not possible to recover some of that power in the drop on the other side.

Mr. SWING. It would be also prohibited except for domestic use of the water?

Mr. BACON. Absolutely prohibited for anything except domestic

use.

Mr. LITTLE. Did you ever think of distilling your drinking water from the ocean?

Mr. BACON. Yes; but it is too expensive. It has been suggested. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. How many steps would you have to make in raising that water from the Colorado River?

Mr. BACON. About five or six steps. It is well within the bounds of possibility

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. At first, it strikes you as an immense proposition.

Mr. BACON. It seems very feasible.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What I mean is that you would have to pump it up to a certain place, and then you would have to pump it up from there to some other place?

Mr. BACON. Yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The reason I speak of it is that I recall that Colonel Goethals testified concerning the Columbia River Basin project, and he expressed some doubt as to the pumping of water vertically more than 200 feet.

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Mulholland said they were actually pumping water 900 feet, did he not? His testimony will show.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I was very much surprised at that, because immediately the testimony of Colonel Goethals came to my mind. Mr. BACON. We are pumping in San Diego, and really do pump from the level of the river bed to an elevation 400 feet higher. The CHAIRMAN. In one lift?

Mr. BACON. In one lift.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Through a pipe of what diameter?

Mr. BACON. It is about a 14-inch pipe, I think. It costs us about 4 cents a thousand gallons to pump.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You will have to send Colonel Goethals out in that country and let him make some observations.

Mr. BACON. If you can lift water 200 feet you can lift it another 200 feet by another step.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I had no question as to that proposition from an engineering standpoint, but, of course, every time you step it you have an additional expense.

Mr. LITTLE. You know that they pump and draw up water from the River Nile onto the irrigated land?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. We are interested in this from this standpoint. We want to see Imperial Valley protected, and we want cheap water and cheap power.

Mr. SINNOTT. How much water will you get yearly from the Colorado River?

Mr. BACON. I should say in the neighborhood of probably 60,000 acre-feet.

Mr. SINNOTT. Do you know how much Los Angeles will get? Mr. BACON. No; I do not. Mr. Mulholland made some statement regarding that, I believe.

Now, regarding the chances we run of getting this water. I have heard a great deal of discussion here regarding the fear that there would not be water enough to go around. San Diego would take this water for its domestic supply, the most hazardous use to which water can be put, because a man can not go without water for more than a few hours. Land can go without water for months, if necessary. We are planning to take the water out of the last water that comes from that river, and speaking for San Diego, I would say that I would be perfectly willing for any possible feasible diversion to be put in the river above where we take the water out of it, if we can get the water. That is how I personally look upon these objections that have been raised as to the diversion of water at other places. If all reasonable diversion would be made up there, I would not feel that our water supply would be jeopardized in the least, or that it would be jeopardized by the construction of other dams above Boulder, or anything along in there.

Mr. SWING. If the resources of the river were conserved?

Mr. BACON. If the resources of the river are conserved. In making that statement I want to call attention to this excellent pamphlet that has been compiled here under the direction of Congressman Hayden, of Arizona, in the extension of his remarks in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, January 30, 1923. I think he has covered the subject thoroughly, and the information is given there in answer to questions. [Reading:]

Question 5. After deducting the maximum quantity of water that may be diverted out of the upper basin and the maximum amount that may be consumed by irrigation and domestic uses, what is your estimate of the average annual run-off from the upper basin in acre-feet at Lee Ferry?

The answer is given by Mr. Davis of the Reclamation Service; 11,510,000 acre-feet after every possible diversion has been made. No serious objection to the Boulder Dam seems to have arisen, excepting from what I believe are two perfectly legitimate sources, and that must be reckoned with. The power companies look upon the development of a great, big, national resource of this kind as their particular prerogative. You are encroaching upon their territory if you undertake the development of a great, big, water power like this; and I think it is legitimate, from their standpoint, because, according to their own statements, they can not compete with a governmental development. Power sells too cheaply when a municipal or a governmental agency steps in and makes a develop

ment.

Mr. RAKER. Have they reduced that to writing, any place?

Mr. BACON. Not in just so many words, but I think that Senator Phipps before this committee made a statement which carries just that meaning.

Mr. RAKER. The argument suggested has been all along that it was more expensive for the consumers by Government ownership, public ownership, than it would be by private ownership.

Mr. BACON. Ágainst that, I could give you figures from Pasadena, Calif., where they have their own publicly owned plant, and it sells power, and there is a very complete report on it. The highest rate is 5 cents a kilowatt-hour, and the highest rate there outside of Pasadena is 8 cents per kilowatt-hour; and the low rates are in just about the same proportion. The city of Pasadena

sold electricity so low that the outside companies, in order to break that up, came in there and attempted to sell electricity at a price still lower in competition. The city of Pasadena immediately stepped over its borders and began selling electricity outside; in South Pasadena, for example.

Mr. LITTLE. I was acting chairman of this committee when they swooped down on it, and I would like to know what he said there. Mr. BACON. He is referring to the Swing-Johnson bill. Senator Phipps says:

This bill has, among other provisions, one giving priority in the matter of developing hydroelectric power possibilities to communities which would, to my mind, have the effect of cutting out competition on the part of public utility companies.

Mr. RAKER. What is the attitude of the other power companies in addition to Senator Phipps's there?

Mr. LITTLE. I might add that he was very determined to be heard. He sat there and he was bound to be heard.

Mr. RAKER. I am surprised that the acting chairman, with his known ability to control and handle the matter, would permit any man, no matter what his position might be, to take charge of the committee.

Mr. LITTLE. I wanted to hear what he had to say. I thought he would say something like that.

