Page images
PDF
EPUB

The CHAIRMAN. At the request of Mr. Pridham, president of the chamber of commerce, we will hear from him on some phases of the question.

STATEMENT OF R. W. PRIDHAM, PRESIDENT OF THE LOS ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

[Delivered by Mr. Chase]

Mr. CHASE. I am representing the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and the chamber of commerce has had reduced to writing in a page and a half its position on this subject and situation; and with your permission I will read this statement that I desire to make, submitted by Mr. R. W. Pridham, the president of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, in connection with the investigation now being made by the United States Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation now in session in this city, make the following recommendations:

1. We favor the construction of a high dam at or near Boulder Canyon in the Colorado River for the following reasons: Such a dam will prevent flood destruction and give flood protection to the lands in the Parker Indian Reservation and the Yuma project in Arizona, and the Imperial and Palo Verde Valleys in California; will create a great reservoir of water to serve Los Angeles and other communities of the Southwest whose rapid growth will soon vitally need this as a dependable source of supply; will make available a large volume of hydroelectric energy, an important necessity for agricultural, industrial, and community development in the Southwest; will permit the States of the lower basin with safety to approve the proposed compact between the seven States interested in the waters of the river; and for the further reason that it is a great economic waste to allow the flood waters of the river to spend themselves in the Gulf of California, when by impounding them they can be made productive of great wealth and added prosperity to our Nation.

2. We also favor due and proper protection to the rights of all the other States having an interest in the waters of the Colorado River Basin, and believe that all their rights should be justly and equitably considered and protected.

3. We recommend that the Congress of the United States at its coming session should enact legislation providing for the construction of such a dam.

4. That the waters conserved by the erection of said high dam be used exclusively for the irrigation and reclamation of lands within the United States and that proper provision be made in order that the United States soldiers and sailors may obtain the benefit of such reclaimed lands.

5. That the United States lend its assistance so far as practicable and when found feasible to the building of the necessary canals and distributing works in order that the water so conserved may be distributed to the lands within the United States, which will now or may hereafter be irrigated by such waters, and that such canals and

distributing works be located exclusively within the territory of the United States, if the same is found possible or practicable.

6. That the right to generate and distribute the hydroelectric energy which may be developed by the said dam be sold to municipalities and other agencies which may have the facilities for the development and distribution of the same at such a price as will repay the United States Government within a reasonable time the entire cost of the said dam in excess of such sums as the United States Government may deem fit to contribute toward such flood control, which we estimate should be about $30,000,000.

There are many reasons why the legislation is of vital importance at this time, the most important of which is the protection and preservation of the Imperial Valley, which is in imminent danger each year of being entirely inundated and destroyed, and if this should occur the same would be a national calamity.

We can not too strongly indorse action upon this most important subject by the Congress of the United States at its coming session. In connection with that report I would add that we desire to stress the importance of the high dam in the river at this point. The time is coming undoubtedly when the compact between the States will be entirely ratified. When that happens the States of the upper basin receive 75,000,000 acre-feet of water over a period of 10 years. That is guaranteed by the upper States. That guaranty might be fulfilled in years of plenty, in the course of five years; afterwards during the remainder of the 10 years there will be no obligation, no guaranty on the part of the upper States, at least, to furnish to us water at the point that they contract to furnish it. Therefore we are driven to the necessity, if this contract is to be ratified, of having a high dam which will impound sufficient water to carry us over years of drought; because with no obligation upon the upper States during the period of drought to furnish water to us at the point where it is contracted to be furnished, and with the use of water that will be developed in the upper States, it will follow that their water will come down to us in quantities contracted to be furnished, at least, and we must take care of ourselves by having a dam of sufficient height to provide for us during the two or three years of possible drought. I desire to add that the chamber has always had in mind the requirements, the necessities of a high dam at this point.

Senator ASHURST. What point do you mean, Mr. Chase?

Mr. CHASE. Boulder Canyon.

Senator ASHURST. If an equally good, serviceable dam could be placed at another point and save a sister State, would you also favor that point?

Mr. CHASE. Well, I suppose if it would be equally serviceable. Senator ASHURST. If a high dam could be placed at another point on the river and save a sister State, would you favor that, or are you wedded to the Boulder Canyon?

