancing
the interests of Imperial Valley.
Yours very truly,
W. H. JOYCE,
Member Farm Loan Board.
The following resolution was adopted by the Imperial County Interpost
Council, American Legion, Department of California, in special session as-
sembled at El Centro, Calif., December 10, 1921, to be presented to Secretary
Fall at conference called by him in San Diego, December 12, 1921 :
We recommend :
(1) The immediate construction by the Government of the Boulder Canyon
Dam and the ail-American canal at Government expense and same to remain
under Government control.
(2) That the Government supervise the distribution of all power rights and
privileges.
(3) That ex-service men and women of the Nation be given a preferential
filing right to all arid or agricultural land under this project for a period of
at least 90 days.
(4) Owing to the fertility of the land within this project and the consequent
intrinsic value thereof when properly reclaimed from their desert state, that
disposition of such lands be made in areas of an average of 40 acres to one
applicant or entryman.
(5) That filings on these lands shall be nonassignable for a period of at
least 12 months from date of entry.
(6) that such applications to enter as now exist and which have not
been allowed, upon lands heretofore withdrawn, or which may hereafter be
withdrawn from entry by the Government Tinder this project be canceled.
(7) That the Secretary of the Interior be empowered to cooperate and con-
tract with such authorized State agencies as may be in position to assist in
the reclamation and irrigation of public arid lands and to dispose of portions
of such public lands to such State agencies, conditioned upon their assisting
ex-service men and women in the reclamation thereof in tracts not exceeding
an average of 40 acres to any one person.
BRAWLEY, CALIF., June 20, 1922.
ELMER W. HEAD,
Congress Hall, Washington, D. C.:
Executive committee approved proposition ; will wire indorsement, sending
resolutions to all posts; State organization of auxiliary also indorsed; details of
meeting in letter following.
C. E. NICE.
RESOLUTION NO. 12, OF THE AMERICAN T.ECION. DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA.
Whereas the American Legion, Department of California, has heretofore
in its conventions assembled indorsed and recommended the construction
of storage and diversion works in the lower Colorado River for the purpose of
reclaiming lands to be available for settlement by veterans; and
Whereas it appears that financial assistance from the Federal Government for
this purpose can not be obtained within a reasonable period of time; and
Whereas it appears that approximately three hundred thousand acres of
valuable Government land in Imperial, Coachella and adjoining valleys can be
reclaimed by the construction of what is known as Boulder Creek Dam, the
raising La gun a Dam approximately 15 feet, and proper system of diversion ;
and
1316 22 PT 4 2
206 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
Whereas it appears that such works when constructed will provide facilities
for the development of electric power .sufficient to pay the whole cost thereof:
Now. therefore, be it
by the American Legion, Department of California, in convention
That we go on record as favoring the construction of Boulder Creek
Dam in the Colorado River, the raising of Laguna Dam and the construction
of proper means of diversion under such contacts and agreements with private
corporate interests as will make available the waters for reclamation of said
lands without cost to the lands, except possibly for diversion, and conditioned
upon said Government lands being made available for veteran settlement : and
we further recommend the granting of fifty thousand acres of said lands without
cost to the veterans' welfare board of this State, for land settlement under the
provisions of the State law, in the event said board shall make application for
the same.
We direct that copies of this resolution be properly authenticated and for-
warded to the proper authorities from which permission or concession must be
obtained to carry out the objects proposed.
Mr. HEALD. The second reason why ex-service men are interested in this
hill is because it provides for flood control and protection and sets forth a
unified, comprehensive plan for the development of the Colorado River by the
United States Government. The Swing bill, if enacted into law. will provide
water for 452,000 acres of very rich land available for ex-service men, which
land now, without W 7 ater, is worthless. I would also like to have it appear in
the record that the citizens of Imperial Valley have been represented here as a
unit by three delegates. I make that statement because it was stated by
Senator Phipps that the citizens of Imperial Valley as a unit have not been
represented before this committee. I represent not only the American Legion,
but also the people of Imperial Valley.
Mr. B ARBOUR. You reside in the valley?
Mr. HEALD. I reside in the valley and have resided there since my discharge
from the United States Army.
Mr. BABBOUK. At what place?
Mr. HEALD. Calipatria.
Mr. SWING. It has been stated recently that 100,000 ex-service men have ap-
plied to the Government, to Secretary Fall, for opportunities to secure farm
homes. Is that true?
