Mr. CRISWELL. We must have water.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, suppose there are the two things which you can have, but you can not have both of them at once; which one would you take first?

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, I do not know that I am in that position, and I do not know that it is a fair proposition to suppose a case of that kind. It strikes me that a supposition of that sort is a good deal like the boy who threw a rock at a fence rail and he hit a stump, and he said. "Well, there was a bird on that stump; I might have hit it."

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is a very happy illustration. Are you able to answer my question?

Mr. CRISWELL. As to which we want the worst?

Mr. SWING. He has stated that we could not get the water without the power to lift it over the 1,200-foot lift that the engineer who testified a few days ago said they would have to have.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What is the present greatest need of the city of Los Angeles; is it power or more water?

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, I do not know that I can say which is the greatest need.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. All right, Mr. Criswell; let us start this way: You are short on power right now to supply your customers, are you not?

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. All right. By your own reports you are not short on water at the present time, are you? By your own reports, gotten out by the authority of the body of which you are a member? Mr. CRISWELL. I will say this: That within the last three weeks an order has been issued by the bureau of waterworks curtailing the use of water in the city of Los Angeles. That, to my mind, would indicate that there is a shortage of water.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, Mr. Criswell, that happens in most of the western cities; they are anticipating that in my city right now. But still they are not short on general supply of water; there are seasons when we economize somewhat. The city of Los Angeles has gotten out reports, has it not, showing that there are great possibilities yet of conserving water in the basin where you get your present supply of city water?

Mr. CRISWELL. No.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You have not gotten out anything of that kind?

Mr. CRISWELL. I think not.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have you not had that written up recently in the city-as to the further development that this valley, whatever it is, where you are getting your supply would permit?

Mr. CRISWELL. I think you are somewhat confused, Mr. Leatherwood, because of the fact that the city has recently purchased a large number of additional water rights in the Owens Valley; it purchased them last year.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And you have represented-I mean the city has represented that there is still a large volume of water that can be conserved in that vicinity?

Mr. CRISWELL. I think you are mistaken on that point.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Are you quite sure of it?

Mr. CRISWELL. Why, I think you are mistaken.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, we will see before the hearings are over. Then you are unable to differentiate at the present time as to your needs that is, the need of one is just as great as the need of the other? I refer to power and water.

Mr. CRISWELL. Water and power. We have to have power in order to get water; and our need for the water, which I was just coming

to

Mr. ALLGOOD (interposing). Your proposition is that these things go hand in hand?

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes.

Mr. ALLGOOD. And you can not divide and separate them?

Mr. CRISWELL. We can not get water without the power to pump it over the lift.

Mr. ALLGOOD. You do not want to leave one and take the other? Mr. CRISWELL. No.

Mr. ALLGOOD. But take them both?

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes.

Mr. WINTER. To clear that up, the power that you are going to get to pump the water there will be used, will it not?

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes; that will be used: but, of course, we want additional power to supply our customers in the city.

Mr. WINTER. Well, the power to lift the water is not the power that you want to distribute to your people?

Mr. CRISWELL. No; it is not that power; but when I speak of power I am including both of those items.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now, this bill that you are advocating the passage of does not seek to take any money out of the reclamation fund, does it?

Mr. CRISWELL. That is my understanding.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. It is an appropriation out of the general funds in the Treasury?

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And that is the people's money?

Mr. CRISWELL. I so understand it to be. We are people out there in the Southwest.

Mr. RAKER. Suppose you did take some of the people's money raised by taxation from all over the United States; have you any idea but that that will be paid back to the people with interest?

Mr. CRISWELL. It will; and I will cover that before I finish, Judge Raker.

Mr. RAKER. Is it better-this is going to the generalities now-to utilize this water in generating hydroelectric energy, as well as in drinking it than to let it run to waste down in the Gulf of California?

Mr. CRISWELL. It is; and the water that is utilized in the generation of hydroelectric power is just as good to drink after it has been so used as it was before.

Mr. RAKER. Can it be used also for irrigation after the hydroelectric energy has been developed?

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes, it can; and it will water just as many acrefeet as though it had not been used for that generation.

Mr. RAKER. The truth of the matter is that that water that would be conserved and used for the purposes named is now going to wasteand not only going to waste, but is doing damage to American people?

Mr. CRISWELL. It is not only going to waste, but it is a menace every year to the lives and property of between 60,000 and 70,000 people in the Imperial Valley and the other valleys on the lower reaches of the Colorado River.

In 1905, the city of Los Angeles went 240 miles across the desert and purchased a water supply and built an aquaduct to bring that water into the city. We had about 165,000 people in Los Angeles at that time; and this water supply was supposed to be sufficient under normal conditions for a population of 2,000,000 people.

Our population has increased five or six fold since 1905. We now have very close to 1,000,000 people--950,000 to 1,000,000 people--in the city of Los Angeles.

Now, if we have a supply for 2,000,000 people, and it is a precarious supply in a series of dry years such as we are going through now, if the population of Los Angeles within the next 15 years should be double what it is to-day, we would be without water. In fact, the city could not double, because people can not live where there is not a sufficient amount of water to supply all their needs.

It will take several years to build the works to bring the water from the Colorado River into the city, and it will require a large block of cheap power to make that project feasible.

Mr. RAKER. How would your answers apply to the territory in Arizona, Nevada, and this great part of the southwestern part of California as you have applied it to Los Angeles-to the necessity of water, as well as the development of hydroelectric energy?

