fornia, as against 6,738,000 acre-feet per annum for future development of irrigation in Arizona.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Pardon me just a moment-by your permission, Mr. Chairman. These figures run along so rapidly I do not carry them. According to Arizona's counterproposition what does she get?

Mr. PANTER. 6,970,000 acre-feet per annum.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. And what does California get?

Mr. PANTER. 3,600,000 acre-feet per annum.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I must assume that they think that is reasonable.

Mr. PANTER.

HYDROELECTRIC POWER

CALIFORNIA-NEVADA PROPOSAL

The California-Nevada proposal includes also power to be developed by a dam, to be constructed by the Government at or near Boulder Canyon, in the Colorado River, the rights to which shall be allocated by the Secretary of the Interior; such power rights to be developed by persons or agencies other than the United States.

Such proposal provides for the payment by the agencies to whom rights may be allocated at $1 per annum for each operative horsepower installed, this amount to be divided equally between the States of Nevada and Arizona, in which States the dam site is located. This would mean, on the basis of a 550-foot dam, approximately $500,000 per annum to each State. The payment of these sums shall be in lieu of all license or other fees for the privilege of storing water, building and operating power generating works, transmission lines, in connection with the dam. Such payment to be without prejudice to the right of the States to levy taxes, but the amount paid for taxes shall be deducted from such horse power charge.

ARIZONA COUNTER PROPOSAL

The Arizona counter proposal is apparently designed to cover all possible power developments in which any of the three lower basin States may be interested, and demands for any projected construction in the main stream compensation for any lost power head, such compensation to be divided between the States within which such development occurs in proportion to the fall of the river in each State affected. Such counterproposal also allocates the amount of power along the main stream, when forming boundary line between the States; equally between such States.

Such counterproposal makes provision for a tax 'upon the physical property and, in addition, a tax or royalty, or both, upon power leased or sold. The amount of said compensation, royalty, or tax, or the manner in which the same shall be paid, is not mentioned, rendering it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to analyze the

same.

Such counterproposal further provides that in the event the United States shall undertake the construction, financing and operation of

72578-26-PT 6- -13

any development on the Colorado River for flood control, irrigation, or power purposes, and requires repayment of the cost thereof, such repayment to the Government shall be made in accordance with the reclamation law.

Each State shall assume an obligation in proportion to its allotment of water and power.

The operation and administration of works shall be under such State agencies as are created under the irrigation laws of the respective States.

After all obligations to the Government have been paid the entire benefits shall become the property of the States interested.

The contract with the United States to consrtuct works in the Sates shall provide for dams, power plants, irrigation works, canals, and pumping plants, which will enable each State to irrigate an amount of land proportionately equal to the allotment of water to such State.

Any irrigation development where there is a cost for pumping shall be the beneficiary of power revenues from the sale of power. alloted to the State.

Contract for the sale of power shall be made agreeable to the respective States within which power is developed.

COMPACT

The California-Nevada proposal stipulates that the tri-State compact therein contemplated shall become binding when the Colorado River compact has become binding and obligatory upon all of the signatory States thereto and when such tri-State compact shall have been approved by the State legislatures and by the Congress of the United States.

The Arizona counterproposal makes no mention of the Colorado River compact or any of its provisions.

That is the end of the statement, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Are there any questions?

Senator ASHURST. I have just one question. I believe in the Arizona counterproposal they stipulate that each State involved shall have the right to appropriate the water at any particular place they wish; California at Boulder, if they wish; Arizona at Bridge, if they wish.

Mr. PANTER. That is true, provided it does not interfere with any beneficial or any other development of any other interested State. Senator ASHURST. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I may be addressing myself to Senator Ashurst. I have not had opportunity to study this counterproposition. Therefore I ask you: The proposition as a whole is based upon the contentions heretofore made by Arizona as touching her rights to the waters flowing entirely through that State, or flowing between Arizona and other States?

Senator ASHURST. That is correct.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. At some appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I think it will be helpful to introduce into the record copies of the orders of the Secretary of the Interior made pursuant to the enabling act.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Senator, can you find that record?
Senator SHORTRIDGE. I think I can do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Or if not, we can instruct the secretary of the committee to do so.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I think they have been sent to my office. Whether they include all of the orders under that act I do not know.

Senator PITTMAN. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Piitman.

Senator PITTMAN. I do not quite understand your analysis of the Arizona proposal with regard to the proportionate interests of the States in the power as based upon the amount of water now in the respective States. Will you give that again and explain it?

Mr. PANTER. The Arizona counterproposal is apparently designed to cover all possible power developments in which any of the three lower basin States may be interested and demands for any projected construction in the main stream compensation for any lost power head, such compensation to be divided between the States within which such development occurs in proportion to the fall of the river in each State affected. Such counterproposal also allocates the amount of power along the main stream, when forming boundary line between the States, equally between such States.

Senator PITTMAN. I should judge from that I don't know whether you computed it or not that Nevada would get about 10 per cent, would it not?

Mr. PANTER. It would get a rather small share. I have not computed it exactly.

Senator PITTMAN. I think at some other time it was computed or estimated and put in the record. I think 10 or 15 per cent.

Mr. PANTER. It would be considerably below 50 per cent.

Senator PITTMAN. And California would not get anything, would it?

