NATIONAL CITY, CALIF., December 7.

I am very glad to recall any connection with those who are opposing the Swing-Johnson bill for the Boulder Dam and All-American Canal. I stand most heartily with the citizens, and regret my name should be used to oppose this work.

Trusting this will change the matter, and thanking you for calling my attention to it, I am,,

J. A. BURDEN. LOS ANGELES, December 7.

Am certainly very sorry I did sign such a club, and must have done so not knowing what I was signing, as I do heartily approve of the Swing-Johnson bill. Have always been deeply interested and have voted at any opportunity for it. If I had money' I would help build the Boulder Dam myself.

EVA W. SHORE.

Los ANGELES, December 7.

I'm inclosing you the card signed by me for the Colorado River development on the Swing-Johnson bill. I always was for this canal, and I can't understand your claiming in your letter that I am a member of this Colorado Control Club. I never have signed any paper; how come they use my name in Washington, I'd like to know? Will you kindly inform me to this effect? It can't be anyone ever has spoken to me or signed anything, and I'm for the All-American Canal.

C. LEPPER.

(The following is the card referred to by Senator Johnson and afterwards furnished by him, sent by the so-called Colorado River Control Club to landowners in Imperial Valley and referred to in the testimony taken at El Centro, Calif., and the signature of which constituted membership in said club, which membership is repudiated by those whose names were inserted in the record this day :)

(Paster attached to card :) Kindly sign and return the inclosed 'Declaration of Principles' if you have not already signed and returned the card which we mailed to you on July 23."

(The card)

COLORADO RIVER CONTROL CLUB DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

We, as property owners and residents of Imperial Valley, believing that the future welfare and prosperity of our territory depend upon the enactment by the Congress of the United States of America of legislation providing solely for the immediate construction of a flood control and storage dam on the Colorado River, and that our water and irrigation rights should first be provided for and preserved, and that the distribution of power rights should incidentally be provided for, have, for said purposes, formed the Colorado River Control Club, and hereby adopt the following principles, viz:

"First. To promote by every means the early construction of a flood-control and storage dam on the Colorado River at a site to be selected by proper governmental authority, and which will afford adequate flood protection and storage for the Imperial Valley and all other irrigable lands in the lower Colorado River Basin.

"Second. To urge that a dam be constructed in such manner and on such a site as will make possible the development of the maximum of hydroelectric power, but that the development of power shall always be subordinated to the use of water for irrigation and to flood control."

Date

I, the undersigned Imperial Valley property owner, subscribe to and indorse the platform and declaration of principles as adopted by the Colorado River Control Club.

Number acres owned

Name
Post-office address

Assessed valuation

(Your signature on this card involves no financial or other obligation.)

Senator KENDRICK. I recall, Senator Johnson, asking a question of a witness at El Centro, Calif., during the testimony before our committee as to the relative number of landowners in Imperial Valley who would be in favor of paying the necessary proportionate cost for the building of an All-American Canal, and that that question was not answered in any definite way, at least as I now recall. Does this number of withdrawals give any suggestion as to the proportion of the number of landowners that would be in favor of that action?

Senator JOHNSON. No; these are individual withdrawals from the Colorado River Control Club now that the fact has been ascertained as to how they were befooled into joining the original organization. And these withdrawals are constantly coming in. I shall continue to put them in the record, but at subsequent hearings, and make a computation such as you suggest showing the acreage represented by the individuals.

Senator KENDRICK. I think that would be an interesting fact. Senator JOHNSON. I shall do that hereafter.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear Mr. Weymouth.

STATEMENT OF FRANK E. WEYMOUTH, PRESIDENT OF THE BROCK & WEYMOUTH ENGINEERING CORPORATION, AT PHILADELPHIA, AND FORMERLY CONNECTED WITH THE RECLAMATION SERVICE

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Weymouth, on the 22d day of December, 1924 you were heard by the committee here in Washington, and on November 2, 1925, you were heard by the committee at Las Vegas, Nev., on the subject matter of the Colorado River Basin. This being your third appearance I suggest it is the hope of the committee you will not duplicate what has heretofore been said, because the record is now quite voluminous. I hope you will just bear that in mind in giving your observations to the committee.

Mr. WEYMOUTH. I will be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. Shall I proceed?

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Weymouth, you may make your

statement.

