other works for the impounding of such waters, including the general character of the dams and the locations at which they should be constructed; the potential utility of such impounded waters for the generation of power and the possible markets and localities for the utilization of such power; the water required for use in the upper basin of the river and the effect of the use of the water in such upper basin upon the flow of the river in its lower course; the objections to the present canal diverting water for the irrigation of lands in the Imperial Valley of California and whether or not a new canal entirely in American territory should be built to convey such waters to lands in said valley and the cost of such new canal; the present use of any of such waters for the irrigation of lands in Mexico; and general and comprehensive conclusions upon all factors involved in the potential utilization of the water resources of said Colorado River basin. And may I add that if there are public lands to be irrigated the objection of some would be greatly mitigated if not removed for an appropriation by the Congress. Senator SHORTRIDGE. There are many acres of public lands to be irrigated. Senator KING. I have been advised to the contrary, and am very anxious to have that fact made known. Senator JONES of Washington. Do you not think that such a commission should be directed to recommend what dam should first be constructed? Senator KING. I have no objection to that at all. Senator JONES of Washington. Do you not think that ought to be done? Senator KING. Well, when I asked for conclusions I did not know but what their conclusions would indicate their preference there. Senator JONES of Washington. I think it should be specifically provided for. Senator KING. I think, Senators Johnson and Shortridge, that there has been no purpose in my bill to limit the investigation or to divert attention from matters which the commission might conceive to be of importance. I have included in the bill authority to investigate the so called all-American canal; however I might add that in my opinion it ought not to be built by the Government even if one were deemed necessary or wise. There is a large amount of data that the Reclamation Service has, and a considerable amount that Mr. La Rue has, and Mr. Clark has surveys I think that cost him more than $100,000, and maps also that would require days to examine Senator JONES of Washington (interposing). There is no doubt about the data, but Senator KING (continuing). And the officials of the city of Los Angeles have a vast amount of information, all of which should be collected and studied. And the Edison Power Co., I am told, though I do not know it to be a fact, have a large amount of data, which should be considered. Senator JONES of Washington. I would be of opinion that if we provide for a commission of this kind it should be given ample time to make a most careful investigation in order that its report should be pretty conclusive. Senator KING. I think so too, and yet I did not want to delay the development of the Colorado River by individuals or corporations or the United States if it is to construct a flood-control dam. Senator JONES of Washington. Do you provide in your resolution for ample borings where they have not been made? Do you authorize them to provide for that? Senator KING. No, but Senator JONES of Washington (interposing). I think that ought to be done. They would not be able to reach a conclusion without that. Senator PITTMAN. And $100,000 would not go very far for that kind of work. Senator KING. I did not want to terrify anybody when I first offered this resolution. The CHAIRMAN. I think it might be well to remark that in all of the hearings held by this committee none of the engineers who have appeared before us have been satisfied with the borings made at any site except the Boulder Canyon or the Black Canyon, the view being that the borings are inadequate upon which to base a definite view as to a dam site. Senator JONES of Washington. And at many of them there have been no borings at all. Senator KING. This is a tentative measure which I commend to the study of the committee. After the bill now under consideration by you gentlemen has been disposed of I shall ask permission to appear before the committee and request that it be taken up in the regular order. Senator SHORTRIDGE. This whole resolution seems to proceed upon the theory that there has been no full and exhaustive study of the subject? Senator KING. May I say that in my own opinion, from talks I have had with officials and from the reports which have been made by the Reclamation Service and Mr. La Rue, which I have examined, from my conversations with Mr. Mulholland, and I had a number of interviews with him, and with the mayor of Los Angeles, and with the Board of Water Supply-I do not remember the technical name of the board-and many others, I did not find any crystallized sentiment founded upon exhaustive studies and scientific investigations, which would justify the selection of any certain plan of development. I found a variety of opinions, and considerable uncertainty. And I say it not by way of criticism, I found very much to be desired in the way of information with respect to the geology of the country and the engineering problems involved. I do not think that any private company with the data which has been assembled, would be willing to enter upon this enterprise, which will cost anywhere from $60,000,000 to $150,000,000. Additional light must be had. Engineering problems of great dimensions are involved and they must be studied still further. Senator SHORTRIDGE. Wherefore you offer this resolution. Senator KING. Yes. It is to get the necessary data, because I know that development of the Colorado River is sure to come. Believing that it is a necessity, and desiring the development of the river I think we ought to have the fullest possible information, at the earliest possible moment, so that when we have determined whether it shall be done by the Federal Government or by private individuals, or have developed a plan for this enterprise, then there may be no delay. Senator SHORTRIDGE. What makes some of us a little depressed is that at different stages of the consideration of the subject the suggestion has been made: To-morrow, to-morrow, to-morrow. Personally I should like to see the matter go forward very rapidly. Senator KING. May I say to the Senator, if he will pardon me, that the report which has been made by the able committee who have investigated all our reclamation projects, is an admonition that we ought to be careful before we spend any more money upon reclamation projects or power projects in the West. Undoubtedly if the engineers in the Reclamation Service had acted wisely they would have gone a little slower than they have. After they thought all their schemes and projects had been properly selected, and that their engineering data was complete, the report shows evidence of waste, inefficiency, and incompetency. If greater care had been taken in selecting projects, and greater economy and efficiency practicedthe record would not have reached the loss of millions of dollars; and a number of the projects which have been built would not have been abandoned. I think we will make time if we go along in the way I have suggested in my bill. Take the Assouan Dam on the Nile, and other projects in Africa. The British Government studied them, not for weeks, or months, but for years. They had not one survey but many surveys. They had not the advice of one engineer but of many engineers. Mr. Clark, the engineer to whom I referred, has been employed for years by Great Britain as consulting engineer upon projects of this kind. Great Britain seeks the advice not only of her own engineers, but she goes to other countries and gets the best talent that can be found. And it would be a calamity if we should start this project before we are ready, and were to spend millions of dollars on it, then ascertain that mistakes were made, that factors had not been considered and that changes in the plan had to be made. