« PreviousContinue »
Mr. MADDOCK. I would be very glad to do so as a part of my statement.
The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection. It is a part of the inquiry.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Colter suggests that he leave this map.
The CHAIRMAN. The secretary of the committee will look after that. The next witness is Mr. George H. Maxwell. Mr. Maxwell, you have 20 minutes allotted to you. It is now 4.20 p. m.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. MAXWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
UNITED STATES RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION, PHOENIX
Mr. MAXWELL. Mr. Chairman, in view of the very unusual consideration that I have been given by this committee in the past, in allowing me to take up the time of the committee, I am going to try to avoid a repetition of anything that has gone before in my statements and confine myself to a few points to which I think, as far as my memory goes, I have not referred to in the past hearings.
There are a few things which I think should be incorporated into this record which I will pass through and ask the permission of the committee to file.
First, I offer this compact, about which we have heard so much. It ought to be in the record. A copy of it is on page 31 of the magazine that I hold in my hand, and I will ask that it be inserted in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Maxwell, it is already in the record. We want no duplication.
Mr. MAXWELL. If it is already in, then I will withdraw my offer. The Sturdevant-Stam report is quite an important document, and I think it is not in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. How long is the report? We don't want to print any unnecessary matter.
Mr. MAXWELL. Two pages. It is printed in this report.
Mr. MAXWELL. It is the report of the engineering party that was sent into the field by the eminent governor of Arizona. It was the forerunner of the plan. It is now known as the La Rue plan.
The CHAIRMAN. Has it been printed in any State document, or Government document?
Mr. MAXWELL. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Subject to the elimination of those matters which are immaterial, it may be published in the record.
Mr. MAXWELL. Now, as my time is so limited, I would like to have permission to have my brief that I used two years ago before the Water Power Commission, which covers the whole question of the compact, accepted as a part of this record. I haven't time to-day to go into it.
The CHAIRMAN, Hasn't that been printed in the House hearings? Mr. MAXWELL. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are not going to duplicate the House hearings.
Mr. MaxwELL. Then, if that is sufficient, I will not repeat it.
The CHAIRMAX. We take judicial knowledge of the fact that House hearings have been held and the proceedings have been printed.
Mr. MAXWELL. The whole question of power in relation to Arizona is very thoroughly gone into in a speech by Senator Charles H. Rutherford, delivered in the Arizona State Senate in February, 1923. Would it be overloading the record to have that inserted!
The CHAIRMAN. Has it been heretofore published?
Mr. MAXWELL. Now, there are a very few things which I believe would be interesting. First, if I might proffer it, I have a very brief statement of the structures which form a part of the great Sukker Barrage Dam, which is not under construction in India, with 6,000,000 acres of land in one system. I have that on one page of typewritten matter. This is something we have obtained from the State Department.
The CHAIRMAX. I think that might be well filed with the secretary. It is only by comparison. That is the only relevancy it has.
Mr. MAXWELL. That is why I ask to put in a summary of it. I also have a summary of the Cheng-to project in China.
The CHAIRMAN. That will be treated in the same manner.
Mr. MAXWELL. I will ask also to file a letter which was written by me to the members of the California Legislature on March 14, 1925, calling attention to the objections to the compact from the standpoint of California.
The CHAIRMAN. That may go in the record.
Mr. MAXWELL. When one of the witnesses was making his statement, Senator Phipps asked him about the location of those things. I sorted out this map, and I presume if I pass it to the Senator that will be sufficient.
Before the water power commission, I offered a sheet from the Los Angeles Times of two dates, showing a map of this Mexican territory, and the present extension of the railroad that is under construction, and the location of the proposed World Seaport City, at the head of the Gulf of California. They accepted it. Would it be agreeable to this committee to have that as a part of your record?
The CHAIRMAN. That may go to the secretary, I think, to look it over.
Mr. MAXWELL. I want to read about six lines from the La Rue report, and then I want to call attention to the fact that practically every question that has been asked here in reference to contents of reservoirs and things of that kind are in this report.