Mr. CRISWELL. In the city of Pasadena, which adjoins the city of Los Angeles, right at the present moment the water department of that city is frantically sinking wells to get an additional water supply. The city of Pomona, which is about 30 miles from Los Angeles, is doing the same thing, and I believe that every community in southern Carifornia is doing everything that it is possible for that community to do to try to augment their water supply in the present drought which is prevailing there.

Mr. RAKER. Under those conditions, I would like just to get your observations as to the desirability of letting this water run to waste: or turning it over to private corporations; or letting the Government develop it and then have all the cost repaid to the Government, with interest-as to which one of those three methods is the best?

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, I did not care to take up the time of the committee on that phase of the subject: because I felt that it had been very fully developed by previous witnesses here. But it seems to me that it is gross negligence on the part of the Government to allow an asset such as the Colorado River is to remain a menace to the people: instead of investing a small amount of money in the building of a dam which will store the waters which are now a menace, and make them an asset for the irrigation of additional lands, and to develop power at that point, which will repay in the course of years all the cost of the erection of the dam, together with the interest upon the money which was invested.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Are you in favor of the immediate construetion of the dam

Mr. CRISWELL (interposing). I am.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (continuing). Irrespective of whether the compact between the States is ratified or not?

Mr. CRISWELL. It seems to me that it is very possible that a reserve could be written into this bill which would be satisfactory to the States that are affected by the compact.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If, as a matter of law, such a reservation could not be made which would protect the upper basin States, in that event would you still be in favor of the immediate construction of the dam before the compact is ratified?

Mr. CRISWELL. I can not grant your premise, that it would be developed as a fact that that could not be done.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I did not ask the question for the purpose of discussing the legal question with you; but assuming that legally Congress could not allocate the water of the Colorado River to the upper basin States-I say, assuming that fact, are you still in favor of immediately constructing the Boulder Dam!

Mr. CRISWELL. I am, because I do not believe that your assumption is correct at all.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. But, Mr. Criswell, you are a man of business experience; you have been on the city council down there. I am not assuming that it is correct or incorrect; but assuming, for the purpose of illustration, that as a matter of law Congress has not the power to settle the rights of the States of the Colorado River Basin; assuming that to be true, are you still in favor of the construction of the dam immediately?

Mr. CRISWELL. I am, for this reason

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). In other words, you place your

Mr. SWING (interposing). Let him finish.

Mr. CRISWELL. Let me give you my reason for that answer.
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Certainly.

Mr. CRISWELL. From all of the Government reports which I have attempted to study on this matter, it appears to me that there is ample water in the Colorado River Basin for all uses that it can be put to.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, you heard the statement of the gentleman here at the last hearing-Mr. Rose I believe it was, Mr. Mark Rose-that you people down there did not propose to give the upper basin States a quitclaim deed to 7,500,000 acre-feet?

Mr. CRISWELL. I did not hear him make that statement. I was not present.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You were not present?

Mr. CRISWELL. No.

The CHAIRMAN. That was as to water for which they said they had a title.

Mr. ROSE. I did not make the statement for the purpose of having it go into the record.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. May I inquire now, Mr. Rose, whether you expect to cut that out of the record? Is it your intention to cut that out of the record.

Mr. ROSE. I did not make that statement at all. What I did say was this: That Imperial Valley objected, until that storage was provided, to replace that which they gave away. That is what I said exactly.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And you said that you did not propose to give a quitclaim deed to the upper basin States?

Mr. ROSE. I do not think I made that assertion at all. I did say that the compact gave a quitclaim deed of 7,500,000 acre-feet to the upper States, and did not give a quitclaim deed of that much to the lower States.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And you said that you were not willing to do that?

Mr. ROSE. Until a storage was provided which we could rely upon. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Certainly.

Mr. SWING. Let me make this clear: I thought I had made it clear before: Before these hearings are concluded we will submit a proviso and I have no doubt Mr. Leatherwood will have it in his possession before the hearings are completed-alternative provisos which will look to guaranteeing the upper stream States in their asserted right to use 7,500,000 acre-feet.

I am trying to overcome whatever difficulty there may be, due to the inaction of Arizona, to help the upper stream States get the right to use 7,500,000 acre-feet; and that will be offered as a guaranty.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Suppose, as a matter of law, Congress has no power to do that?

Mr. SWING. I am going to submit the proposal to this committee as a fair-minded, disinterested jury, that the provisos will in practice absolutely protect the upper stream States in every particular.

But, assuming that there might be some slight doubt as to whether it would give absolute and complete protection in all your asserted rights, I shall submit to the committee, if any of them have that slight doubt in mind, that property which does not exist, but which is contemplated to hereafter exist in the upper stream States, might well assume a slight risk rather than to place upon human lives that do exist in the lower stream States a very great and grave present risk.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you favor the ratification of the compact, Mr. Swing?

Mr. SWING. There is very much that can be said about it when I have the floor. But Mr. Criswell wants to get away; and there is another important witness here to-day.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, I will not inquire any further.

May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, as to whether it is within the province of any witness whatsoever before this committee to strike out of the record whatever they may see fit?

The CHAIRMAN. Not anything material. I understand it has been the custom that witnesses may have the opportunity to change the phraseology but not the effect of what they say-as well as members of the committee.

Mr. SWING. To make clear the intent of what they were trying to convey that is the purpose of it.

Mr. RAKER. I do not think they should have the permission to correct a question or answer. I think that ought to be understood.