Mr. HEALD. Yes; that is true, and I would like to have this Included in the
record, also a statement in an Associated Press report, quoting Secertary Fall
on the number of applications to the Interior Department for homes by ex-service
men.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
"FLOODS OF OTHEB INQUIRIES SECRETARY GIVES FIGURES DISCLOSING NATION-
WIDE HUNGER OF EX-SERVICE MEN TO GET BACK ON FARMS.
[By the Associated Press.]
"Evidence of the desire of former service men to go back to the farm is con-
stantly reaching the Interior Department, Secretary Fall announced yesterday,
adding that more than 100,000 such applications have been received for employ-
ment in development of land.
"In addition, inquiries concerning available land are coming in by the hun-
dreds of thousands, the Secretary continued.
" ' The correspondence is largely Irom farm-trained men who are not appealing
for a gratuity,' he said, ' but are seeking an opportunity to acquire a home in
the land by utilizing their labor and experience.'
" ARE EXPERIENCED MEN.
" ' It is significant that the bulk of these inquiries generally come from States
wherein prices of agricultural land have reached such heights that opportuni-
ties for men with small capital to acquire a home are extremely limited.
" 'Among these States Illinois ranks first with 18.600 inquiries and applica-
tions for land. Farm land prices in this State average among the highest in the
Union.'
DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN. 207
" COME FKOM EAST AND WEST.
" ' Conditions are much the same in Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas,
and Nebraska, where land hunger on the part of the war veterans is shown by
45,620 inquiries received. Of these, 26,900 made application for work in order to
secure a home.
" ' The arid and semiarid States show up with a total of 61,340 former service
men interested in home making on the land. The Southern States are repre-
sented by 27,780 and the Eastern States, including Pennsylvania, by 25,900. In
the Northern States of Michigan. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas there
are 14,460 veterans who have indicated a desire to obtain a farm home.'
"OFFERED ONLY 490 FARMS.
" The Reclamation Service, Secretary Fall said, during the past two years has
been able to offer former soldiers only 490 farms, although 50,000 inquiries were
received and 7,480 former service men formally applied for farms.
" In none of these cases, he added, could the Government offer financial assist-
ance, and the successful applicants were required to put up from $3.50 to $5 an
acre and an annual charge of upward of $1 an acre."
Mr. Swrxo. Mr. Raege of the national legislative bureau of the American
Legion started from his office to be here to testify in behalf of this bill, but
something has happened and he has not arrived.
Mr. HEALD. I would like to have permission to get a written statement from
Mr. Raege and file it with my statement.
Mr. SMITH. If there is no objection you may do so.
( The statement referred to is as follows : )
Mr. ELMER W. HEALD,
American Legion, Department of California, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. HEALD: In compliance with your request I am submitting the fol-
lowing statement on behalf of the national headquarters of the American Legion.
I am John Thomas Taylor, vice chairman of the national legislative committee
of the American Legion, with offices at 530-536 Woodward Building, Washing-
ton, D. C. The national organization urges favorable consideration of H. R.
11449, a bill to authorize the erection of a dam across the Colorado River for
the purpose of irrigating what is called the Imperial Valley in the southern
part of California and lands in Arizona.
At the last department convention of the American Legion the following reso-
lution was unanimously adopted :
" Whereas the American Legion, department of California, has heretofore
in its conventions assembled indorsed and recommended the construction of
storage and diversion works in the lower Colorado River for the purpose of re-
claiming lands to be available for settlement by veterans; and
" Whereas, it appears that financial assistance from the Federal Government
for this purpose can not be obtained within a reasonable period of time; and
"Whereas, it appears that approximately three hundred thousand acres of
valuable Government land in Imperial, Coachella, and adjoining valleys can be
reclaimed by the construction of what is known as Boulder Creek Dam, the rais-
ing of Laguna Dam approximately fifteen feet, and proper system of diversion :
and
" Whereas, it appears that, such works when constructed will provide facili-
ties for the development of electric power sufficient to pay the whole cost
thereof: Now, therefore, be it
" Resolved by the American Legion, Department of California,, in convention
assembled. That we go on record as favoring the construction of Boulder Creek
Dam in the Colorado River, the raising of Laguna Dam, and the construction of
proper means of diversion under such contracts and agreements with private
corporate interests as will make available the waters for reclamation of said
lands without cost to the lands, except possibly for diversion, and conditioned
upon said Government lands being made available for veteran settlement: and
we further recommend the granting of fifty thousand acres of said lands
without cost to the Veteran's Welfare Board of this State, for land settlement
under the provisions of the State law, in the event said board shall make ap-
plication for the same.
208 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
" We direct that copies of this resolution he properly authenticated and for-
warded to the proper authorities from which permission or concession must be
obtained to carry out the objects proposed."
