« PreviousContinue »
Northern States. I remember that Solicitor Davis represented New Mexico in the compact.
Senator JOHNSON. Yes; I knew that. The CHAIRMAN. Another objection urged by capable engineers is that the construction of a dam and impounding of water at the Boulder Canyon would result in excessive evaporation. It has been estimated by them that a dam 550 feet high will produce an evaporation of between 400,000 and 500,000 acre feet per annum. Have you given any thought to that objection?
Secretary HOOVER. Oh, assuming that that would happen it would not do any harm during the next generation and a half or two generations. We are not going to be using all of the water of the Colorado River for another 50 or 75 years. When the time comes that evaporated water is a large item there, you will have a number of other dams already built on the river, and you can reduce the level and thus the evaporation at the Boulder Dam. You can add to this, in the next 75 years, to any number of contingencies.
Senator ODDIE. Do you believe that after a period of years, in case the Boulder or Black Canyon Dam is constructed, that the saturation of water in the surrounding area and banks would in any wise neutralize the evaporation?
Secretary HOOVER. Oh, I do not think in that climate it would enter into it very much.
Is that all, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Does any other member wish to propound any questions to the secretary. [After a pause.] The committee is very greatly indebted to you for your very instructive remarks, Mr. Secretary, and the way you have handled the subject.
Secretary HOOVER. I thank you.
T'he CHAIRMAN. Just before we adjourn I want to say a word to the committee. I have here the following communications sent to the committee and which, without objection, I will order made a part of the record :
(1) A telegram from the California Farm Bureau Federation. (2) A statement by Mr. C. M. Zander, of Phoenix, Ariz.
(3) Letter from the Imperial irrigation district, together with a draft of proposal.
(4) A letter from Mr. F. E. Weymouth, together with a statement attached to the letter.
(5) A memorandum of law points and authorities respecting the rights of Arizona in the Colorado River, prepared by Mr. Samuel White, attorney at law, Phoenix, Ariz.
(6) 'A statement submitted by Mr. J. K. Doolittle, attorney at law, Phoenix, Ariz.
(1) Letter from Grace M. Sparkes, secretary, immigration commissioner, Yavapai Chamber of Commerce, Prescott, Ariz.
(8) Letter from Arthur P. Davis, chief engineer and general manager of the East Bay municipal utility district, Oakland, Calif.
(9) Summary of Arizona's position on Colorado River, by Fred T. Colter, president, Arizona Highline Reclamation Association.
(10) Statement by Le Roy V. Root.
[Western Union Telegram)
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., October 29, 1925. Senator C. L. McNARY,
Barbara Worth Hotel, El Centro, Calif. 'Whereas the Congress of the United States passed an act requiring the Secretary of the Interior to report as to the proper steps to be taken in the development of the Colorado River and to what extent the Federal Govern ment should participate in such developments, if any; and
Whereas the Department of the Interior did on the 22d day of November, 1922, report to Congress recommending construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam and All-American Canal; and
Whereas reclamation of the arid land provided for under the All-American Canal will produce crops of a character and at a time of year that will not come in competition with the crops produced in other sections of the United States, to any extent; and
Whereas such reclamation will develop for the benefit of the people a great national asset and provide home and flood protection along the Colorado River and needed power for industries of the Southwest :
Now, therefore, California Farm Bureau Federation, assembled in annual session, does hereby indorse the legislation as recommended by the Department of the Interior, and it does urge upon Congress the passage of legislation that will put into effect such recommendations in order that this much-needed and constructive project shall be undertaken at an early date by the Government of the United States as essential to the welfare of the entire Southwest; be it
Further resolved, That the secretary of this association forward a copy of this resolution to the secretary of the National Farm Bureau Federation, at Chicago, Ill., to be presented before the committees of Congress considering this project; and further, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to Senator Hiram W. Johnson and Senator Samuel Shortridge, of California, and also to the Members of the House of Representatives from California.
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION.
