Mr. HAYDEN. What kind of formation did you find in the bottom? Mr. BARRE. A sandstone rock.

Mr. Hayden. Similar to the Canyon Walls?

Mr. BARRE. Yes.

Mr. HAYDEN. Is the rock in the walls at Glen Canyon suitable for concrete aggregate?

Mr. BARRE. Not the rock that you would use for concrete aggregate. There is better rock within reaching distance.

Mr. HAYDEN. If you were building a dam at Glen Canyon, to about what height would you build it? Where would you get your ma

terial?

Mr. BARRE. The general plan of the work, aside from some additional length of transportation, is very much the same as in any other place on the river. I think there has been too much consideration given to getting an extremely narrow place on the river to do the work. I think the extra width at Glen Canyon could be used to divert the river during low-water periods from one side to the other to get the foundations down with a minimum of long tunneling. Perhaps a single long tunnel would answer the purpose there by shoving what was left of the current from one side to the other and getting the foundation down.

The rest of the job is entirely a matter of transportation. There are two ways to get in. One would be a railroad from the Santa Fe, and I think the more favorable one would fit in with some work which I understand the Union Pacific has in mind of an extension of their railroad to the north rim of the canyon. If that were done it would be a matter of only about 30 or 35 miles to continue the extension on to the crest of the rim above Glen Canyon, and with that done construction facilities would be quite convenient.

Mr. HAYDEN. How high a dam would you construct at Glen Canyon if you were building it?

Mr. BARRE. My idea on that is to line with the general thought I have had all the time, that you should anywhere on the river build not more than enough to take care of necessities which you can expect to have to meet in a reasonable length of time. To build a dam of 600 feet or so high you would have storage conditions practically the same as at Boulder, you would have flood control more than you have any use for, you would have increased water supply, more than the country will need for a good many years, because it does take a long time to bring settlers into an irrigation scheme and build up the country.

So that I think a development at that point should start with a dam in the vicinity of, say, 300 or 350 feet high, which would take the top of the flood off, and which would supply such water deficiencies as now exist. In the course of 10 or 15 years perhaps another 100 feet would be put on top, and in the course of another 10 or 15 years an additional extension would be put on it until the necessities of the growth of the community were met.

The same thing would occur at Boulder Canyon; that is, an initial installation of, say, the same magnitude, something like 350 feet would take care of the immediate necessities, and then in coordination with all the other elements of the river it would be a very valuable place in connection with the whole development.

Mr. HAYDEN. If your company had the right to develop the river, where would you build the first dam, at Boulder, Black Canyon, or Glen Canyon?

Mr. BARRE. If our company had the whole thing before us, we would first form a coordinated plan for the development of the whole river and pick out the item in that plan that was the most advantageous. I think that what we would do would be to start at a convenient point between Boulder and Black Canyon, in that territory, and build a dam of moderate height, perhaps 350 feet, which would give a large amount of primary power and a very great amount of secondary power which could be quite usefully used in connection with the existing steam plants in the California market. In other words, it is not necessary at the kick-off to have 100 per cent primary power. You can fit your power job to what you have

to do.

That could be followed then by a similar construction at Glen Canyon which would automatically increase very materially both the primary power and the secondary power at the lower site.

Mr. SWING. How soon would you make the construction at Glen Canyon?

Mr. BARRE. Just as soon as the growth of the country would re

quire it.

Mr. SWING. You mean the growth of the power market?

Mr. BARRE. The power market and the water. Probably the power would be the determining factor, because I think the country is going to grow faster in its requirements for power than it is in its requirements for water.

So the next step would probably be the change of the main storage location from the lower site to the upper site and the complete utilization of the total head of the lower site for additional power and for reregulation of the river.

Then the next steps after that power was absorbed would be additional power dams at convenient locations as the growth of the power load demanded. Diamond Creek is one that is particularly good, and there are others.

Mr. HAYDEN. The power locations would be in the region of Marble Canyon between Glen Canyon and the Grand Canyon National Park, and from the western boundary of the national park down past Diamond Creek to Boulder Canyon?

