Mr. SIMMONS. If the only purpose is the protection of the Imperial Valley, is it necessary to build the Boulder Canyon dam to the height you propose, 600 or 700 feet? Mr. MULHOLLAND. The higher the better, up to 600 feet. Mr. SIMMONS. Can not the flood waters be controlled by a dam of lower height? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes; but the conservation of water against loss would be relatively better protected with a high dam. Mr. SIMMONS. Well, if we can control the flood waters and protect the Imperial Valley with a dam 200 feet high Mr. MULHOLLAND (interposing). It can not be done. Mr. SIMMONS How high would you have to go to protect the valley? Mr. MULHOLLAND. I would say the height of complete immunity would be about 400 feet. That can be read off the capacity curve: that I have not got with me. Mr. SIMMONS. All right. If building a dam 400 feet high is all that is necessary to protect the Imperial Valley, the balance of this expense is for the purpose of securing the power? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes; and in giving long life to the dam for any activity that may be required of it. Mr. SIMMONS. It is important to have a long life for the dam on account of its filling up with silt? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes; they have to be protected from silt as well as the onrush of the water. Mr. SIMMONS. But you have got silt anyway, whether the dam is 400 feet of 700 feet high? Mr. MULHOLLAND. You have got it, but you will not be bothered with it for a long period of time. Mr. SIMMONS. But anything you build above 400 feet would be for the purpose of power, and not for the purpose of protecting the Imperial Valley? Mr. MULHOLLAND. No; it would be necessary to protect the Imperial Valley and, besides that, we are going to expand the use of that water down there. You have heard of the many thousands of acres on which it can be used; the idea is to expend the water on new land. If that is done a greater amount of water will be required; and conservation is a very desirable feature of the use of this dam. Mr. SIMMONS. But I want to be sure that we understand each other. You say the primary purpose of building the dam at Boulder Canyon is to protect the Imperial Valley, and that could be done with a dam 400 feet high, in your opinion? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes. Mr. SIMMONS. Then anything we build beyond that is with the idea of conserving water for irrigation or for the water supply of Los Angeles and for power? Mr. MULHOLLAND. And power; yes, sir. Mr. SIMMONS. Now, is there any other place on the river that a dam could be built that would protect the Imperial Valley? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Not that I know of. You can go up to Lee's Ferry and build a dam, but that is not an attractive propostion; the power feature is not attractive, because it is a long ways from market. Mr. SIMMONS. What difference would there be in the cost of building the dam 400 feet high and the contemplated height of the Boulder Dam? Mr. MULHOLLAND. I will be followed by engineers who can give you that better than I can. Mr. SIMMONS. Could you develope any power out of a dam 400 feet high? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes. Mr. SIMMONS. How much? Mr. MULHOLLAND. In proportion to the height of the dam Mr. SIMMONS. How much in proportion to a dam 600 or 700 feet high? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Less than one-half as much. Mr. ALLGOOD. It would not be economical? Mr. MULHOLLAND. No. Mr. SIMMONS. Could the city of Los Angeles get its water supply out of a dam 400 feet high? Mr. MULHOLLAND. The height of the dam has nothing to do with the water supply of Los Angeles, or only as a desilting agent. We have to be assured of that. We can not pump water without taking silt out of the water. We have to rectify, put the water in a condition to pump. The CHAIRMAN. How long would it take from the receipts of a 400-foot dam to reimburse the Government for the expense of it? Mr. MULHOLLAND. That would be a slow process. You would get very much less for your water, very much less for your power, and it would not be an attractive proposition to do that. The pumping of the water for the city of Los Angeles would take off the top of the pile we would take too much of that. The CHAIRMAN. And if we were deprived of the receipts from the sale of the power besides the receipts from the sale of water to Los Angeles, we would probably not be able to get the money back for 75 years. Mr. MULHOLLAND. It would be a long deferred operation. Mr. RAKER. A 150-foot dam at Boulder Canyon would have the same effect on the floods as a 150-foot dam at Needles, would it not? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, I think there is probably a little to be said in favor of Needles. That is my opinion. I am not so awfully sure of that, but in fairness I want to say that I think the 150-foot dam at Boulder would not store as much water as Mr. RAKER. I am not talking about the storage, but about the floods. A 150-foot dam at Boulder would prevent flood ordinarily? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes. Mr. RAKER. The same as a 150-foot dam at Needles? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. The foundation, the preparation, the equipment to start a 150-foot dam at Needles would be practically the same as to start a dam for 600 feet at Boulder Canyon? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes, sir; but I will say that I am familiar with the country around the site of the Topock Dam. There is an absence of material there that you can build a dam with. Mr. RAKER. What I am trying to get at from you as an engineer is this. To start a dam of 150 feet at Needles, to lay the foundation and get the material ready would cost about the same as to start at Boulder Canyon; that is, the original start would be about the same, whether you build the dam 150 feet or 600 feet? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. The first expense would be about the same? Mr. RAKER. But by adding more height you would get more value in storage of water, you would be able to have water for domestic purposes, and you would be insured of at least from one to three seasons where you could hold water and, in addition to that, you would be able to know that from the electrical energy that you could generate and sell the power, you would be able to pay for the dam within a reasonably short time, say 20 to 30 years? Mr. MULHOLLAND. All those propositions are true. Mr. RAKER. Then it would be absolutely-I will use a strong word-it would be against every interest to attempt to build a little, low dam down there, just to hold back the flood instead of building a dam that would answer all purposes, whereby you could get repaid, and in the other case probably not be repaid at all? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Why, one proposition would be a mere temporizing with the project or design that is before us. We are presented with a certain purpose. One way is to fool with it and the other way is to harness it and go to the bat and finish it. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it your idea that this river should be controlled by a single dam? Mr. MULHOLLAND. So far as controlling it is concerned, a single dam will do the controlling, but for the generation of power the thing is potential, an enormous thing. There are four or five million horsepower to be developed on that river, and as the country needs it the thing to do is to develop it as rapidly as the county needs it, and dedicate it forever to that purpose, to give it to no private enterprise. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. But you think the place to begin would be in that vicinity, the vicinity of Boulder Canyon or Black Canyon? Mr. MULHOLLAND. By all means. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You would not think it would be good judgment to put a dam anywhere else? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Not unless there was a promise in the neighborhood and within reasonable distance of distribution. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Suppose there was a dam on the Green River that controlled the run-off of the water-shed of the Green River, and a dam on the Grand River that controlled the flood during the period of the run-off, and one constructed below the junction of the Green and the Grand Rivers, whereby the flow of the river as it flowed through Black Canyon or Boulder Canyon is regulated and the flow is practically uniform, if we assume such a condition as that, and that the only purpose then is to protect the Imperial Valley and the adjacent country from inundation, would you say then it was necessary to build a dam 600 feet high? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes. If you have no contiguous demand for the power at those dam sites you named, no local demand for it within commercial distance of delivery, you would be accomplishing only one purpose and that only partially. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Let us assume that there is a market for the power generated at several points, do you think the Government should spend all its money at one point rather than distribute it at different points? Mr. MULHOLLAND. I do not know about those propositions that you speak of. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it not a fact that you men in Los Angeles have just got your minds fixed on having a dam 600 feet high, that your minds are set on that proposition? Mr. MULHOLLAND. I do not know that my mind is set on that. but I know my idea is founded on something else than avarice. We have a great and growing and insistent demand for power and water, and the people will not be denied if they can get it, and the people are going after it, and they are going after it in a laudable and praiseworthy manner. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Even to the extent of taking it over the range of mountains there, as you have indicated, and diverting it from its natural water-shed? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes. If there is any protest to be made to that, here is the place to make it. I will be glad to listen to it for one, and if it looks rational I will bow to the inevitable. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. So am I safe in assuming that if the funds are available that it is the well-defined purpose of the people of Los Angeles to take this water out of its water-shed and divert it to Los Angeles? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes; that is the well-defined purpose of the people of Los Angeles, to get a water supply, and not deprive anybody else of their rights. The people have paid for it and are satisfied with the payment. There was no coercion; there was no attempt to bluff or bulldoze anybody or rob anybody. The CHAIRMAN. The volume of water you propose to take is waste water anyhow, is it not? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes; it is. Mr. SWING. It is the same thing that the city of Denver is now doing in the upper State basin, is it not? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes; and it is perfectly justified in doing it. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You would not object, then, I suppose, to us putting a tunnel through the Wasatch Mountains and diverting the waters of the Green into Salt Lake Valley? Mr. MULHOLLAND. No; you will not hear any objection on my part. Mr. SIMMONS. I do not want to be taken as opposing this, but I want to get my viewpoint right. You take the position that a dam less than that proposed in height would not be practicable from a financial point of view? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, it would not be as promising; the results would not be as attractive. Mr. SIMMONS. Assuming that the Imperial Valley can be protected so that the cost of the protection will be repaid within a reasonable time to the Government, then would the city of Los Angeles oppose any alteration of this plan that would not include the development of power at Boulder Canyon? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, there is an economic question there. Mr. SIMMONS. You say Los Angeles wants water and it wants power, and there is an increasing demand for that, and you are going after it in a laudable manner. What I want to get at is if there is any real motive behind the insistent demand for the building of this dam as to the power as well as to the water? Mr. MULHOLLAND. No; the water is a new incident that was brought about by the fact that Jupiter Pluvius has failed to do as we expected him to do. There were only two inches of rain the last year, and that has brought about a very serious situation there. Mr. SIMMONS. If means were found to protect the Imperial Valley in some other manner, then would Los Angeles still ask for the building of this dam in Boulder Canyon? There is an economic Mr. MULHOLLAND. I believe we would. waste in letting it lie there. We are fortunate in the fact that every dollar expended there is expended so it gives a joint benefit; we all benefit by it. It is a happy circumstance, I think, that the building of that for one purpose aids the other purpose. I do not think that is to be deplored, is it? Mr. SIMMONS. I do not think so. Mr. MULHOLLAND. No, sir. Our interests lie parallel along one light. I think that is a very happy conjunction of circumstances. Mr. RAKER. Suppose the Government would not build the dam and supposing that it would still stand out, as it ought to, against turning it over to private ownership, corporations, with the condition. there as to the Imperial Valley, and the great interests in Arizona and Southern California and Nevada, the great interests they naturally have in the construction of a dam, considering the value of a dam constructed at Boulder Canyon, 600 or 700 feet high, with the electrical energy that could be developed there, would Los Angeles undertake the project rather than see her people go thirsty? Mr. MULHOLLAND. We would have to go to the most extreme lengths, to the fullest extent of our credit, to get a water supply. It is a proposition not to be brought into question at all as to what we would do in desperation, and our condition can be easily made desperate. Mr. RAKER. In other words, that development should not go into private ownership and it ought to be done; is that your view? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Strongly, sir. That is my view, ineradicably. Mr. ALLGOOD. Are there other cities in Southern California in the same condition that Los Angeles is in? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes; all in the same boat. Mr. Simmons has been addressing his questions as though it was only the city of Los Angeles. Our whole region is concerned, and we have a lot of cities that are growing rapidly and in a high state of prosperity. Mr. RAKER. This is not a question intended to arouse any feeling, but if Los Angeles needs the water so, and the other cities do, too, Los Angeles, with its enormous population and power and wealth perhaps would give these other little fellows an opportunity to get water to drink, too. Is that so, in your judgment? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Well, we are inviting cooperation and we are getting it most heartily and earnestly from nearly every community, Almost every community in the South has been heard from. Mr. RAKER. You are satisfied that there would be no feeling between Los Angeles and the other cities in the State? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes: I am. Mr. RAKER. All are in accord and working in harmony? |