Mr. BANNISTER. That is the general proposition which I wish to support. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I have no disposition, Mr. Chairman, to question the gentleman's authority any further. Mr. RAKER. Well, do you represent any interest adverse to the development by the Federal Government? Mr BANNISTER. None whatever; and if I may state my personal opinion, and not bind those whom I represent personally, I favor the Government's owning the dam at Boulder Canyon. Mr. RAKER. In preference to and prior to any private interest or concern? Mr. BANNISTER. My personal opinion, do you call for? Mr. RAKER. Yes. Mr. BANNISTER. I do; and I can give reasons for that belief. Mr. BANNISTER. I represent no private interest whatsoever, of any kind. Mr RAKER. Just how can you represent those whom you say you represent without getting any compensation or getting anything for yourself? Mr. BANNISTER. I can say as to that that I have spent a great many weeks in the Colorado River matter. I do not know how many weeks the aggregate would be; probably as many as 9 or 10, or even, maybe, 11 weeks; and for the great bulk of that time I never have received any compensation whatsoever. For a portion of it, I did receive compensation from the State of Colorado. Mr. RAKER. And you expect no compensation in this? Mr. BANNISTER. Not a cent. Mr. RAKER. Well, have you got some theory that you would like to work out; is that the idea? Mr. BANNISTER. No theory, except my desire to see the entire basin of the Colorado River developed under equitable conditions; and I believe that the compact is essential to that development. Mr. RAKER. And you will explain fully why you think the compact is essential, will you, before you get through? Mr. BANNISTER. I will, if you desire. I had not expected to go into the compact to any extent, but if desired I can do so. Mr. RAKER. Well, I would like to have you do so. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we let him go ahead, Judge Raker, and make note of the questions we desire to ask? Mr. RAKER. All right. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Who summoned you, or requested you to appear here? Mr. BANNISTER. I forgot to say that, for something like a year or more, I believe, I have been chairman of the committee of the Denver Civic and Commercial Association on interstate streams; and I am also vice president of that association; and I have also been requested by its president, former Governor Ammons, of Colorado, to be present on this occasion. I have always taken great interest. in water matters. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You said that you are not on salary. Are we to understand that you are bearing your own expenses of coming here? Mr. BANNISTER. No; I am not bearing my own expenses. My expenses are borne by the Denver Civic and Commercial Association. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And by them wholly? Mr. BANNISTER. By them wholly. Mr. RAKER. What attitude are they taking? Mr. BANNISTER. On this compact? Mr. RAKER. What interest has the Denver Civic and Commercial Association? Mr. BANNISTER. It has this interest: It has, of course, the welfare of the State of Colorado, and also that of the city of Denver at heart. Put in concrete terms, that means that Colorado has, according to its State engineer, about 2,000,000 acres of land which may be watered from the Colorada River; and as to the city of Denver, it may be said that Denver's future depends upon a supply from that same source. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I take it, Mr. Bannister, that you have not got with you the telegram received from the governor of Utah? Mr. BANNISTER. No; I just came in here on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad; the train was late, arriving about 9.30, and I telephoned to the hotel and got those telegrams in that way. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have you any objection to furnishing me with a copy of that telegram? Mr. BANNISTER. Not the least. The secretary of this committee may call up the Wardman Park Hotel and have it read. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. No; I would just like to have a copy of that telegram. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Bannister. Mr. BANNISTER. As I said before, I have a great deal of sympathy for the State of Arizona. I know that she is eager to develop her agricultural areas. Personally, if the project warrants it financially, I should like very much to see a Federal reclamation project in the Gila River, as the citizens of that State desire. I should also like to see power generated for the benefit of the mines and other interests of that State. And I have a great deal of sympathy for the people of southern California. I have never been in the Imperial Valley, but from my contact with this problem, I have understood for a long time that the people in Imperial Valley are in yearly danger of being flooded out. I have also sympathy with the cities of Southern California in their effort to secure an adequate supply of electric energy. I know that Arizona and California are without coal, and that their future very largely depends upon hydroelectric energy. I know, too, that Nevada desires hydroelectric power for the mines of that State. So I have sympathy with the main purposes of this bill. I think my sympathies are somewhat increased by the fact that I know that we have found, in Southern California and Arizona, men who have done a great deal of good for the cause of the Colorado River compact, notably Congressman Swing of California, and Congressman Hayden of Arizona, whom I have never met--and I do not know whether he is in this room or not. So my sympathies are with the general purposes of this bill. I have studied the bill quite carefully, and I can see from the reading of it that it has four purposes. In the first place, the purpose of flood control. Second, the provision of storage water for irrigation and other beneficial uses. Third, the development of electrical power. Fourth, the provision of homes for honorably discharged soldiers and sailors. And it seems that in the accomplishment of those four objects five methods are proposed. In the first place, a dam and incidental works are to be constructed for the storage of a vast quantity of water. The bill does not state what the quantity to be stored is; but from my familiarity with the subject from what I have heard engineers say with respect to the Boulder Canyon project and with the probable cost of that project, I know that the dam is to be a very large one; that it is to impound more than the total average annual flow of the river. I remember that engineers have said that such a dam as that would probably cost something like $50,000,000. The second method is the construction of an all-American canal, a project with which personally I have sympathy; but I can say nothing as to the views of those I represent, because upon that point I have never consulted them. The third method is to construct the other canals to take the water from the river and spread it over various lands in Arizona and in southern California-a project, again, with which personally I have a strong sympathy. It seems to me that, with respect to those lower canals, the river is to be used as a conduit, and the water will be stored by the dam; and then after using the river as a conduit, the water will be diverted at a point lower down. The fourth method is for the Secretary of the Interior, by contract, to grant out rights or privileges to take water from the dam and use it in the