Mr. BARRE. I should think primarily down stream from the naonal park. There will be around a million and a half horsepower down stream from the park and that is going to take a long time to se up, and development above as I see it is a long ways in the future.

Mr. HAYDEN. The advantages of developing power down stream distance to the California power market? rather than above the national park is the saving in transmission

Mr. BARRE. The saving in transmission distance, and because the sites are better and construction facilities are better.

Mr. HAYDEN. Have you given consideration to the construction of
a dam in the Mojave Canyon near Topock for power purposes?
Mr. BARRE. I have inspected the site, and have given it some

consideration.

Mr. HAYDEN. How does that development impress you?

Mr. BARRE. The Topock site, in the ultimate plan of development, has very valuable properties. Ultimately the development of the river must consist of a big regulating reservoir as high up the river as possible, say Glen Canyon, and a series of lower. power dams, to develop the head down the course of the river; and at the foot of the hill a reregulating reservoir of moderate size which will reconvert the flow of the river as it may be distorted for power purposes to fit the purposes of irrigation, and also to develop power from the discharge of that water in the nature of secondary power, which has also a commercial value.

Mr. HAYDEN. Could much secondary power be produced at the Mojave Canyon or Topock site?

Mr. BARRE. I made some rough estimates on the Mojave Canyon that if, for example, it should be determined that Mojave Canyon should be built in a hurry, which it can be it is a very quick and easy job and a comparatively inexpensive job-if it should be built in a hurry for the purpose of taking care of flood control, it would be possible to put in initially about 75,000 horsepower; and that could be worked up so as to fit into our system very well, even if it only ran for eight months in the year, allowing us four months for the purpose of draining the reservoir prior to the flood period so as to be sure to have it empty when the flood comes along, and incidentally while doing that to wash a large amount of the silt out of that reservoir and keep the storage for flood purposes. Now that might produce about 300.000,000 kilowatt-hours a year, and that would feed into a transmission line which would have to be there for the other plants, and if it was worth one-third of a cent at the plant that would be practically a million dollars revenue, which would easily carry the project.

Mr. HAYDEN. Suppose that the Topock Dam were built higher, say a 200-foot dam, that would, of course, necessitate the moving the Santa Fe Railroad tracks and drowning out the town of Needles. Mr. BARRE. I was thinking of one about 125 feet high.

Mr. HAYDEN. Would it be possible to build a dam up to 200 feet at the Topock site?

Mr. BARRE. You can get it much higher, but I do not think it is advisable, because ultimately you have got to have the same amount of storage somewhere else above in developing the general scheme, and there is no use spending the money in two places, and your Topock site should be built for what it will do ultimately as a reregulating reservoir.

Mr. SWING. If your company was developing this and spending its own money would it spend the money at Topock?

Mr. BARRE. As a pure power proposition, I do not think it would be necessary, but if an arrangement was made by the Federal Go ernment whereby that was one of the conditions of the scheme it naturally would be done. It is perfectly feasible to work it in as part of the scheme.

Mr. SWING. You would consider it a burden imposed upon you as a condition for getting somthing else?

Mr. BARRE. I think we could make it pay its way out.

રી

Mr. SWING. But it is not your second, third, or fourth choice of a site, is it?

asa

Mr. BARRE. It is not in the game as a distinctly power proposition.

Mr. SWING. If you had to give some flood relief you would try to combine the flood relief with some better power prospects than would exist at Topock, would you not?

Mr. BARRE. I do not know but what the quicker thing to do would be to build one of these other things first, and along with the other things I place Topock. I am very seriously considering that.

Mr. HAYDEN. What is the depth to bedrock at Topock?

Mr. BARRE. I do not know. I have never seen any figures on it. Mr. HAYDEN. There is a railroad bridge across the river there? Mr. BARRE. Yes.

Mr. HAYDEN. What is the depth to bedrock for the pier of the Santa Fe bridge?

Mr. BARRE. The depth of that is on record. Perhaps Mr. La Rue knows.

Mr. LA RUE. Seventy feet.

Mr. BARRE. The Topock bridge?

Mr. LA RUE. The Santa Fe bridge at Topock.

