rado River came up. As you all know, in the Southwest here water is our greatest asset. Next to water is, probably, power. Now, we guard very jealously our water rights. Careful investigations were made as to the possibilities of irrigation in our various States. A report was made in this same Fall-Davis report as to what could or could not be done with the amount of water required. An allocation was suggested. Later the Colorado commission went into this in detail and framed up a pact with the idea of giving to the lower States the flood waters of the river, which were immense and which nobody now uses. It seemed an eminently fair and just division. I think no one on the Colorado River is anxious to take anything away from anyone else. We are anxious to see a fair distribution. The West should be a unit. We are anxious to see this thing go through and everybody get a square deal. I think we guard a little too jealously, sometimes, our rights; but we are anxious to see a fair division up and down the Colorado River. California has been pretty strenuous about this reservation that was put in. There was no desire to amend the pact in any way whatever. The only desire was to protect California's rights, and so that if the Boulder Creek Dam proposition was authorized California's ratification would automatically go into effect. Without that Boulder Dam there is no object in ratifying the pact, as we would gain nothing by it, and I believe we would get nowhere. With this project assured-not necessarily commenced but authorized-so we would have the assurance that it was to go ahead, then that would mean that the upper basin States would take all the water that flowed normally in the Colorado River, leaving this dam down here to catch the flood waters which no one now

uses.

That was the solution proposed by the United States Government engineers in approving the building of the Boulder Dam project. There have been a half a dozen other solution offered; solutions will be offered, probably, until the end of time. Every man has his own idea. The thought was that the report of the Government engineers would be accepted and some sort of construction work would be authorized. That is the reason why the people down here have been so enthusiastic about the Boulder Dam project. We felt that there was a logical, a reasonable, and thoroughly practical method of controlling the Colorado River in its lower stretches.

The Colorado has gone on rampages before. At one time, I think about 20 years ago-15 or 20 years ago-it broke through here, and it took years to stop up that gap. Since then the bed of the Colorado has raised 8 or 10 feet, and the menace is just about that many times greater. It broke through here and flooded this entire area: cut out a great river basin, in some places a quarter of a mile wide, and up here at the Salton Sea and at Calexico and way back over the border. If another break occurs, it will only be this short distance from here to here, through soil that is so soft that it is sometimes referred to as sugar soil. Thrown into a body of water, it disappears into a cloudy mass in no time at all.

To-day every city in southern California is dependent upon stored water for its supply, or a large portion or some portion of its supply. In San Diego we, probably, face a more serious problem than any other city. In San Diego to-day we must keep stored

72578-25-PT 1—2

ahead at least five year's supply of water for domestic purposes. There has been a time in the history of San Diego where for seven years there was no run-off whatever. Five years is a meager supply. Seven years is a good supply. We have, to-day, about four years" supply of water ahead, and we are praying for rain this winter, because if we do not get it I do not know where we will be.

The cities of southern California are doubling in population every 10 years. Our actual growth is limited to about 10 or 15 years. I think that general statement will hold good for practically every southern California city. Without an additional development of water somewhere for domestic purposes we are absolutely limited in our growth. We must say to the settler in the next few years, "You can't come to California, because we have no water." We are looking now to the Colorado River for our actual domestic water. It is a serious situation and growing more serious every day. That is one of the complications that has come in recently.

Now, under this Boulder Dam proposition, three things were had in mind: First of all, there was the flood control; secondly, there was water for irrigation, and to that now can be added just as much and important a demand for domestic water; and third, there was this power possibility, a power possibility so practical and so great that the sale of the power right-there never was any proposition for the Government to put in a power house of its own, but simply to lease the power; but the power proposition was so great that it was felt that that would pay for the entire project. I will not go into the financial end of that. But at least three different schemes have been put forward, and everyone of them is so practical that eminent bankers have passed on them and considered them perfectly sound investments.

