thinking people there, new or old, the thing has been ratified heartily; there has not been an objection to it.

Mr. GARBER. Has the city council considered the matter?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. We have talked about it. I am quite certain. of a universal and unanimous ratification of the whole project when I tell them the whole situation. I have told them a part of it. They have always been in the habit of taking my word. I am the authority there-unfortunately for myself, as it makes my task a little hard. But when it is shown to them that there is no other means of existence, then they will ratify the proposition without any doubt. Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, may I say this though I am not yet under oath: I have been for many years the special counsel of the board of public works; and they have adopted a resolution approving the work which has been described, and looking to the water supply which Mr. Mulholland has been describing.

Mr. GARBER. Well, the amount of the appropriation has never been considered, or any of the engineering features?

Mr. MATTHEWS. Except through Mr. Mulholland.

Mr. GARBER. And the preliminary surveys. No estimate of cost, or anything of that kind?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. The surveys have never been completed. It is impossible to hazard a statement of the cost.

Mr. HAYDEN. How many acre-feet of water do you expect to obtain from the Colorado River?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Up to the extent to which we go, and always subject, of course, to our appropriation and the limitations imposed by the ownership of other people; we do not want to take other people's water.

Mr. HAYDEN. The quantity of water that you will need, however, is important.

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, I will give you that so that you can answer it just as well as I can: The city of Los Angeles, with her present population, is using about 510 second-feet of water.

Mr. RAKER. How many acre-feet? We have been talking here in acre-feet.

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes. Well, that is 1,000 acre-feet a day. Mr. HAYDEN. Then your present need is around 365,000 acre-feet per annum in the city?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. And you would need as much more from the Colorado River?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. That depends upon our growth. We have enough at the present time. We are close to the edge right now, by reason of the fortuitous accident-if it can be called an accidentfor two years; it emphasizes our need, and that we must not supinely sit down and wait for another dry year.

Mr. HAYDEN. A few more questions: You qualified yourself as an amateur geolgoist. I would like to remind you that at the hearing before the committee last year an engineer appeared who gave it as his opinion that it would be very unsafe to build a permanent dam of the type proposed at Boulder Canyon, for the reason that it was in an earthquake region; that if a concrete and stone dam were built there, an earthquake might crack it open, and there would be a tremendous flood and untold damage done by the discharge of the

water from the dam. Now, as an amateur geologist, and familiar with earthquakes in southern California, I would like to have you give us the benefit of your views on that subject.

Mr. MULHOLLAND. I have built about 40 dams in my time. And I have never built one that did not have that same condition urged by-I do not know whether they were amateurs like myself-but urged by citizens, that there was going to be earthquakes and destroy the dam. There is not a place on earth-in California, at least, or possibly on earth anywhere-exempt from earthquakes. The crust of the earth is a constant state of flux and movement.

The Los Angeles acqueduct, if that had been a permanent objec tion, would not have been built at all, because of all the tremulous places that I know of, I think our little lake around the mouth of Los Angeles aqueduct is the most tremulous. They talk about earthquakes two or three times a month in Japan. There are more than two or three earthquakes a month in the little lake at the mouth of that aqueduct; and one of our dams is built on a major fault. The city of San Joaquin is in the same situation. Both of the lakes that supply the city of San Francisco lie right in the line of the San Joaquin fault. And the earthquake of 1906 did no damage to that

system.

One of the fortunate conditions in connection with water supply when earthquakes occur is that geological faults do not open; they close tighter and tighter. It is due to the compression of the crust of the earth that earthquakes occur; and they squeeze the earth tighter at the faults. You can go anywhere around great mountain scarps, and you will see the effect of earthquakes. The ground gets tighter, where the faults exist. That is an absolute universal fact. Granite will be crushed by it.

Mr. SWING. Right on that point, may I ask Mr. Mulholland to describe the physical appearance at Black Canyon, say, where the site of the dam may be, with reference to any visible evidence of earthquakes in that vicinity; the walls of the canyon, for instance.