generation of electrical energy. It seems to me that there may be more than one plant; in other words that there may be more than one power plant; there may be any number of power plants, as the Secretary of the Interior may deem best. The fifth method pointed out by the bill is that the lands belonging to the Federal Government may be reclaimed and may be opened to entry upon such terms as the Secretary of the Interior may deem best. Now, I said that I am in sympathy with the general objects of this bill. There are a few inquiries, which I should like to make-that is, rather than state any position upon them-in the interest of the bill itself, as to some provision which I think in their present form can not accomplish what those who have drafted it have in view. I wonder, for instance, whether they really intend to limit the uses of the waters to be drawn through the canals simply to power and irrigation uses? I should think, for instance, that they would want the right to use the water for municipal purposes, for domestic purposes, for stock purposes, and for general industrial purposes. And yet, from the language of the bill, it would seem that the only uses for which the water could be used through the canals is for irrigation and for power. Again, the bill declares that the title to the dam shall be in the Federal Government. It has nothing to say as to the title to the canals. I am wondering whether it is desired that there shall be a declaration to the effect that the Government shall own the canals, as well as own the dam? There is a provision in the bill to the effect that, when it comes to nonpolitical applicants, that is, those who are not representing political divisions or subdivisions of one kind or another, their power privileges shall be held under lease, for the period of 50 years, and then the provision contains a recapture clause, by which the Federal Government may take over the property at the end of the 50-year period, paying to the applicant the money which he has invested. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You mean 50 years lease of power? Mr. BANNISTER. Yes. That is, the provision is that applications which are approved by the Secretary of the Interior may enjoy the right to generate power from water discharged from the dam for the period of 50 years, with the right on the part of the Government at the end of the period to take over the property, or to see that it is leased to somebody else, provided the original applicant is reimbursed for the money which he has in the investment. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you favor that provision? Mr. BANNISTER. Do I favor that arrangement? As I was saying, I am raising questions in this part of my statement without having thought of the answers to all of them. But if you ask my personal opinion on that question, I say I favor the provision. It is the same provision which we have in the Federal water power act of 1920; and I can not see but what in dealing with private interests it is a perfectly just provision. Mr. LITTLE. Excuse me a minute for interrupting you. In the Federal water power act they get a grant of water power for 50 years at the same rate that they pay at the beginning. Do you think that rule ought to obtain here? Mr. BANNISTER. I do not quite understand your question. Mr. LITTLE. Under the Federal water power act, they fix the rate that you pay The CHAIRMAN (interposing). It is a uniform rate over the whole period, you mean? Mr. LITTLE. Yes. And do you not think it would be better if they would fix a rate for the first 10 or 20 years, and then fix a new rate? Mr. BANNISTER. I had not thought of that at all. My chief interest lies in another portion of the bill. Mr. LITTLE. I tried to get that provision vetoed in another bill but did not succeed. Mr. BANNISTER. I have forgotten the basis of remuneration under the Federal water power act. Mr. LITTLE. Is it the same in this bill, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. This bill does not attempt to amend the Federal water power act. Mr. LITTLE. Then that would be the law, would it? Well, I am not for that. Excuse me for interrupting you. Mr. BANNISTER. Well, at present, I am only asking questions. When this bill does go through, or one in the main like it-which I hope will go through some day-I should like to see these points considered before the bill is enacted, in order that the bill may be made all the stronger. Mr. LITTLE. Well, I hope that one point will be taken care of. 92265-24-PT 1-12 Mr. BANNISTER. The particular point I have in mind, with respect to the right of the Government to take over the property on the expiration of the lease, goes to this question: What is to become of the water right itself—that is, the appropriation right-on the expiration of the lease? Is the Government to take over simply the hydroelectric plant of the applicant, or is the Government also to take over the water right as well? But it And I ask that question because I know very well that the State of Arizona takes the position, as does my own State and as do six of the seven basin States, that all water rights come not from the Federal Government but from the State and under State law. The title to the land does come from the Federal Government. is the belief of all six of those States that water rights come from the State; and if the Government is to take over the plant at the expiration of the lease, should there not be an express provision here by which the Government becomes entitled to take over the water right as well? I simply ask that question. Mr. RAKER. Have you gone into that question, so as to enlighten the committee on it, as to just where the right does exist, as between the Federal Government or the States? Mr. BANNISTER. On that question I say this: That I do not think the bill as it stands now is so drawn-with due deference to Congressman Swing, if he drew it-that anyone can tell clearly from the bill where the intention is that the water right should vest: that is to say, whether it is to vest in the Government or in the water user, namely, the hydroelectric-plant owner. Now, I am quite sure of this: That the water rights in all of these Western States-that is, in six of these Colorado River Basin States-and also in the additional State of Idaho, all seven of which States have the same fundamental theory underlying their water systems, that the appropriation rights are created by the power of the States, and become owned for the first time by the individual or by the appropriator The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Did you intend to say Wyoming instead of Idaho? Because we are not in the Colorado River Basin. Wyoming is one of the seven States; Idaho is not. Mr. BANNISTER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Idaho is not in the basin; Wyoming is. Now, six of the seven States in the basin, and then in addition, the State of Idaho, have, fundamentally, the same system of water law. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I understand now. Mr. BANNISTER. And in all of those States the water rights are created by the State. They never belonged to the Federal Govern ment. Mr. RAKER. Just for information, now, so that you may put it in the record: Upon just what do you base that, that the States own the water? Have you any authorities, or have you anything to base that on that you can say to the committee so that it may go in the record? Mr. BANNISTER. Well, I can answer that question, I think, in part. Mr. SWING. You delivered a course of lectures at Harvard University on that subject, did you not? |