We are faced with this situation, that Imperial Valley has a life ahead of probably about 15 years, unless this project or one similar to it is put forth. There will be contention as to the proper manner from now to the end of time, probably. The most certain way to delay a project is to consider other propositions or other projects or something of that kind. Action must come, because delay of action may mean that it will be too late. It is perfectly within the realm of possibility that the melting snow of the next summer may bring down a rush of water into the Colorado that will break through those dikes and make a gap that never can be filled up, and before it stops I think there is no question but what it will scour its way back through into Yuma, wipe out the Southern Pacific Road up in there, put the Imperial Valley completely off the map, and just simply take away this entire asset from the United States as it exists to-day.

Somebody has said this is a vast project; it will require too much money to finance it. This is a statement made over two years ago by Mr. Ballard, vice president of the Southern California Edison Co. Mr. Ballard was so careful in his statement that he wrote his statement rather than to give it orally. This is a report on page 294 of this same Senate Document 142:

Our investigations indicate in agreement with those of Director Davis, that there is water enough in the river, if it is properly conserved, to supply all possible demands by irrigation and domestic use, and still leave an abundance for power, and that there is power enough to meet the needs of all the States tributary to the river.

And as to the amount of money which can be invested in this safely, Mr. Ballard made this statement. I won't read but just

one sentence:

Immediately upon securing the necessary Federal and State authority we are prepared to undertake and finance construction work at the rate of from $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 per year.

That certainly shows the practical phase of this particular project.

Now, we are asking that some action be taken. It is not a theory that we want to see carried out. It is not some theory asking for a permit for future development, but it is something to wipe out this menace which hangs over the head of this section of California, a menace that in Imperial Valley means life or death; a menace that hangs over us down here in connection with our domestic water supply. We must have more water. You will be given facts on that later, from other sources, from men more competent to give it than I am. And on top of that is this policy of economy that the Government is adopting and which we are glad to see adopted. We believe that there are power possibilities there that will pay for that whole project. As I heard one representative state at one time, "There is no reason why this should cost the Government more than the paper that it takes to write the bonds." I think that will be shown later to the committee.

It might be summed up this way. This is one of the greatest menaces that exist in the country to-day, and there is a possibility to turn it into one of the greatest national assets.

Hydroelectric power is the greatest asset that we have to-day, and there is a possibility of developing from the Boulder Dam about 1,000,000 hydroelectric horsepower. Why should the Government be spending money where there is no return, when there is a possibility, in a project of this kind, of not only having the money spent returned but will actually yield an income? There is no question about that whatever. To-morrow may be too late. Actually this year there may be a disaster in connection with that river in the Imperial Valley that will be second to none that has ever happened in this United States. Gentlemen, we are asking that this be given action. I understand that there may be questions asked. I have kept within my time, and I believe there are a few minutes left, and I know you do not want me to run over.

I thank you very much for this opportunity of talking before you, and we appreciate sincerely the interest the Senate committee has shown in taking the trouble to come out here to California and get first-hand information right on the ground.

The CHAIRMAN. Does any member of the committee desire to propound a question to the mayor?

Senator JOHNSON. How long have you been mayor of San Diego? Mr. BACON. About five years. This is my third term.

Senator JOHNSON. What is your profession?

Mr. BACON. Engineer.

Senator PITTMAN. The chief demand for this dam is for flood control, is it not?

Mr. BACON. The first demand; yes.

Senator PITTMAN. I judge from your statement that there is imminent danger of the destruction of the whole Imperial Valley? Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator PITTMAN. Naturally that would be the first thing to think about?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator PITTMAN. The next is irrigation?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator PITTMAN. What amount of extra land would the canal anticipated by the Legislature of California irrigate? What additional land would it irrigate?

Mr. BACON. Approximately 400,000 acres.

Senator PITTMAN. What would be the approximate cost of the canal?

Mr. BACON. I think in the neighborhood of about $30,000,000. Senator PITTMAN. What would be the approximate cost of the dam?

Mr. BACON. In the neighborhood of $60,000,000.

Senator PITTMAN. What height dam would that be?

