Page images
PDF
EPUB

hand on people or organizations who directly and affirmatively oppose this particular proposition; that is, the Swing-Johnson bill. But there is well-known opposition to this and to any similar and like improvement, and there was opposition two years ago to the same thing. In southern California it is well known to almost everyone who takes interest in this kind of public work that there is opposition to it.

I will refer you to a little bit of it, and in doing this I want to speak with the utmost respect, and with the utmost toleration; because I like to grant everyone else their viewpoint in these public questions, the same as I am tenacious of my own.

But the objection, to my mind, is very fundamental. It does not matter very much what my little personal opinion may be, or the opinion of some employees of a company may be. It is whether these great agencies, the private power companies, are fundamentally opposed to this class of legislation, and whether they seek to prevent it. I have here Document No. 142, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session, entitled "Problems of the Imperial Valley."

Mr. RAKER. Is that a Senate document or a House document?
Mr. SWING. Senate document.

Mr. EVANS. A Senate document; a letter from the Secretary of the Interior. On page 294 of this document appears this statement by Mr. R. H. Ballard, vice president of the Southern California. Edison Co.:

The Southern California Edison Co. has filed applications with the Federal Power Commission for the development of the power possibilities of the Colorado River.

Then, skipping some of it, and reading again:

The company's plans for financing the project are along the same lines as those which it has successfully followed in its California developments. The company's credit and position in the financial world are such that we are assured that bonds can be marketed to cover two-thirds of the cost of construction, through investment bankers, to the investing public, and that stock of the company can be sold to supply the remaining one-third.

On page 295 of the same document, dated Riverside, Calif., December 12, 1921, appears a statement in behalf of the Southern Sierras Power Co. and its allied companies, the Nevada-California Power Co. and the Holton Power Co., signed by A. D. Wise, vice president and general manager, and made by Judge Craig, I think, of our city. But these were statements made at a meeting of the League of the Southwest.

Mr. RAKER. Is that A. D. Craig?

Mr. EVANS. Judge Hugh Craig. In speaking of the develop ent, he said at the bottom of page 295:

We believe that this could best be done through the agency of private capital. and through the plan proposed by the Southern California Edison Co., as being the best adapted to accomplish the desired result.

On page 296, he follows with this statement:

We believe that the second best agency is for the United States Government to build all that part of the works having to do with land reclamation, such as dams, reservoirs, head gates, flumes, etc., the generating plants to be built by private capital, effecting a proper distribution by sale through the great privately owned, regulated public utilities, which alone, with their network of transmission and distribution lines already reaching into all parts of those

States entitled to and which can by reason of location participate in the use of this electric power, can provide a proper and adequate distribution.

We are firmly against the delivery of this great natural resource into the hands of any city, or group of cities, for development or distribution, for the principal reason that it would effectually prevent the participation therein of those towns and cities, mines, and ranches which are not financially able, or, as individuals, are too remote to build their own transmission lines. Such a plan would confine the benefits to the few congested centers which, by such preference, would build up and fatten on the needs of those less fortunately situated.

Mr. RAKER. Just before you pass that, will you give us those names the Southern California Edison Co.?

Mr. EVANS. The Holton Power Co. and the Nevada-California Power Co.

Mr. RICHARD. Are those the only three companies-the Southern California Edison Co., the Holton Power Co., and the NevadaCalifornia Power Co. ?

Mr. SWING. And the Southern Sierras Power Co.

Mr. EVANS. They are all the Southern Sierras Co., except the Edison Co.

In connection with that, and of the same character, is a statement in the second annual report of the Federal Power Commission, House Document 473, on page 273.

Mr. RAKER. What Congress?

Mr. EVANS. Sixty-seventh Congress, third session; on page 273 are shown the filings of the Southern California Edison Co. of 3,300,000 horsepower.

Mr. SWING. Where are the other filings?

Mr. EVANS. On page 278, and No. 258 of that page, are filings of 1,200,000 horsepower, both of those being upon the Colorado River. That, taken in conjunction with the statement I read from Mr. Ballard, shows the tremendous amount of horsepower that they have filed upon up and down this river.