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, at the Black Canyon site, the erosion of the river acounts for the gorge there and the great mass of the rock there, manifestly; since the eruption took place which spewed out all of that lava, the country has sunk there at least 400 or 500 feet. The mouth of the volcano that threw out that lava is now away down lower that it was at that time.

Mr. SWING. Well, the wall is almost perpendicular on the Navada side. Would that show that it has remained for centuries perpendicular and will continue to do so?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, there is no danger to the rock there. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What would you say as to a point nearer the coast?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Nearer the coast the earthquakes are more frequent. But I was about to tell you our experience. Earthquakes have no terrors for us at Los Angeles. We have had our terrors. We have had no water. At this particular place that I will speak of

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). The earthquakes have some terrors for the Los Angeles press, have they not? [Laughter.]

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, I do not know particularly about the press. I do not pay much attention to the press anywhere; because

they have fits at irregular periods. A man trying to do useful work can not be paying much attention to what the press says or does; only occasionally as he needs their help he might go after them and encourage them, and get away with it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. There was one question I wanted to ask you seriously: What filings have you on the Colorado River for the purposes which you indicate?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. There are no filings at all. I am disclosing our intentions here, with no fear of interference or anticipation on the part of anybody. I think we always got in a nice way what we wanted; what we could not get by appropriation we bought. Everything that we got we got peacefully. We got all the water of Owens Valley that we wanted, and never had a lawsuit, never had a condemnation suit. We spent there in the neighborhood of $5,000,000, and never transgressed the rights of anybody. We went there and paid them--we settled for it.

Mr. HAYDEN. You spoke of depriving the irrigators of a water supply for their field use at the present time?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. Is there a provision in your agreement that the landowners and farmers who irrigate with waters from the Owens River aqueduct that when necessity requires they will abstain from the use of the water?

But

Mr. MULHOLLAND. There is no written agreement. It has always been implied. We said to them, in effect, "Boys, we will supply you this water, because otherwise it would be waste. Take it." that was always the implication of our act. And I have heard no objection whatever from the transferrence of the water from the irrigation use to the domestic use. We had to do that for a short period last year, about five or six weeks.

Mr. HAYDEN. What do you charge per acre-foot for water for irrigation?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Six dollars.

Mr. RAKER. You charge $6 for an acre-foot of water per annum? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Not per annum; per acre-foot.

Mr. HAYDEN. Then if the duty of water were two or three or four acre-feet in a year they would be paying $12, $18, or $24 for their water?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. That is correct.

Mr. HAYDEN. What kind of crops do they raise, that they can afford to pay such a high charge for water?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, they get away with it. I have known of men in the San Bernardino Valley paying for their land-paying what looked like extortionate rates for land, and paying for it out of the proceeds of one crop.

Mr. HAYDEN. Was it truck?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. For sale in the city of Los Angeles?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes, sir. Some of it is sent here to the East. Mr. HAYDEN. Would it be possible for a man to pay $24 per annum per acre for water, and use the land to raise alfalfa to feed his cows?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. They do.

Mr. HAYDEN. For dairy cattle?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes, sir; dairy cattle-the farmers have been paying $6 an acre-foot for four or five years; and not the farmers alone; but three or four dairies in San Bernardino Valley have been operating longer than that, and I know that they are prosperous; they have their customers right there.

Mr. HAYDEN. There is one other question I would like to ask Mr. Mulholland before we adjourn, because I am sure he is familiar with the situation. Judge Raker mentioned it the other day. There is a feeling in the State of Arizona that, inasmuch as the sources of the power to be used in the city of Los Angeles, and that great area around it, is to be within or partly within the State of Arizona, it is therefore a resource of the State of Arizona, and if the power is taken from there and transmitted into California it means the tremendous increase in your population which you anticipate and a tremendous increase in your wealth.

