Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Of course, I take it, Doctor, that you appreciate that the people who were pioners in any portion of this great United States of ours have had hardships?

Doctor HARTMAN. I have so stated.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. For your information, I will state that I have seen an entire crop wiped out in the State of Kansas in 24 hours. Doctor HARTMAN. Yes, sir; They are sturdy pioneers, and are entitled to the greatest admiration.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. One more question; and I do not ask this in any controversial spirit, but it may have a bearing on future hearings: Would you say that your county officials-El Centro is in Imperial County, is it not?

Doctor HARTMAN. El Centro is the county seat of Imperial County.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Imperial County. Is it your theory that they are hostile to the enactment of this legislation?

Doctor HARTMAN. The officials of

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The officials of your own county; your prosecuting attorney and your county officers?

Doctor HARTMAN. I would say that among the officials

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). Let me say this: If you do not desire to answer that question, I do not want it to go in the record; it need not go in.

Doctor HARTMAN. I have nothing to conceal.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. No; I did not ask it with that idea; but I wanted to know what the attitude of those people is, in view of the statements that you have already made.

Doctor HARTMAN. I think among the officials of our county there are men who are opposed to this legislative program.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Any other questions?

Mr. REED. Just one: What is the population of the county seat of your county?

Doctor HARTMAN. We had in the last census between 6,000 and 7,000 people.

Mr. REED. That is all.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. It is 11 o'clock, and we have no permission to sit while the House is in session. If there is no objection, we will stand adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.

(Thereupon, at 11 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.)

COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., March 3, 1924.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Addison T. Smith (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We will first hear Congressman Lineberger, of southern California.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER F. LINEBERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. LINEBERGER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will say for the information of the committee that I have never been employed by any power company, irrigation, or land interests, and have no ulterior motive whatever in this proposition; and I shall not attempt. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, to discuss any of the technical details of this vast proposition, but shall confine myself to the general desirability of a favorable report on the part of your committee on this project, if certain unfortunate opposition can be removed or obviated.

The people of California, perhaps less than any other State in the Union, have no source of coal supply. Our section of the United States has been blessed with practically everything else, except a sufficient supply of water and of coal. We are very much in the position of the man who once said that his section of the country lacked everything except water and good society; and a lady replied that she understood that that was all that hell lacked. Well, we have good society, but we have not sufficient water.

And the people of my section of California are vitally interested in seeing, not only the vast Imperial Valley, which is a part of the hinterland, or back country, of southern California, conserved against destruction by the floods; but they are interested in seeing every drop of water conserved for the purposes of irrigation and for the purpose of power development, to take the place of the coal supply which we are lacking and which we require in our present and future industrial development.

Just at this time in southern California there is a drought such as has not been known for many, many years; and because of this. perhaps, we have been brought to greater realization at this moment of what this vast project would mean than ever before.

My fellow townsman, Mr. Hoodenpyle, who, unfortunately, has since passed away, appeared before this committee about a year and a half ago and testified, I believe, regarding the discrepancy between the rates existing in the city of Los Angeles, where they received power from a municipal supply generated by the Owens River acqueduct water, and the rates prevailing as supplied by private power companies in the city of Long Beach, just across the city line.

The industrial development of southern California has been most marvelous in the last four years. Cities such as Long Beach, and various other cities in that section, have more than doubled in population; and that increase has largely been due to industrial development; and we are soon going to reach the end of the rope, unless we can find some additional source of water for power development and even for the domestic purposes.

At the time Mr. Hoodenpyle testified before this committee. I believe the principal point he stressed was the desirability of having power development at Boulder Canyon Dam, having in mind the necessity of generating or supplying in advance power for the industrial development.

To-day we realize that, in addition to that, we have to look for our future water supply.

While I did not have the pleasure and privilege of hearing Mr. Mulholland, one of the most distinguished hydraulic engineers in the United States, testify here the other day, I believe that the information which he supplied to this committee will be of great value in your final determination of the power feature as well as of the water supply feature of the proposition.

We are for the Boulder Dam proposition. California realizes that it is a large proposition. It is a proposition that will require the most thorough study, and that will have to be looked at and appraised, and assessed from all its angles. But we believe where there is a will, where there is an outstanding necessity such as exists here, that that way will be supplied by this committee and by the Congress.

The magnitude of the proposition is very great. I understand that there has been at least one State which has not yet approved of the so-called Colorado River compact. I understand that that stands in the way. But I believe that if this committee were to show a disposition toward some affirmative action whereby it can be said to the citizens of that State that they are the only ones who are standing in the way of the inception of this gigantic proposition, they will realize, and fully recognize the responsibility which rests upon them. There are as patriotic citizens in Arizona as elsewhere, and they will find a way to adjust these differences, and to finally come in on the Colorado River compact. Arizona often comes before the Federal Congress for assistance and it can not afford to be oblivious to the Federal interests or assume a selfish or unwarranted attitude.