STATEMENT OF C. M. ZANDER, FILED WITH THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION
My name is C. M. Zander; residence, Phoenix, Ariz.; my official position is executive member and secretary of the board of directors of State institutions. This board, by authority conferred upon it by initiative measure adopted by the people of Arizona in 1914, which authority can not be restricted or repealed except by the same process, has power to do all things with reference to the development of the Colorado River.
Arizona opposes the Boulder Canyon projeet for the following reasons :
1. A dam at Boulder or Black Canyon, at even the greatest height to which it could be raised, would be so low that all the waters coming to it could not, after passing it, be diverted upon lands in the United States. In fact, only a small part of these waters could be so diverted. Consequently a great portion would go into Mexico, and every wet acre in Mexico means a dry acre in the United States.
2. The comprehensive development of the river means, without debate or heckle, that a storage reservoir will be brought into the scheme at the upper end of the Grand Canyon, which will control practically the same flow of the river that the Boulder Reservoir would. The only two considerable additions between the two reservoirs are the Little Colorado and the Virgin Rivers, the run-off of both of which will be conserved and used within their own basins. This means that a reservoir at Boulder Canyon would expose water to evaporation in two storage reservoirs instead of one, and the evaporation at Boulder Canyon is much the greater.
3. The Swing-Johnson bill does not provide that Arizona shall get any revenue from the power developed.
In this connection, I want to make the statement of this significant fact: All the power in the lower basin can be developed within Arizona, and that without asking the consent of any other State to do so, and no other State is so situated. This being true, all this power becomes the natural heritage of the people of Arizona, which it possesses without interference or question of any other State or the Federal Government. Further, Arizona can enforce and safeguard this heritage because it can veto the efforts of any other State in the lower basin to make any use of the Colorado River for power because no such use can be made without the construction of works that must rest upon Arizona soil.
In support of the legal rights of Arizona in this connection, I refer to the law submitted to this committee by Judge Samuel White. To show that Arizona is not alone at this moment in taking this position, I refer to the minutes of the conference held between the authorities of the State of New York and the Federal Power Commission. And to make clear that the Federal Power Commission will not interfere, again to the minutes of this same conference. It is true that the Federal Power Commission has held up all permits on the Colorado and expressed the hope that the basin States would come to an understanding, but the thing that stands out in bold relief with respect to the Federal Power Commission is the position it took with the State of New York, which means that whenever Arizona gets ready to develop the river the commission will cooperate with Arizona. But should the present policy of the commission change on account of change in the personnel or otherwise, resulting in an interference with Arizona's development, then Arizona would join with the State of New York and take the commission before the Supreme Court, and have annulled those unconstitutional provisions of the Federal power act which seem to give that commission power to interfere.
There is this difference only between New York and Arizona : The Federal Government owns the land on either side of the river. Arizona must get permission to occupy this land, but it must be remembered this land was withdrawn for the express purpose of preserving it for the people of Arizona, and the withdrawal is of no force, if based on any other theory. I refer again to the law submitted by Judge White. In other words the Federal Power Commission has no power over these lands because of this withdrawal and has control of them only because they are and were before the withdrawal public lands belonging to the Federal Government. So this question resolves itself down to the possible refusal of the Federal Power Commission to Arizona, after, of course, Arizona had satisfied all claims as to navigation, to develop the river based only upon the fact the Government owned lands adjacent to the projects. A refusal of this nature would be arbitrary, unprecedented, and would be rejected by every other disinterested State of the Union.
From the foregoing it can be clearly seen Arizona's position is impregnable-made so by nature, the Constitution of the Nation, and the Congress of the United States. When the forces of nature laid open the giant gorge, turned into it the mighty currents of the great river, when the Constitution provided that every State was sovereign and equal, and when the Congress prescribed the boundaries of this Commonwealth, Arizona was given this natural resource, and no other State can be heard to complain.
For these reasons the act of the Federal Government coming onto Arizona soil and developing power and giving that power to California would be the same as going into California and segregating a vast tract of oil lands and giving them to Arizona. Arizona will veto the effort even should Congress make the appropriations.