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, very much, Senator King. Now, Mr. Childers, we will hear you next. Have you prepared your statement in writing? Mr. CHILDERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to read it to the committee? STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CHILDERS, ESQ., ATTORNEY FOR Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the particular phase of this subject to which I desire to address my remarks, with the committee's permission, is to endeavor to point out, as we understand it, California's position in reference to the compact in general and the so-called six-State compact in particular. And may I inquire if the California approval of the six-State compact has gone into the record? The CHAIRMAN. It has. Mr. CHILDERS. There has been some testimony to the effect that no objection has at any time been made to the terms of the Colorado River compact. This would tend to indicate that the compact itself is satisfactory to all the States, and that any differences are to be found outside of the compact. This is hardly the case. Arizona has had the compact before it during two sessions of its legislature. At each session of the legislature the compact has been debated, and yet that State has not approved. At Phoenix on August 17, 1925, at a meeting of representatives from Arizona, California, and Nevada, the Governor of Arizona presented a statement of Arizona's position, wherein he severely criticized the compact itself. The governor's statement has been inserted as a part of this record. We believe that the compact, in and of itself, is of little value to the lower basin. According to the testimony given before this committee, it appears that the development in the lower basin will be more rapid than that in the upper basin. Under the law of appro priation those first applying the water to beneficial use will acquire a better right. The compact proposes to set aside this law and establish an arbitrary division as between the States. The compact allocates to the upper basin 7,500,000 acre-feet per annum. Therefore, under the compact, until the use in the upper basin has exceeded the 7,500,000 acre-feet the lower basin can not complain. At the present time the use in the lower basin is something like 3,000,000 acre-feet per annum. That use is increasing rapidly, and under the law of appropriation can be protected; but under the compact, if the flow of the river in any one year under present use in the lower basin is less than 10,500,000 acre-feet, the Lower Basin will go short of water, and yet can not complain. This would indicate that the compact is actually detrimental to the Lower Basin in the absence of large storage on the river, and yet storage is not provided for by the compact. The only storage mentioned in the compact is that when 5,000,000 acre-feet is provided, then all vested rights as well as other rights shall attach to and be satisfied from the storage. It has been suggested that 5,000,000 acre-feet is sufficient storage to fully protect these rights, but storage of only 5,000,000 acre-feet would mean virtually nothing to the lower basin water supply. The first use to be made of any dam in the lower river must be that of flood control. The engineers seem to be agreed that a capacity of something like 8,000,000 acre-feet is required for that purpose, and in a flood-control dam the gates must be kept open. In other words, after the flood season, the reservoir must be quickly emptied to be ready for the next flood. Therefore a reservoir of 5,000,000 acre-feet capacity provides no storage at all. Even if it were construed to mean 5,000,000 acre-feet in addition to flood control requirements the silt would soon deplete its usefulness. The CHAIRMAN. Are you speaking of the seven-State compact? Mr. CHILDERS. I am speaking of the seven-State compact, yes, and The CHAIRMAN. (continuing). And you are speaking in opposition to California becoming a member of it? Mr. CHILDERS. I am just trying to give the committee the position, as we un lerstand it, of California. I am coming to that in just a moment, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. You may continue. Mr. CHILDERS. For the lower basin to be at all safe under the compact large storage must be provided. The upper basin does not agree to turn down any amount of water in any given year, but to turn down a specified amount over a period of 10 years, so under the compact the lower basin must hold the flood waters from one year to the next to protect it against a low flow of the river. In other words, the upper basin has the first draft on the water, and is guaranteed 7,500,000 acre-feet per annum, if the river produces that amount, and the lower basin is permitted to take its allowance out of what is left, if indeed any is left. We merely mention these points to indicate that the compact itself is far from the beneficient instrument that on occasion has been presented to this committee. Even though the compact was not wholly beneficial to California, yet the legislature of California immediately approved the same at its session of 1923 in the hope that development might proceed upon the river. Arizona did not approve. Two years elapsed and nothing was done. The upper basin States then proposed that the compact be made effective as between the six States without Arizona. This proposal was considered very carefully by the California Legislature and was approved. The only limitation of California being that its approval should not take effect until large storage had been authorized, and that the Congress had done what it could to make the compact effective as to the water of the river wherever and however used. They did not change the terms of the compact in any sense. The only effect of the California reservation, if indeed it be a reservation at all, is to postpone the effective date of the approval. The action which California took is wholly justified. There are two outstanding features in the compact that must not be lost sight of. First: The water is not allocated to the States, but to the upper and lower basins in bulk, and Second: If the United States shall give any water to Mexico it shall first be taken from the surplus water over and above that considered in the compact, and after that is exhausted, then each basin shall contribute the balance of the water required in equal shares. It is the basins and not the States that make the contribution. Curtailments in either basin would naturally be directed against the last appropriators. The so-called six-State compact would effect a substantial change in the situation outlined. The six-State compact, it should be remembered, is merely the seven-State compact made binding upon six signatory States. It has no effect as to the seventh State. For the purposes hereof it is assumed that Arizona would be the seventh State and would not be bound by the terms of the six-State agree ment. Let is be supposed that California first appropriates and uses 6,000,000 acre-feet of water; following this, Arizona appropriates and uses 3,000,000 acre-feet; following this, the upper basin States appropriate and use the 7,500,000 acre-feet allocated to them. A shortage results. As California would be the lowest appropriator, it would be put in the position of moving to assert any rights it might claim or have. As against the appropriators in Arizona, it |