Mr. PANTER. No; not under that, unless it was allocated or leased to it by either one of the other two States.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. How is that? Unless it was what?

Mr. PANTER. Allocated or leased to it by either of the other two States.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, we can not look to Arizona for very much in view of the attitude taken by certain of her distinguished representatives.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Panter.

The concluding witness for California appeared before the committee in December of last year-William B. Mathews, special attorney for the city of Los Angeles on water and power.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM B. MATHEWS, SPECIAL ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ON WATER AND POWER, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. MATHEWs. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as indicated by the chairman, I appeared before the committee last winter on the former bill dealing with the same subject. I had not

expected to appear before the committee this time, but the propo nents of the measure felt that I should do so. If the committee will permit me, I should like to express a word in regard to the proposed plan of investigation of the river through another agency.

The CHAIRMAN. You refer now to the bill introduced by Senator King?

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes; if it will be proper for me to speak a word on that, I shall do so. If the chairman thinks not, I will refrain, of

course.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. MATHEWS. The southern country, including my city of Los Angeles, is affected by urgency conditions. That is particularly true of the Imperial Valley. This subject-that is, the subject of the development of the Colorado River, according to a statement of the Secretary of the Interior-has been under investigation one way or another for nearly half a century. Then Congress, moved by somewhat the same idea that seems to be inspiring Senator King's measure, made provision for an investigation officially of the problems of the river. That resulted in the A. P. Davis report. That report is found in Senate Document 142.

Then later came the investigation by Mr. Weymouth, who has just testified. He made a most elaborate and exhaustive investigation and report. The report apparently is so large that it has even deterred the committee from incurring the expense of printing it. That report, which I understand was made in 1923, was passed upon by an assemblage of distinguished engineers, including such men as Louis Hill, A. J. Wiley, James Munn, J. L. Savage, Mr. Dibble, and James Gaylord.

The CHAIRMAN. We are pretty familiar with all that record. Mr. MATHEWS. Yes. On March 17, 1924, Secretary of the Interior Work, in a report to the House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, said:

The Colorado River basin has been under observation, survey, and study and the subject of reports to Congress since the close of the Civil War. More than $350,000 has been expended by the Bureau of Reclamation since the Kinkaid Act of May 18, 1920. More than $2,000,000 have been expended by other agencies of the Government. The time has arrived when the Government should decide whether it will proceed to convert this natural menace into a national resource.

The CHAIRMAN. You simply are opposing further investigation under the plan offered by Senator King?

Mr. MATHEWS. Well, I hesitate to use the word "oppose," but I do hope that the committee will not inflict upon the territory with which I am identified any further delay in the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed with your statement.

Mr. MATHEWS. Mr Chairman, I will deal now specifically with the new bill. It is about the same length as the former measure and covers in a general way the same ground.

In section 1, however, it provides for a storage of not less than 20,000,000 acre-feet, whereas the former bill made no specification upon that point. Also section 1 of the new bill makes provision for repayment to the Government of the cost of the canals within 20 years.

In section 2 we have practically the same provisions as in the old bill, with the added provision that political subdivisions shall have time to vote and market bonds required to utilize allocations of power made to them.

Section 3 is about the same as in the former bill, with the added provision, which I wish to call particular attention to, requiring lessees of power privileges to pay to the United States one-half of the total rentals under their leases, in five equal annual installments payable during the first five years of the lease.

Section 4 is practically the same as in the former bill, but with this important exception, namely, the provision requiring payment by political subdivisions receiving an allotment of power privileges within the first five years of one-half of the total amount payable on such allotment. This section also contains a new provision authorizing the use of public and reserved lands for the construction, operation, and maintenance of power plants, works, and transmission lines.

The purposes of the provisions in sections 3 and 4 requiring payments in each case of one-half of the total amount involved is to put money in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior from outside sources during the active construction period. That is, if the dam is to cost $40,000,000 this requirement as to advance payment on account of leases and on account of allocations to political subdivisions would result in making available to the Secretary of something like $20,000,000 from these outside sources during the first five years of construction of the project.

Sections 5, 6, and 7 are substantially the same as in the old bill. Section 8 elaborates the principle indicated in the former bill for the protection of the upper basin States.

On that point the bill proceeds upon the theory that the Government would be in a position, as the owner and operator, perpetually, of the dam and incidental works and of the water impounded thereby, and of Government lands required to effectuate appropriations, to give complete assurance and protection to the upper States. The CHAIRMAN. That was a provision in the old bill.

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, but it was expressed in the most general terms. The details of this plan or principle is set out in the present new bill. I am speaking now of the provision of the bill for assuring the upper States in their rights under the so-called Colorado. River compact. I am simply seeking to point out that the Government under the provisions of this bill would be put in position to give complete assurance to the northern States in this respect.

The Government not only will be in complete ownership and control of the project, but it will have charge of the release of water from the dam. The water, whether used for power generation or for irrigation or other uses, will be under its control. The Government, therefore, will be in a position to not only handle the water in subservience to the interests of the upper States, according to the compact, but to place restrictions upon those who generate power or take water from the regulated streams so that they also will be brought under subjection to the interests of the upper States, as pro vided for in the so-called compact.

The CHAIRMAN. What section is that?