4. The Swing-Johnson bill provides that private power companies may receive power from the Government. This may allow of the great power syndicate of the United States getting control of a considerable portion of the power in the river.
That there is such a syndicate. I refer to that remarkable document known as Senate Documents, Sixty-fourth Congress, volume 10, compiled by 0. C. Merrill, then chief engineer of the Forest Service, now executive secretary of the Federal Power Commission. Pages 10 to 147 print the names of some 25,000 power companies all grouped with interlocking officers and directorates among themselves, and with certain banks. Page 290 gives the names of 78 companies with interlocking directorates and officers with themselves and certain banks control the 25,000 companies, and page 289 gives the names of 31 banks which have interlocking directorates and officers with these holding companies. All of these banks are situated in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Boston has a special meaning to Arizona because that city is the home of most of the copper money, and this fact may have
something to do with the effort of some of Arizona copper companies to secure an entering wedge into the power development of the Colorado River by obtaining the Diamond Creek permit. In this volume is given a complete list of names of all officers and directors. Indeed this volume of 522 pages tells a very complete story of this great combination.
On page 13 of volume 8 of Mr. Merrill's report the statement is made that the cost per horsepower installed for the year 1912 by private interests was $301 and by municipal corporations it was $138.
With reference to the continued tendency toward further consolidation and effect such concentration may have, I quote from page 53 of the same volume.
" There are several lines of evidence which show a continuously increasing tendency toward concentration toward control of the development, distribution, and the sale of electric power. Each year shows a greater percentage of commercial power being produced by commercial central stations—the publicservice corporations. Each year also shows a few more prominent groups of interests securing control of a larger portion of the central-station business. Some corporations like the Utah Securities Corporations, the Montana Power Companies, and the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. dominate single contact territory; others like Stone & Webster, H. M. Byllesby & Co., and the Doherty Operating Co. spread their operations widely, controlling smaller groups of operating companies in many distinct territories. Sometimes the character of the control is definite and distinct through actual ownership of properties or majority holdings of the stock or direct management of operating companies; sometimes it is indistinct and indefinite through representation on boards of directors. How great a degree of control is exercised in any particular case through mere representation on boards of directors is uncertain. It is scarcely to be supposed, however, that such representation is without in. fluence, even though the degree of influence may be problematical. Again, it will be found that many electric power corporations, particularly the holding companies, have representation through common directors in certain of the larger banking corporations. Whether this means the exercise of an influence by power corporations over the policies of the banking corporations or vice versa, or how important such influence may be in any given instance, is in. determinate from any public source of information. Suffice it to say that did such influence reach to the extent of control it would be of serious public concern. A control of the sources of credit would mean a control of the entire industry, would be the more effective means of stifling competition, and regardless of how well the industry might be controlled in its service operation by public agencies, greater proportion of water-power development at considerable distances from the markets supplied and the larger investments required for the extended transmission systems which are such a prominent feature of the western power development."
I wish to add that since this report was made the consolidation has been going steadily on.
I wish further to add that the political and financial power of this stupendous organization is becoming appalling. Arizona not only will not be a party to giving further strength to the grip of this concern but it will strenuously oppose the absorption of its power resources by that or any other private monopoly. Arizona has had its experience with great private interests which have endeavored to control the destiny of the State. It certainly will not add this, perhaps the greatest of all, to become a Frankenstein.
5. Arizona specifically objects to the Boulder Canyon Dam on account of irrigation. This dam, as stated before, would allow the waters to go to Mexico. Arizona has a definite plan for the greatest use of the waters of the river and this is what the Nation is interested in. Arizona can use those waters for irrigation of Arizona lands by diversion from Bridge Canyon, and by so doing can generate more power than can be generated by any scheme at Boulder Canyon. The crest of the Boulder Canyon Dam could never be raised to the 2,000-foot contour. It is becoming more certain with accumulation of each new engineering fact that water can be brought to something like 4,000,000 acres of land economically at about the 2,000-foot level and at no lower level. A dam at Bridge Canyon will reach this level.