Mr. WEYMOUTH. Previous to the passage of the act of May 18, 1920, known as the Kinkaid Act, the Reclamation Service had investigated the possibilities of controlling the floods along the lower Colorado by constructing reservoirs in the upper reaches and had found that to be impracticable. That act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to investigate and report regarding certain problems connected with the Colorado River and Imperial Valley. As a result, one of the problems investigated through the Reclamation Service was the best way to control floods of the Colorado River so as to protect that valley. This led to the investigations made at Boulder and Black Canyons, and a report by Mr. A. P. Davis, former Director of the Reclamation Service, in 1922 under the title "The Problems of the Lower Colorado River Basin." That report has been referred to in these hearings as Senate Document No. 142. The investigations were continued after the above-named report was finished and a further report was made by me in February,

1924, and that report was followed by a supplementary report in June of the same year.

The Boulder-Black Canyon sites were not selected at random or without thought of the effect of either if built on other possibilities along the river, as has been implied by some in these hearings, but careful consideration was given to the effect on complete utilization of the resources of the river. We knew enough about the problem at that time to know that a high dam at or near Boulder Canyon would not prevent the best development of the river.

In my February report I stated, "Any dam or reservoir constructed should fit into a general scheme of maximum practicable development for the purpose of irrigation and power." The report also stated that should the physical conditions at the Black Canyon site prove suitable for a dam it would be best to build a dam at that point to a height of 550 feet.

In my supplementary report of June, 1924, I suggested a plan of development of the river from Parker to the west boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park, which included the so-called Bridge Canyon site. An explanation of that plan was contained in my testimony before this committee in December, 1924. I now submit a plan for the river above the west boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park, which, added to the plan explained to you last December, utilizes all of the fall in the river from Parker to and including Dark Canyon.

Mr. Chairman, I have here some blue prints showing the plan that I suggest. If they could be passed around to the members of the committee they might be helpful.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be done. And not for the purpose of the record but in order that I may understand this blue print so as to follow your testimony I will get you to answer a few questions to give me that information.

(Thereupon the witness described the map to the chairman and members of the committee.)

The CHAIRMAN. You may now proceed with your statement. Mr. WEYMOUTH. In the testimony before this committee this month there have been references to a reclamation plan of development of the river but the Reclamation Service plan of development was not described. It seemed apparent that the dam and the reservoir at Black Canyon only were being considered.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it agreeable to the wishes of the committee to have this blue print inserted in the record? [After a pause.] The Chair hears no objection and it will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The map referred to by the witness is here made a part of the record, as follows:)

Senator JONES of Washington. When did you develop this plan? Mr. WEYMOUTH. For that portion of the river from Bridge Canyon down it was covered in my supplementary report of June, 1924.

Senator JONES of Washington. Has that report been printed? Mr. WEYMOUTH. No, sir.

Senator JONES of Washington. Is that the report we were talking about having printed the first day we met here in Washington?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. It was one of them; yes. I made a large report in February, and then followed in June with a supplementary report.

Senator JONES of Washington. When was that part of it developed?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. The part from Bridge Canyon up I have developed since the Las Vegas meeting.

The CHAIRMAN. And that meeting was on the 2nd day of November, 1925?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. Yes, sir.

Senator KENDRICK. According to this plan you propose a dam at Black Canyon 552 feet high?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. Yes, sir; 552 feet high.

Senator KENDRICK. And one at Bridge Canyon 566 feet high? Mr. WEYMOUTH. Yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. How high is the proposed dam at Bridge Canyon?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. Five hundred and sixty-six feet high.

Senator JONES of Washington. Does Black Canyon correspond with what we usually refer to as Boulder Canyon?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. There are different dam sites down in that general locality. The first one investigated was the Boulder Canyon site.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Is that the upper one?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. Yes. Then at a later date we also drilled a site at Black Canyon, which is down the river about 20 miles. Senator JONES of Washington. And that is the one we have been referring to as Boulder Canyon, generally at least in these hearings? Mr. WEYMOUTH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the place the committee visited while we were at Las Vegas, Nevada?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. Yes.

Senator ASHURST. What did you say would be the height of the proposed dam at Bridge Canyon?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. Five hundred and sixty-six feet.

Senator ASHURST. How far above sea level therefore would the crest of the proposed dam at Bridge Canyon be?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. One thousand seven hundred and seventy-three feet.

Senator ASHURST. What would be the storage capacity in acre feet of the proposed dam at Bridge Canyon?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. I had not contemplated any active storage at all, but simply to use it as a power dam, with no active storage. Senator ASHURST. With a dam 566 feet high there would be storage whether you wished it or not, for you could not prevent it. Mr. WEYMOUTH. Yes; there would be some storage there. In the plan of development I am about to describe I have not used that for storage, however.

Senator ASHURST. A dam of that height at Bridge Canyon would cause some storage, and what would such storage be?

Mr. WEYMOUTH. I do not recall, but something between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 acre-feet, I think. That is shown in water-supply paper 556, which is in the record.