Mr. HUDSPETH. I want to ask you, Mr. Barre, if a dam that you have described here at your original site-I do not recall the namesomething like 300 feet high, would be sufficient to protect the farmers in the Imperial Valley and the Yuma Valley from flood danger?

Mr. BARRE. If you built a dam in the Boulder Canyon district of about 350 feet you could give flood control above the requirements of the situation as well as developing power.

Mr. HUDSPETH. It would be ample to protect, then, would it? Mr. BARRE. Yes; it would take the danger off. It would not regulate the river 100 per cent, but it would take the danger part off. Mr. SWING. Give the capacity.

Mr. BARRE. I do not recollect the capacity. It is in your record in many places.

Mr. HAYDEN. There is one other power development that has been mentioned on the Colorado River at a site applied for by Beckman and Linden to the Federal Power Commission in the neighborhood of Parker. Are you familiar with it?

Mr. BARRE. It has been presented to us; yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. A dam is also suggested in the report of the Arizona Engineering Commission at approximately the same site, where a diversion dam might be built to take out water for irrigation in both Arizona and California. Could a diversion dam and power development be combined at that place?

Mr. BARRE. I do not know. We turned that proposition down when presented to us because the element of power in it was too small to stand the transportation charges.

Mr. HAYDEN. My recollection is that something like 75,000 horse power might be developed according to the plans of Beckman and Linden.

Mr. BARRE. Yes; 75,000 or 100,000 horsepower, and you could not fford to fool with it; it would not pay; and we gave no consideration to irrigation, because we are not in the water business.

a

Mr. HAYDEN. Have you made any study of the report of the Arizona Engineering Commission as to the lands that might be irrigated in Arizona from the waters of the Colorado River?

Mr. BARRE. I steer clear of irrigated lands.

Mr. HAYDEN. Have you made any study of the high-line canal project wherein it is proposed to build a dam at Spencer Canyon? Mr. BARRE. I have heard Mr. Maxwell discourse at great length on that.

Mr. HAYDEN. What is your idea about the feasibility of the Arizona high-line canal?

Mr. BARRE. It is utterly infeasible. If such a thing would be possible as Arizona wanting to get water on lands above the river, it would be very much cheaper than this high-line canal to develop power to pump the water out of the river. The same amount invested in a short section of the canal would pay for a power plant and the carrying charges on it forever as against that long canal in a country that is practically impossible of construction. As a matter of fact, I was never able to figure a canal having a slope much less than the slope of the river. I could not see how you could get it up far enough to do any good.

Mr. HAYDEN. The plan contemplates that the water would be raised by a dam to an elevation of 2,000 feet above sea level at the point of diversion.

Mr. BARRE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. And from there the water would flow down over the arid lands of Arizona.

You spoke with favor of the idea that is contained in the plan proposed by Messrs. La Rue, Turner, and Preston, in their report wherein they suggest diverting the water from the Colorado River above Parker, carrying it in a canal to Lighthouse Rock, then lifting it 200 feet, which would cover about 600,000 acres in the lower Gila Valley.

Mr. BARRE. I would think that a very small fraction of the cost of the high-line canal. A very small fraction of the cost would pay the construction and carrying charges on such a scheme.

Mr. SINNOTT. Mr. Barre, what is your formula for calculating the possible horsepower development when you are given the flow and the volume of water?

Mr. BARRE. Why, for power at the water wheel, the fall times the second-feet divided by 11 gives you about the horsepower for ordinary conditions. Sometimes, if you get a highly efficient wheel, you can divide it by 10.

Mr. SINNOTT. The fall times the second-feet divided by 11?
Mr. BARRE. Yes.

Mr. SINNOTT. That gives you the full efficiency?

Mr. BARRE. No: that includes the efficiency. You practically get about 80 per cent water-wheel efficiency: that is, water-wheel horsepower at the shaft of the water wheel, then your losses come off of that as you go.

Mr. LITTLE. Do you think the work at Panama sheds any light on the question of rock-filled work and concrete work?

Mr. BARRE. I do not know anything about the work at Panama. Mr. LITTLE. What is the highest big concrete dam you know of? Mr. BARRE. Why, the Reclamation Service has all the figures on that proposition. They can give them to you.