At the tirst national convention of the American Legion, held at Minne-
apolis, Minn., on November 11, 1919, it was resolved that the American Legion
urge that
" 1. Reclamation of unproductive lands by direct Government operation for
settlement by service men and women ;
" 2. That the administration of the same be decentralized :
" 3. That no heavy financial restrictions be imposed ; and further,
" 4. That the right of eminent domain be incorporated to prevent speculation."
The American Legion, therefore, urges that the Committee on Irrigation of
Arid Lands, having received favorable reports upon this project from both
the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, report this bill
favorably to the House with the end in view that eventually ex-service men
and women may have an opportunity to settle upon this vast acreage in
southern California which has been so aptly described as the " Garden spot
of the West."
(Thereupon, at 11.45 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned to meet again
at the call of the chairman.)
INDEX.
PARTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4.
Bacon, Mr. John L.. mayor of San Diego, Calif. :
League of California Municipalities 73
Changes in Colorado River bed 75
Cost of maintaining levees 77
American and Mexican interests 79
Sundry resolutions 81
Crisswell, Mr. Ralph, president city council, Los Angeles, Calif. :
Hydroelectric power 100
City will take all power left after other cities have been supplied 101
Power should be allocated by the Government 103
Carr, Mr. W. J., Representative of Pasadena, Calif. :
Price of power 114
Government control of power 116
Durand, Prof. \V. P.. Stanford University, California :
Financial reimbursement 63
Power shortage 64
Demand for power ; 67
Conserving the oil supply 68
Government the only agent to develop power 69
Oil supply of the United States 70
Davis, Hon. Arthur P., Director of the Reclamation Service :
Report on problems of the Imperial Valley 20
Drainage basin of the Colorado River 21
Boulder Canyon and other reservoirs 23
Cost of Boulder Canyon Dam 29
Power receipts will pay for the dam 30
Reservoir will control the hazard of the river 32
Additional irrigation area 34
Decision of United States Supreme Court, Wyoming v. Colorado 36
Evans, Mr. S. C.. mayor of Riverside, Calif. :
Flood conditions Palo Verd Valley 110
Reimbursing the Government 112
Cooperation and use of power 114
Hoover, Hon. Herbert C., Secretary of Commerce:
The Colorado River Commission 52
Development of power 55
Agriculture given priority 56
Immediate need of power 59
The Government will recover the money invested 61
Heald, Mr. Elmer, representative California American Legion :
Attitude of the American Legion 203
H. R. 11449 carries preference right for veterans 204
World War veterans seeking land 206
Resolutions American Legion, Department of California 207
Hoodenpyl, Mr. George, city attorney, Long Beach, Calif. :
Boulder Canyon Dam necessary to protect Imperial Valley 105
Federal Government should not make profit from power 107
Allocation of water rights and power 109
Nicholson, Hon. Samuel D. : United States Senator from Colorado :
Protecting Colorado's rights 195
Denver's water supply 196
209
210 DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER COLOEADO RIVER BASIX.
Nickerson, Mr. J. S., president Imperial Valley Irrigation Board : Page.
Valley statistics 123
Irrigation costs in valley and Mexico 123
Water shortage 126
Want of flood protection destroys credit 127
Money spent in Mexico 132
Comparison of costs 139
Sundry agreements 140
Emergency conditions 154
Phipps, Hon. Lawrence C., United States Senator for Colorado :
Colorado River Commission 191
Hydroelectric power 192
Competition 193
Denver's interest 193
Other dams and reservoirs 194
Swing, Hon. Phil D., Member of Congress, eleventh California district :
H. R. 11449 1
Report of Secretary of the Interior 4
Difficulty of operating across international boundary 7
Menace to Imperial Valley 10
Boulder Canyon Dam and Reservoir 15
Investigation of the project by the Government 19
Discussion of general conditions 20
Silver, Mr. Gray, Washington representative American Farm Bureau
Federation :
Electricity on the farm 121
Applied to moving trains 122
Vaile. Hon. William N.. Member of Congress first Colorado district :
Compact between States 197
Appropriation of water to beneficial use 197
Watson, Mr. Edgar, legislative representative American Federation of
Labor, " The Colorado."
Walker, Dr. W. H., president California Farm Bureau Federation:
Protection from overflow 117
Competition in production 119
Yager, Mr. Thomas C., attorney for Coachella Valley Water I'srrs Asso-
ciation :
Protection from floods 199
Development of additional areas 200
Southern California a unit for H. R. 11499 201
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
Return this material to the library
from which it was borrowed.
RFC'D
A 000099011 9