Mr. CHASE. I would say this for myself, without speaking for the chamber, if a high dam could be placed at another point, which would be equally advantageous to this community and to Los Angeles, it would be satisfactory. I am speaking for myself.

72578-25-PT 1– -8

Senator ASHURST. You wouldn't have any objection to saving Arizona's life?

Mr. CHASE. Why, no; absolutely.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, the Senator doesn't think that Arizona is in peril of perishing? I say, the Senator does not think that Arizona is now in any great mortal danger?

Senator ASHURST. Well, the constant reiteration of a dam at Boulder Canyon, a Boulder Canyon dam alone, does not give us very much hope.

Mr. CHASE. I might say, I desire to make this statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, Mr. Chase, you have but one minute. Mr. CHASE. May I make this statement in a word: Having in mind the necessity for a high dam, the chamber of commerce--and hav ing in mind also the fact that a beginning is required somewhere. last year the chamber of commerce requested our representative. Captain Fredericks, to introduce in Washington, or to introduce in Congress, a bill providing for the erection of a dam at Boulder Canyon. This bill contemplated the erection of a dam 600 feet high, contemplated to be the beginning of the work. I want to rather emphasize the fact that this bill was introduced at our request by Captain Fredericks; in fact, the bill was written in Los Angeles by the chamber of commerce, and that we then had in mind and now have in mind that that was simply the beginning of the end, the ultimate end being that we should have a high dam in the southwest.

Senator JOHNSON. And your bill provided for a low dam?

Mr. CHASE. The bill provided, Senator Johnson, for a dam that would be 600 feet in height.

Senator JOHNSON. Well, it provided originally for a low dam, the bill that was presented by Captain Fredericks?

Mr. CHASE. Provided for a dam that would carry a superstructure for a dam 600 feet in height.

Senator JOHNSON. Oh, provided that you might ultimately have a superstructure after building a low dam?

Mr. CHASE. Yes; but having in mind all the time that we wanted a high dam.

Senator JOHNSON. I am very glad to hear it, because I did not know that you had it in mind always for a high dam.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness to appear before the committee is Mr. William Mulholland, who will discuss the possibilities and plans for the Colorado River aqueduct.

The Hon. CHARLES L. MCNARY,

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., October 27, 1925.

Chairman Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation.

DEAR SIR: Pursuant to your request at this morning's session of the committee that I furnish records of the run-off in the Mono watershed, I herewith sumit the discharge sheets of Rush and Levining Creeks, the two main streams in the Mono Basin, for the years 1924 and 1925.

From the report of Louis C. Hill, J. B. Lippincott, and A. L. Sondertgger, consulting board of engineers, submitted August 14, 1924, on the water supply for the city of Los Angeles, I quote as follows:

"The flow of the streams in Mono Basin from Levining and all creeks south thereof would deliver a safe supply of about 180 second-feet, equivalent to 130,000 acre-feet each year. The result is practically the same for the 50-year period ending September 30, 1921, as for the 9-year dry period ending September 30, 1924. In order to guarantee this continuous flow of 180 second

feet it will be necessary to provide a hold-over storage reservoir or reservoirs having a capacity of about 150,000 acre-feet in addition to regulating storage at the headwaters of these streams and in Silver Lake."

Inasmuch as there has been another extremely dry year following the report made by this board of consulting engineers, it is my opinion and the attached discharge measurements will clearly indicate that the safe reliable yield of this shed would be considerably less than the 180 second-feet mentioned in said report.

The average discharge for these two streams for the past two years, as is shown by the figures submitted, has been only about 65 second-feet. They are herewith submitted for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted.

WM. MULHOLLAND. Chief Engineer.

Bureau of waterworks and supply, city of Los Angeles-Discharge measurements at regular stations ON RUSH CREEK, AT SILVER LAKE DAM SITE

[blocks in formation]

NOTE.-Width is the actual width of water surface, not including piers. Area of section is the total area of the measured section, including both moving and still water. Mean44.98. ON RUSH CREEK, AT SILVER LAKE DAMSITE, NEAR MONO LAKE

[blocks in formation]

9.02 This plant is shut down for repair work of some kind, as th were mixing cement in spillway of plant when I passed.ey

[blocks in formation]

16651

17.0

10.55

0.85

« PreviousContinue »