In Riverside, Calif., at this meeting that I referred to, a letter of Mr. John B. Miller was read, Mr. Miller being president of the Southern California Edison Co. This was in December, 1921, at this same meeting of this League of the Southwest, and this letter was read by Mr. R. H. Ballard, vice president of the Southern California Edison Co., and it says:

The Southern California Edison Co. has filed applicatoin with the Federal Power Commission for development of the Colorado River from Glen Canyon to the Gulf of California. The company's applications provide that the development shall be undertaken from the standpoint of, first, flood control; second, irrigation; third, power development.

During 28 years of pioneer water power building in California, the company has built up an organization entirely adequate to perform this task, from the standpoint of engineering construction and management, and has established credit upon which to finance the entire undertaking.

Immediately upon securing the necessary Federal and State authority, the work will be undertaken vigorously, involving the expenditure of from thirty to forty millions a year, which the company is well able to make. This will be sufficient to remove the menace of flood destruction, provide a dependable, continuous supply of water for irrigation, and provide for the development of power in units large enough to meet the demands under the most economical conditions.

Answering those objections, I would say this:

Riverside is one of the oldest cities in the State-or, for that matter, in the country, so far as I know-that has owned and operated

continuously now for a period of 30 years its own electric light plant. We have a small steam plant; we buy most of our other energy from the Southern California Edison Co. and a small portion from the Southern Sierras Power Co.

I want to say in justice, because I am not wild on these propositions at all, that we have been given good service by both of these companies, and our relations are all right.

But we feel this way-and I think I voice the overwhelming opinion of the people of southern California-that in the development of a tremendous possibility like the Colorado River that we are now considering, to turn that over to private development for power they are able to do it, of course; they have the organization and they have the capital-would mean that we would have to pay that overhead for all time: certainly for the first 50 years of the leases that the Federal Power Commission act provides for.

Now, we claim that we have just an intelligent people, just as well informed people, just as good education, and just as much incentive, and that we can provide the necessary capital ourselves, as cities, irrigation districts, districts to be formed under certain new State laws that we have under consideration-provided that this kind of legislation passes.

No one, no organization, nobody, has any mortgage in these days upon education or upon ability to do things. And one group of men can be injected into something even if it is as technical as the electrical business, just as well as any other group of men.

Now, to pay forever, or for 50 years, that charge upon development, when at the end of the 50 years we would have no ownership we would have nothing to show for it-would be a hardship.

Whereas if we develop it ourselves, with our own finances, and then pay each year what we would pay them with an overcharge, with, perhaps, some addition at the end of the 50 years or in a certain number of years, we would not only have the same service that they would have given us, but we would own the works.

That is an economical thing. Our people in southern California are not wild on municipal ownership. I think we go at it very carefully. We are not municipal ownership people in the majorityin the abstract. We are municipal ownership people in concrete instances, where we have been able, as we have in this problem, to give it study and attention for a reasonable number of years, and after presenting it, as we have repeatedly-as I have personally, in my feeble way to our different public organizations and have then said to them," Now, gentlemen, do not sign that paper; do not vote to approve this thing unless you want to. We do not urge any one to join this. If you feel that southern California and the State should commit itself to this kind of development here and elsewhere, then you can join and come in on this work. If you do not feel that way, do not do it." And you can see the result in this list. I want to give you one other reference:

In the hearings before the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands in the Sixty-seventh Congress, second session, on H. R. 11449, part 4, dated June 28, 1922, on page 190 thereof, appears this statement by Senator Phipps:

Therefore, I am not aware as to what interests are behind the proponents of this measure; but so far as my personal information is concerned, I have

made some inquiry, and I have been unable to learn of any community of citizens in the Imperial Valley or the Coachella Valley, in California, who are asking for the construction of Boulder Canyon Dam at this time.

Now, gentlemen, that was after all of our people had appeared here two years ago and made these statements repeatedly.

On page 192 of the same document, after Mr. Hayden had called his attention to the fact that numerous gentlemen had appeared here as proponents, and named them, Senator Phipps continued:

Mr. Chairman. I do not change my statement at all that, upon inquiry. I am not aware of any community of citizens in California who are asking for action at this time on any measure of this character; and I submit that, since the various States that are interested in the waters of the Colorado River have appointed commissioners, who, in conjunction with the Federal representative, Mr. Hoover, acting as chairman of the commission, are considering the matter of the allocation of the waters of the Colorado River, it would be very strange indeed if the Federal Government should make an appropriation of some $70,000,000 to enable one community or one section of the country, that can use the water of the Colorado for irrigation purposes, to set up a prior claim or right by the use of those waters, while these negotiations are in progress at this time.