Mr. BACON. Six hundred feet.

Senator PITTMAN. Is that what they mean by the maximum dam? Mr. BACON. No; dams higher than that have been suggested. That is the dam recommended by Director Gates. Suggestions have been made that the dam run even higher that that.

Senator JOHNSON. Aren't you mistaken in the cost? Isn't it estimated at $40,000,000?

Mr. BACON. Of the dam alone?

Senator JoHNSON. Yes.

Mr. BACON. Yes; that is correct; $40,000,000, not $60,000,000. Senator PITTMAN. I am not asking this question, Mr. Bacon, because I am in opposition to you in the matter, but I think possibly it will be well to have it in the record. There are some of the committee that are under the impression that there will never be anything done on the Colorado River until there is an agreement reached between all the States. You know there is considerable opposition right now in the country to the extension of the irrigation of arid lands, do you not?

Mr. BACON. I understand.

Senator PITTMAN. Suppose that the building of this dam, or any dam on the Colorado River by the Government, should meet an obstruction in Congress that we could not overcome if it carried with it an irrigation scheme. Would it be your view that we should continue to fight for years on our theory of irrigation, or that we should accept what we could get, so as to protect against the flooding of the Imperial Valley?

Mr. BACON. Now, I couldn't answer that question offhand without going very much into detail, because it involves so many questions that would have to be considered that you would have to have a pretty concrete statement of actually what was proposed to do.

Senator PITTMAN. Of course, we are your representatives out here in the West, and it is a very serious question to advise us on. There is a question of the principle of irrigation involved-that is trueand I think it is the intention of the western Representatives to

fight for that principle; but there seems to be an imminent danger that is more demanding on us than even irrigation. I don't know how imminent that danger is; but from what you say, I would judge that it might happen next year.

Mr. BACON. Are you speaking from a financial standpoint?

Senator PITTMAN. No, no. I am speaking of the flooding of the Imperial Valley.

Mr. BACON. I don't know that I correctly understand your question, Senator.

Senator PITTMAN. The question is this: As one who lives here, if your Representatives in Congress should assure you that they believe that if you attach a tremendous reclamation scheme onto this proposition of flood control that it would not pass for several years, or if you did not attach it at all but would simply provide for the building of the dam now, leaving the question as to the utilization of the water and power until afterwards, and we could carry it very quickly, what would you advise your Representatives to do in the matter?

Mr. BACON. Well, that is a rather abstract question.

Senator PITTMAN. It is very pertinent to me.

Mr. BACON. You are speaking, probably-you are referring, probably-to the All-American Canal, are you not?

Senator PITTMAN. I am not referring particularly to the AllAmerican Canal; there may be some other canal, but I am referring to putting on your $30,000,000 irrigation project as a condition to the building of the dam.

Mr. BACON. Now, I don't think there ever was any intention of doing that.

Senator PITTMAN. I would like to have this read into the record. I am speaking of the condition of ratification of this compact by California. I have not put a construction on it, but I know the construction is put upon it that there is no ratification at the present time, but if and when the policy of combining the irrigation with the flood control is consummated, that then instantly the ratification becomes effective.

Mr. BACON. I heard that discussion in the California Legislature over the so-called reservation in the pact. As I recall it, it was this, that California gave immediate ratification of the pact, would give automatic ratification of the pact when the Boulder Canyon project as outlined in the Swing-Johnson bill was authorized-that is approximately as outlined. You spoke of an irrigation project. I don't think that that has been considered as an irrigation project. The idea was to make a well-rounded project of this whole thing, one which would carry itself and which would finance itself. And in order to carry that out, or rather to carry out the conditions as laid down in this report, they were read into that bill. I think that was the idea of the framers of the bill. There are others that can explain that better than I can, but that has been my conception of it. Senator PITTMAN. Did Mr. Davis so recommend?

Mr. BACON. Yes; the All-American Canal.

Senator PITTMAN. That is the canal that you referred to in your legislative provision?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir; I so understand it.