« PreviousContinue »
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Senator, can you find that record ?
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?
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?
Nr. 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 prop)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 exhanstive 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?
Mr. Mathews. Section 8; containing four subdivisions-(a), (), (c), and (d).
The CHAIRMAN. They are all new, not included in the original draft of the bill?
Mr. MATHEWS. That is true, Mr. Chairman.
Senator JOHNSON. Section 8 has four subdivisions. Those are new provisions of the bill.
Mr. MATHEWS. It is reduced in terms and more compact in its provisions. And you will find that that section is so worded that the Government is required to exercise its ownership and power of management over the project, to use its control over the water im. pounded, to use its authority over the public domain and lands of the Government so that its own operations and the operations of those who may gain rights in the waters of the river or in the waters issuing from the dam will be in complete subordination to the provisions of the seven-State compact, and thus will preclude these interests from acquiring or asserting any rights arising out of this development as prior rights to those secured to the upper States through the compact.
The CHAIRMAN. If the contention of Arizona be correct, namely, that it owns the bed and banks of the stream, and therefore has a vested right to generate and dispose of the power that might be developed in the Colorado River, would this section 8 in any way offend that view of Arizona?
Mr. MATHEWS. Of course that brings up the question whether the Government can have a project or not on the river as against the State of Arizona. Upon that I am perfectly clear from an examination of the law, and will either discuss it right now, or later, if the chairman prefers.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I just wanted your opinion on the question I propounded.
Mr. MATHEWS. I say if Arizona does own the bed of the river and owns the waters it will not preclude the United States from undertaking a project of this character. If Arizona is correct in its view that this is a navigable stream, and therefore its bed and waters are under its control, still the Government of the United States, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, would have authority in reference to this stream to improve and control and handle it so that it will cease to be a menace to the people of the United States and their properties who are constantly endangered by its floods. That is, the Congress would still have its constitutional authority over the stream assumed to be a navigable stream. So that it is immaterial whether it is navigable or not, the Government, in either event, has a basis of authority for the proposed development. In other words, if it is navigable the Congress can take hold of the stream and see that it keeps within its banks and ceases to be a menace and danger to the people of the United States who live along the lower reaches of the stream.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you think, Mr. Mathews, that the Federal Government has a superior right which would give it power of domination of the stream?
Mr. MATHEWs. I think so. But I also think this, from an examination of the history of the stream, that it is not a navigable stream. In the test that has been prescribed by the courts, even though it may theoretically be navigable, it has ceased to be a practical utility, a commercial utility in connection with transportation.
The CHAIRMAN. In section 8, subdivision (a) you state that it would cause the obligation on the part of the United States in the operation of the canals to be controlled by the provisions of the compact signed at Santa Fe.
Mr. MATHEWs. That is the seven-State compact.
Senator JOHNSON. If you will look at the last section, section 13, you will see it referred to.
Mr. MATHEWS. In section 13 we have a provision in regard to the compact for the purpose of putting the seven-State compact into effect as a six-State compact.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have not had the time to look at this bill. It was just simply brought to our attention a few minutes ago. Will you not state, Mr. Mathews, concisely, what effect this bill has upon the compact if executed or if not executed, and what you have done in the present situation to make possible the construction of the dam?
Mr. MATHEWS. This bill, in section.13, provides for the approval by the Congress of the compact as a six-State compact, upon it being approved by the signatory States. That puts the seven-State compact into effect so far as the six States are concerned. Presumably those will be the six States other than the State of Arizona. So that with the approval of the six States and of the Congress we will have a complete compact so far as those States are concerned.
The CHAIRMAN. Your six-State compact has not been executed yet?
Mr. MATHEWS. The six-State compact has been ratified by six of the States, including California.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, was it not necessary, however, to get a reaffirmation in view of the reservation placed there by the State of California ?
Mr. MATHEW's. There is no reservation, Mr. Chairman, at all, affecting the terms of the seven-State compact. Not a line, not a word or a comma or any sort of mark has been changed, or is proposed to be changed. The California Legislature ratified without reservation the compact, which had been framed as and for a seven-State compact, but attached to that simply the condition bearing upon the date when that compact should become operative as to California. It might have stated that that compact as to California should become operative on the 1st day of January, 1927, and the legal effect of the condition it attached would have been exactly similar. It simply fixed a date in the future, a contingency in the future, which would mark the time when the compact thus ratified by the legislature of California should become operative as to that State. The text of the compact remains as was contained in the socalled seven-State compact. It is the seven-State compact proposed