Much has been said about the unfeasibility of an Arizona bigh-line diversion dam and canal. There are even those in Arizona who have attempted to be tray their own State by heaping ridicule upon it and who have continually opposed any efforts to get information about it or any other feature in connec tion with the whole problem, claiming that all information necessary was already long ago compiled.
To their everlasting dishonor are the facts that have been coming to light in recent months.
There was not information enough for the city of Los Angeles, so she first appropriated $500,000 and then $2,000,000 to secure data for her purposes. The Birdseye party discovered the best and an ideal dam site on the whole river at Bridge Canyon in Arizona. Frank T. Troth and Earl Parker found a tunnel route from Bridge Canyon to Yucca. [See map submitted herewith.] The tunnel has been given other substantial approval. I refer to the testimony of E. C. La Rue, already in the record, to the effect that water can be taken to Los Angeles from Bridge Canyon by gravity through a tunnel 72 miles in length coming out at Yucca. If it can be taken through this tunnel for Los Angeles, it certainly can likewise be taken for Arizona. It is now conceived by those who have made themselves familiar with the country that when water reaches Yucca it can be made to cover approximately 4,000,000 acres of land in Arizona without any engineering difficulties. It is not at all improbable that a full knowledge of the problem will show this tunnel can be shortened to 60 miles.
To these illuminating engineering facts now is added the legal status of Arizona's position, development by Prof. G. E. P. Smith, of the University of Arizona, and as most completely and concretely stated by Judge Samuel White, in his opinion to Gov. George W. P. Hunt, that the bed of the stream belongs to Arizona, and that neither any State nor the Federal Government can rest any works upon Arizona soil without Arizona's consent.
This means that Arizona controls the whole river south of the Yucca line.
It means that Arizona can stop any further use of the water for irrigation outside of the State except on the floor of the valley where pumping or intaking from a regulated flow or by other means not now known, and where all of which do not require works reaching across the river, might put additional acreage under cultivation by the partial use of flood or regulated waters. To this Arizona would not object unless it became so extensive as to jeopardize its interests, in which case it would assert its priorities based on its filings and due diligence, reference to which is made further on.
It might be well to state right here, that should in the future, as was done in the past, some State agency give Arizona's rights away then Arizona's prior filings and activities would serve her in good stead.
As was stated in the discussion on power, so also can it be stated here in the discussion on irrigation that it is true the Government owns the land on both sides of the river necessary for all reservoirs in Arizona, and that the Federal Power Commission could arbitrarily refuse Arizona a permit to construct. I repeat, as to this contingency, Arizona has no apprehension, because all other States in the Union would jealously resent the invasion of State rights by the Federal agency, and further because the Federal Power Commission itself, when put to answer directly this very question to the State of New York, declared there would be no difficulty in this respect, as there had not been with some 23 other States. I refer to the hearings between New York and the Federal Power Commission.
And still further, it is now dawning upon the people of Arizona that the development of the river can be financed by Arizona by much the same methods used by the Salt River Valley Water User's Association; that is by letting the users of power advance the construction costs and by conserving the power revenues for financing of part of the irrigation cost. Right here, it is well to impress upon this committee that there can be no doubt as to the feasibility of irrigating all the lands coming under the tunnel mentioned and the canal leading from it, or even from an open canal of longer length and shorter total length of tunnel, providing Arizona retains its control of the power resources of the river south of the Yucca line. A large market for power will soon be found in Southern California. To sell power to California is not different from what California has been selling to Arizona for nearly 40 years in the form of fuel oil. California can not be heard to complain on this score.
In the state of the fact of accumulating facts it will soon be pertinent to inquire in Arizona into the motives of those who continue to oppose appropriations for a thorough and complete study of this the greatest asset Arizona has.
Arizona might have to rely upon its priority to protect its irrigation projects. If this be so, it will be well fortified as the record will show. Because of this record it will not be possible for adverse interests to urge that Arizona