On page 71 of Water Supply Paper 556, Water Power and Flood Control of California River, below Green River, Utah, by E. C. La Rue, he says:
In the opinion of the writer, dams of great height should not be built unless alternative plans for development of this stretch of river by lower dams are found infeasible or unless one such dam is decided upon as a point of diversion for a gravity water supply for irrigation in Arizona or for domestic use in the cities of southern California.
I believe it was Senator Dill-or was it Senator Phipps—who inquired as to the capacity of that Bridge Canyon Reservoir. It is given by every 50 feet in this map, facing page 72 of the report, and at the 1,800-foot level, which is the height which Mr. La Rue proposes the dam to be built now, the capacity of the reservoir would be 2,639,200; at 2,000 the capacity would be 6,280,200 feet.
Senator DILL. Does that report give any estimate as to the time it would take to fill a flood-control dam with silt ?
Mr. MAXWELL. That is just the point I wanted to take up right there, Senator.
Senator Dill. Yes.
Mr. MAXWELL. I wanted to answer the question that you were asking about that because it is the very crux of this whole question. I don't want to take up any time of this committee in a statement of the length of time I have been a student of this subject--some of the Senators know it-and it is about 25 years.
It is a very remarkable thing that this question involves engineering questions, legal questions, climatic questions, physical questions; unless you have them all in mind you are very apt to make a serious mistake in proposing a plan for a remedy.
In my judgment, the most serious question now to immediate construction of the flood-control dam is the legal question. If we have got to wait and thresh out all the differences between the upstream States and the lower-stream States and Arizona and Nevada and California, in my judgment it is going to be a long time before you get a flood-control dam started.
Now, we have a complete illustration of just what a flood-control dam is when it is used for nothing else, and those are the present structures which have been completed and which have withstood two floods on the Miami River at Dayton. All in the world they are designed to do is to hold the danger flood back just long enough to get it through the channel below without doing harm to anybody.
Now, gentlemen, it is the last two or three feet of a flood that does the harm, and if you have a reservoir that will hold back the peak of the flood you have saved the day so far as flood damage from that flood is concerned.
Now the Imperial Valley is urging the Boulder Canyon Dam for flood control, tying it to power and reclamation. That complicates us with Arizona and California and with Arizona and Nevada and with the up-stream States. I am free to say that so far as I am concerned-and I don't speak for anybody but myself either—I don't believe we are going to get a power dam or a reclamation dam built in the lower basin of the river until the seven States get together and settle some of their differences, which are between the upper and the lower basins only.
Now, I am apt to miss this point if I don't make it right now. I am going to make it now, and then go back to the question of a flood-control dam.
Gentlemen, I can't state it with too much earnestness. I have seen the public sentiment and the official sentiment in regard to this Colorado River matter in the last three years shift from an attitude of mind that accepted the fact that Mexico was going to irrigate 820,000 acres of land to an attitude of mind that rejects the right of Mexico to any water. Now, there you are! That, we all agree on. But, gentlemen, I want to add to that another reason why you can't settle this thing any too quickly. If the compact is adopted, Mexico gets 10,000,000 acre-feet of water a year to irrigate 2,000,000 acres of land, and Arizona gets 300,000 acres irrigated. Now, I am not going to undertake to go into the details of that proposition to-day. It is impossible. I have only got 10 minutes more, and I haven't wasted any of my time in making these statements of these proposi- : tions if I can impress you gentlemen with the fact that there is something to talk about in connection with these points.
Now, I expect to be in Washington all the session, and I am like the poor, you have me always with you. I will be delighted to come before you at any future time on that subject.
Added to the proposition that if the dam goes through-the compact goes through without any reference to what dam it is Mexico gets the water. If the Boulder Canyon Dam is built, Mexico gets the water., and there isn't any human power on earth or in the universe that can change that result.
Now, if I have got to prove that I want half an hour, and I can not do it to-day. I have been proving it to the people of Arizona from every platform in this State, pretty nearly, for three years now, and nobody who ever heard the facts will deny the proposition that if the Boulder Canyon Dam is built Mexico gets the water. And the very simple reason is we can not repeal the law of gravity, and that is all there is to it.