Mr. HAYDEN. If this bill could be passed, regardless of the approval of the Colorado River compact, then no compact is necessary? Mr. LINBERGER. If that could be done, Mr. Hayden, well and good. But I understand that there are certain underlying guarantees that the upper river States, who have been very considerate in the matter, feel ought to be taken care of; and personally, while I have not any details of information of the fact, I do not believe that those upper river States who have shown such a kindly disposition toward the proposition, such a spirit of accomodation as they have, should be penalized, if it can possibly be avoided. And I believe that the compact is really the keystone of the proper solution of the problem. This as I understand it. is the opinion of Mr. Hoover, whom I feel knows more about the practical side of this whole proposition than any other individual in the United States. I am for backing Mr. Hoover's judgment and I trust the committee will give great weight to his opinions and suggestions for solving this great problem. Of course, if it ultimately develops. that the compact is utterly impossible, then some other way will have to be found to carry on the proposition. Perhaps the bill could be passed with provisions in it protecting the rights of the upriver States.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Lineberger, your view is that the ratification of the compact is the keystone of the development of the Colorado River; but do you intend the committee to understand by your remark that some affirmative action by the committee should be shown? What is your idea about that?

Mr. LINEBERGER. Well, my thought about that, Judge Raker, is, some action whereby a conditional approval would be made by this committee of the project, subject to the ratification by all the States of the compact, where you would squarely place the responsibility on the shoulders of those who are opposing the ratification of this compact. I am not here to tell the committee what to do, or how to do it; but that is my thought.

Mr. RAKER. But how could the committee take that up when they are not going into the question of the ratification of the compact, and act on the ratification of the compact? I do not quite get your view on that.

Mr. LINEBERGER. Well, I understand that the failure of the State of Arizona to ratify this compact has been a very important factor in the so-called delaying of this proposition, I have not followed the hearings closely enough to know whether that statement is thoroughly justified or not; but I believe it is generally recognized that, if that compact were ratified by all the States-and I understand that the State of Arizona is the only one which has not ratified it— I do not know in detail their reasons for so doing-that we would have comparatively clear sailing, unless perhaps controversy over the all-American canal feature might still delay.

Mr. HAYDEN. I can state to you, Mr. Lineberger, that one of the reasons why the Colorado River compact has not been approved is because of the opposition of a considerable number of people in Arizona to the location of the dam at Boulder Canyon-not that they are opposed to the compact in its present form: not that the apportionment of the water between the two basins is inequitable. They say that to build a dam at Boulder Canyon, if the compact means that, then they are opposed to the compact, because they believe that the dam should be located at the Glen Canyon, higher up the river.

Mr. LINEBERGER. I understand that. Mr. Hayden; but is it not the fact that, in a great proposition of this kind, meaning as it does so much to a vast section of the United States, the committee must ever have in mind the location of this dam at a point where it will be of the greatest benefit to the greatest number-not only of the people of Arizona, but of the entire south western section of the United States which it is supposed to serve when completed.

Mr. HAYDEN. It is contended that every service that could be performed by the Boulder Canyon Dam, in the way of flood control, in the way of the providing of water for irrigation, or in the way of development of power, could be equally well carried out by locating the dam at Glen Canyon.

Mr. LINEBERGER. I understand that is the contention, but I doubt if this can be substantiated by the facts.

Mr. HAYDEN. Therefore, believing that it is a mistake to locate the dam at the bottom of the drop in the river, instead of at the top: and believing that the approval of the Colorado River compact means the approval of the Boulder Canyan Dam project, they oppose the compact. That view represents a considerable sentiment in the State of Arizona, and is responsible, among other reasons, for the failure of that State to approve the compact. The Colorado River compact was defeated by a tie vote in the lower house of the State legislature, and by a majority of one in the upper house of the State

legislature; resulting in no action being taken at all. You can appreciate how close the division of sentiment was, and how any reason such as that which I have given might be sufficient to explain the failure to act upon the compact.

Mr. SWING. May I ask you, Mr. Hayden, in response to your statement, whether or not your people understand that the proposal to locate a dam-or the dam--at Boulder Canyon, or at Black Canyon, was not initiated by me, as the author of the bill, or by California, or any local community; that it was the selection of the United States Government, through its governmental engineers, after a survey of the entire river; and that if we are to authorize the Government to build the dam, we ought to permit them to build it at the place which they think is the best place to build it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. May I inquire, Mr. Swing, when and by whom that decision was made?

Mr. SWING. It was first made in the United States Government report, known as Senate Document No. 142, upon which Government report this proposed legislation is based. The report was made first; and then the proposed legislation undertaking to carry into effect the recommendation of the Government's own report foÏlowed.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Who made the report?

Mr. SWING. The reclamation service.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And who, acting for the reclamation service, recommended that it be located at Boulder Canyon?

Mr. SWING. I think the list of names is in that report, four or five of the enginers of the reclamation service made the detailed investigation. Their names are all given in here [indicating a report].

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is that the only place they suggest the building of the dam?

Mr. SWING. That is their recommendation. As I read the report, they say that is the most desirable, the most economical place to build the dam.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What page of this report is that on?

Mr. SWING. Well, it is all through the report. The conclusions follow the detailed report.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, I did not want to delay you. I thought that when you made the statement you knew just where that was. Mr. SWING. The conclusions are summarized on page 21, the recommendations.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Let me ask you, Mr. Hayden, this question: What is the contention of your people as to the advantage that the building of a dam at Glen Canyon would have over the building of a dam at Boulder Canyon?

Mr. HAYDEN. Where the Colorado River crosses the Utah line and enters the State of Arizona is over 3,000 feet above sea level; at Boulder Canyon, the altitude is less than 1,000 feet. There are over 2,000 feet of fall within the Grand Canyon region in the State of Arizona. If the river were regulated by locating the reservoir at Lees ferry, above the Grand Canyon, four times as much hydroelectric power could be produced in the Grand Canyon region as can be now generated with an unregulated river.