Mr. BACON. Senator Phipps goes on to speak for the other companies. [Reading:]

Such as the large companies now supplying California and Nevada with hydroelectric power.

So far as San Diego goes, we have had no opposition from the company operating there. It is not a company that is ordinarily tied in with these other companies. It is one of the Billsby corporation companies.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What is the attitude of the other companies, if you know?

Mr. BACON. They have always fought municipal development. We had their attitude very clearly shown in the last State election, when a measure was proposed whereby the State was to step in and make certain hydroelectric development involving an expenditure of about a half a billion dollars for the work, and the company fought that bill so strenuously that it brought on a legislative investigation, and my recollection is that the report of the State legislative committee that investigated showed that about a million dollars was spent by the power companies in fighting that measure. In their public statements they said this would react to their benefit. That is, the power companies stated that a municipality or the State could not develop these big hydroelectric powers, and that once they were developed they would prove such a white elephant that they would be sold out at less than cost to the power companies themselves.

Mr. RAKER. The companies you refer to are the Southern California Edison Co., the Southern Sierras Power Co., the Nevada Power Co., and the Holt Power Co.?

Mr. BACON. I only know of the first two.

Mr. RAKER. What is their attitude with reference to the pending legislation!

Mr. BACON. I have never heard any expression from anybody connected with them outside of what appeared in these actual hearings here. There was a statement made as to the feasibility of this development at a hearing which was held in San Diego by Secretary Fall, and that statement was made by Mr. R. H. Ballard, of the Southern California Edison Co.

He in his statement said that his company were willing to waive all this danger of the diversion of water in the upper States, and all fear of not having any water to come down, and to step in there and spend $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 a year on development, and you will find that on page 294 of this Senate Document 142, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session.

Mr. RAKER. Have they had surveys and estimates made relative to the advisability of construction of a dam in the Colorado River, do you know?

Mr. BACON. They evidently have, because they have put in an application here for power rights, and they have also made very emphatic statements, among which is that one.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you know whether or not there is any private power company at any point along the river that is pressing the Federal Power Commission at the present time for a certificate of convenience?

Mr. BACON. I understand there is. The Girand people-I believe that is the name given to the project-have appeared before the commission and asked that they be given a power right there. You will find in this same extract from the Congressional Record that Mr. Hayden has compiled a list of those filings on the Colorado River. Mr. RAKER. That was up to that date?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think there is no question but what there are many applications filed. What I was interested in was whether or not, in view of the present condition of affairs, any of these companies are at this time pressing the Federal Power Commission to grant them a certificate of convenience.

Mr. BACON. Do you mean right now?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Yes.

Mr. BACON. I do not think so, because I understand that the Federal Power Commission has gone on record as saying that they would not grant any certificate until this compact had been entered into. That, however, is due to the action of the Federal Power Commission and not to the wishes of the power companies, because the power companies here, as I understood it, and notably that Girand project here in Arizona, were pressing the Federal Power Commission very strongly to grant them a permit within the last few months.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. So far as your people and my people are concerned, we do not care from what source construction comes so long as they are constructed.

Mr. BACON. No.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is, I mean to keep control of the river in the hands of the Federal Government.

Mr. BACON. Yes; to keep control of the river in the hands of the Federal Government. That is one of the biggest Federal assets that exists to-day, the Colorado River.

Mr. RAKER. You say the limitation is as to when the compact is agreed to by the seven States?

Mr. BACON. I believe the Federal Power Commission took that stand.

Mr. RAKER. And if that was approved by the seven States, the attitude of the power commission would be to grant permission to some of these companies, irrespective of present pending legislation before Congress; is that it?

Mr. BACON. It would seem to remove the last objection, so far as they were concerned.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. A certificate of convenience could only be issued in subordination to the rights as fixed by the compact.

Mr. BACON. We have had a good deal of talk about this compact. I want to clear up one point.

Mr. RAKER. Before you go on with that

Mr. BACON (interposing). Yes.

Mr. RAKER. Do you understand that that is their ruling?

Mr. BACON. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. So that if the compact was approved by the seven States, and the Government was prepared to go on and develop it, they could allow these certificates to be issued at any time?

Mr. BACON. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. That does not seem very safe, so far as the Federal Government is concerned, does it?

Mr. BACON. No, sir. I do not believe that the Colorado River should be developed until development as a whole is planned to yield a maximum amount of benefit under a plan adopted by the Government.

Now, one point I want to clear up in connection with this compact. The question has been raised as to whether the Government could go ahead and do anything until this compact is signed. I am not an attorney, and I am not competent to render a legal opinion; but I want to read you from the words of an attorney who seems perfectly competent to pass upon it. This is from a talk made before Secre tary Fall at San Diego and reported at page 312 of this Senate Document 142, to which I have already referred.

Mr. SWING. Was this at a public hearing?

Mr. BACON. A public hearing.

Mr. LITTLE. Who is this attorney whose opinion you are reading? Mr. BACON. Mr. L. Ward Bannister, of Colorado.

Mr. LITTLE. Is that the same Mr. Bannister that appeared before this committee a few days ago?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir; it is. [Reading:]

The first point was that where the development is to be by a private enterprise acting under the Federal Power Commission there should be included in the license and permit granted to the holding company a provision whereby the water used in connection with the project should be considered subject to the right of equitable division on the part of other States upon that same stream; and in that way, as a matter of law, I take it that no matter what the will of the private company might be, no encroachment could be made upon the water of the other State.

Again, if the development instead of being carried on by a private company should be carried on by the Government itself, I think that the rights of other States can be fully protected if in the statute passed by Congress and if in the regulations made by the department appropriating the money and authorizing the enterprise there were inserted a provision similar to that which I have mentioned as being appropriate to license and permits granted to private parties by the Federal Power Commission.