Now, gentlemen, I am coming back to the flood-control proposition. We have a tremendous amount of public opinion built up around the Boulder Canyon Dam. There isn't one single thing, except that the water won't go to Mexico, that can not be done with the Bridge Canyon Dam for the benefit of the Imperial Valley, and for the benefit of the Yuma project, for the benefit of the Palo Verde Valley, for the benefit of the Chemehuevis country-for the benefit of all of southern California and the coast country-be done just as well and better if you simply drop Boulder Canyon and adopt bridge. And you don't even need to change the name. If, in order to save the faces of the people who have been hollering for the Boulder Canyon Dam, it is necessary we will accept the name, call the Bridge Canyon Dam the Boulder Canyon Dam.
Now, Senators, I believe I have six minutes more.
Mr. MAXWELL. Well, I never like to be cut off short. I want to do my own tapering.
The point is here, the Boulder Canyon Dam has been abandoned and they have gone down to the Black Canyon Dam, and to save their faces they still call it the Boulder Canyon Dam. Now, I say, let's forget the Boulder Canyon Dam and forget the Black Canyon Dam and take the Bridge Canyon Dam and call it anything you please.
Now, if you take the Bridge Canyon Dam, all in the world you have got to do is to say “What we are going to do at Bridge Canyon is to build a flood-control dam that will create absolutely no right in the river whatever for reclamation or power; none whatever. Nobody will get a right under it for reclamation or power.”
The upstream States can hardly take the position that we are debarred from protecting a section like the Imperial Valley from destruction unless we accept certain conditions which we want time to talk about. There never was a proposition as big as this in the history of the world, gentlemen, that didn't require time for negotiation. Now, you don't need that time for a flood-control dam.
One of the Senators asked how long it would take to fill it up.
Senator Dill. I had in mind-you spoke of Mojave the other day. You spoke of the small dam. That is what I had in mind.
Mr. MAXWELL. Well, at 10,000,000 acre-feet, which was the third height Mr. La Rue gave, it would take 10 years. At Bridge Canyon, if it were built up to the height that Mr. La Rue says ought to be built immediately, without reference to the future high dam, it would take 20 years. In other words, all you have got to do, if you want to know how long it will take the Colorado River to fill a dam or reservoir, is to divide the capacity by 100,000, because the Colorado River deposits in its channel and below 100,000 acre-feet a year. Therefore, if you start with Bridge Canyon as a flood-control damnothing else--and let it stay there until we have settled our case with the upper States, and settled our case with California and Nevada, it would fill up at the rate of a hundred thousand acre-feet a year, and there isn't anything in the world that could happen to the Bridge Canyon Dam site and to fill up level with the dam at 2,000 feet.
Senator Dill. How long would it take to fill up the Bridge Canyon Dam?
Mr. MAXWELL. Less time than it would to fill up the Boulder Canyon or the Black Canyon.
The Bridge Canyon Dam, except for temporary use, is not a storage dam. It can be used temporarily to store water for power. But while you are filling the Bridge Canyon storage capacity with silt, you ought to be gradually building the Glen Canyon Dam, so that as the country develops, and you need more storage capacity, you have got it above just as we have got it in the Roosevelt Reservoir.
The Bridge Canyon Dam, if it were to be built--and let me impress this upon you gentlemen, please I want to leave this thought in your minds: We stand upon the La Rue report in regard to the Bridge Canyon Dam. He does not advocate that the Bridge Canyon Dam should be built to-day up to this level that would take water to Los Angeles by gravity or take it out into this country by gravity. All that he recommends is that the site be reserved to a point high enough to eventually put that extra height on and use it for both of those purposes. In the meantime a dam 556 feet high, which is lower than the proposed Black Canyon Dam, will serve temporarily all the purposes of the Black Canyon Dam, and if you will write “Bridge Canyon," instead of “ Boulder Canyon," into the SwingJohnson bill we would all be for it.
Senator ODDIE. Mr. Maxwell, will you tell us what the Le Rue report states about the proposed Boulder Canyon Dam?
Mr. MAXWELL. The La Rue report entirely eliminates the Boulder Canyon Dam.