The feeling in Arizona is that, under the circumstances, there might be some sharing of that prosperity at its source by the imposition of a reasonable royalty upon the power developed within that State for use outside the State. And I would like to get your reaction on the question of the imposition of a royalty upon the power produced at Boulder Canyon-which is located between the States of Arizona and Nevada-for use in the State of California.

(Thereupon, at 11.30 o'clock a. m., a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS

The committee reassembled at 2 o'clock p. m.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mulholland, you may resume.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM MULHOLLAND-Resumed

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Mulholland begins, there was a question asked by Mr. Hayden just before recess which Mr. Mulholland did not have an opportunity to answer. And I will ask that the stenographer read that question.

(The stenographer read the question referred to:)

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, I would say as to that, that I can not see how Arizona or Nevada, or any district adjacent to the production of this power, and which, without doubt, will have as much need for power-possibly not in a quanitative way-in their industries; Nevada and Arizona have mining industries that will be greatly benefited by the installation of large power facilities at Boulder Dam-I think they will derive relatively as much benefit from that as they would be entitled to. There should be a certain comity on these kinds of things between adjoining States, as there is all over the Nation in many other things. The city of Los Angeles has built at great expense a harbor that we never thought of imposing, or levying any impost, against Arizona for the use of; they come there and use that harbor, and we are glad to have them use it; it all brings grist to our mill.

But the question is rather involved for me. I am an engineer; and that is a question of finances that I have not given any thought to; but there are many sides to it. Without doubt, Arizona and Nevada both will be greatly benefited by a large installation of a

power plant on the Colorado River at Boulder Canyon, or elsewhere. But with regard to the justification for imposing a royalty for the use of a site, that is a question which I have not given any thought to at all. You are asking for my reaction. I have not yet begun to act, let alone to react, on it. [Laughter].

Mr. HAYDEN. The rate of royalty would have to be such that you could afford to pay it. It would also have to be low enough so that if you could get power from some source in California where you did not have to pay any royalty, you would still find it to your advantage to use this power and pay the royalty; that would be true, would it not?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes; that might be true.

Mr. HAYDEN. Would it not come down, after all, to a question of the rate of royalty? For instance, if it was a very small rate spread over your million, or two or three million people who would be users of it, the aggregate of that small charge might amount to a considerable sum for the relief of the taxpayers of two of the smallest States in the Union, so far as population is concerned. Is there anything in the idea, if the rate is reasonable, as I have stated, that would prevent an understanding in regard to it?

Mr. SWING. May I ask the gentleman a question there, Mr. Chairman? Would the same thing apply to the Yuma project in Arizona, which diverts its water on California soil, and runs its main canal 12 miles on California soil, and uses that canal to get its water across into the Yuma Valley? Would the same principle apply

there?

Mr. HAYDEN. The question is pertinent. But I am trying to get from the witness what his idea is in regard to a royalty on power, because, as I stated in the beginning, there are a considerable number of people in my State who feel that something like that ought to be done. Therefore, I thought that subject ought to be discussed here.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you think the same principle would apply to the upper-basin States that furnish most of the water?

Mr. HAYDEN. I am simply stating a fact which I think the committee ought to know: That there are a considerable number of people in Arizona who feel that way about it.

There is another matter that I want to ask you about. I remember talking with you in Los Angeles this summer-I think it was you; at least, some one there told me that the quantity of water required to supply an acre of agricultural land, growing citrous fruits, for example, was about the same quantity as that which would be required to supply an acre of houses in that city.

Mr. MULHOLLAND. That is, with the average distribution of residences in the city. There are districts in a city, naturally, where there is a congested area; and, also, there are manufacturing areas that may use tremendously more than other parts of the city. But that is true; you take the mean quantity of water used and it runs about 2 acre-feet, spread all over the city, some parts of it sparsely settled and others densely settled.

Mr. HAYDEN. The present average is about 2 acre-feet?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. The present conditions require about that.

92265-24-PT 1—8