And at the bottom of the page he says:

This bill has, among other provisions, one giving priority in the matter of developing hydroelectric possibilities by communities which would, to my mind. have the effect of cutting out competition upon the part of the public utility companies, such as the large companies now supplying California and Nevada with hydroelectric power.

Mr. HAYDEN. Would you object to my asking you a personal question at this time?

Mr. PHIPPS. No.

Mr. HAYDEN. I have been told that you have considerable financial interest yourself in the California power companies. Is this true?

Mr. PHIPPS. I am interested, and have been for years, in one of the small companies out there-and in the company that, by the way, has furnished hydroelectric power to the Imperial Valley.

And then I would refer you to the rest of it, on page 193, one section of which reads as follows:

There will be a great and ever-increasing demand for power, and I think we are only on the eve of development. So far as that is concerned, I think the possibilities of the Colorado River should be carefully considered, and that they should be developed; but we must be careful to develop them along proper lines. I do not want to see Los Angeles, with its very apparent desire-and I say that unhesitatingly-to bond its citizens for the purpose of going into the hydroelectric power business, in competition with public utilities companies, which companies are financed by private resources.

Now, gentlemen, I have seen men work themselves up wildly in the discussion of questions of this kind. I am not going to do that: I will say only this:

A public utility service in any city, to be wholly successful. must of necessity be a municipal monopoly-absolutely. You can not get away from that. That is what we are in Riverside. It is not only the possibility of the rates, and the absolute probability of getting away from these continuous charges; but it is a question of very many minor things that go to make up the beauty of your city-for instance, in the setting of poles; underground wiring; the distribution of the earning power of that to provision for lesser things in your city, like your street department, or paying out money in emergencies, which we have done repeatedly in the city of Riverside (and we are relatively small--those are the things that attract us to this

kind of ownership and development in a case like this on the Colorado River.

Now, I represent, I think, more than most of the gentlemen on our committee, the consensus of opinion of the agricultural districts in the three counties of Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange. The other gentlemen represent just as much in their respective counties.

For many years, for reasons that I do not need to go into-I have a wide acquaintance in those three counties-I have had the confidence of the people of those three counties, which I greatly appreciate; and it is largely at their request that I am here giving my time to help this along.

But we feel that, if proper safeguards are made, which have been made between us and the city of Los Angeles, by conference and vote, and a personal letter to me from the city council there, and from its board of public works-there is no incentive and no desire on the part of Los Angeles, or the large centers of population, which Senator Phipps referred to here, to do any injustice to the small cities, or to the smaller communities; and indeed, for over two years, I have repeatedly, in numerous public documents, and in numerous conferences with the larger centers like Los Angeles, Pasadena, and Long Beach-the two city managers of those two cities-received assurances that this resource would be equitably and reasonably divided between our various communities. And we in the smaller cities of twelve or fifteen or twenty-five thousand population, believe this and have confidence that we will receive just treatment. If we did not, we would not be here.

We are here in good faith to have this river developed by the Government; and then to let those communities and governmental agencies, as outlined in the Federal water power act, have the benefit of it; and when objection is made that this gives a preferential right to the municipalities in the first instance, you are but following the orderly procedure of what you said yourselves here in Washington when you passed the Federal water power act, which, in itself, gives preferential rights to communities; and if you took that section of the Federal power act on one side of the sheet, and the provisions of the Swing-Johnson bill on the other side, you will find that they are identical in meaning, and almost identical in language, varying only as it was necessary in drawing the bill to fit this case.

So that we are not injecting our personal opinion of what should be done. We are taking advantage of laws that we find here in our own Government.

Now, gentlemen, you have lots of people appear before you to argue these things. Some of them, as I say, get very intense. I do not want to assume to much. But I do not see how, in any reasonable length of time, or in any length of time, on a proposition of this magnitude, you could get a body-leaving myself out-of representative people, representing representative communities of American citizens, after long and careful presentation publicly, who would be more in accord than we are. And it has been publicly done. There has been nothing covered up. This has been widely disseminated in our State-and I do not know how you would get a more representative body of American people, representing agricultural, manufacturing, farm bureaus, irrigation districts, mutual water companies, improvement clubs, and altruistic people, if I may say

« PreviousContinue »