Secretary HOOVER. The construction of the lower dam will not at all damage the system for the development of the river in future generations. It would be perfectly possible to build a dam at Boulder Canyon or in the lower river and years hence build a dam in the upper canyon and thus secure the larger storage of water. Both dams if feasible will be wanted in future generations. The dam in the lower canyon built to-day would in no way impair or interfere with construction 200 miles above at a later date.

Mr. LITTLE. Just one more question: Here is the Imperial Valley that wants a dam and reservoir to "take the water off its back." And then there is a community that says, "If you build a dam there. you will take away our water.' Has the commission considered the relative rights of those two communities?

Secretary HOOVER. That was settled by the compact itself.

Mr. LITTLE. Have they discussed the equities between those two communities?

Secretary HOOVER. They surely have; and they listened to a discussion of it for a year.

Mr. LITTLE. That is found in the report, I suppose?

Secretary HoOVER. Yes.

Mr. HAYDEN. The suggestion has been made, Mr. Secretary, that if power could be transmitted at a higher voltage-at a million volts, as Mr. Swing suggested the other day-it would then be economically possible to transmit it the distance that Glen Canyon is away from California. That might make a vast difference in the location of the dam.

The second proposition is that the water might be stored at Glen Canyon, but allowed to flow down the river to Diamond Creek. For instance, where a dam would generate all the power necessary to supply the immediate and near future demands of Southern California and Arizona.

Secretary HOOVER. As to the first proposition, I do not take it that Congress would want to appropriate money on the theoretical possibility that a million volts could be transmitted 500 miles. That has not been done yet. And most people-I am not sure whether the Government does that or not-but most people want to appropriate and spend their money only on what is scientifically known and proved, and not on any theoretical possibility.

The second proposition would make both storage and power, and the smaller amount of power at Diamond Creek would be within marketing distance. My impression is that we would be launching into a larger expenditure in order to accomplish the same thing. Because you would have to build a dam at Glen Canyon, the estimated cost of which I do not know, but presumably it is as great as at Boulder Canyon, to store the same water, and then you would have to build another dam further down, at a large expense for power. The lower dam would not increase the storage of the river. I must add that I am giving my own impressions of the engineering questions. There is much difference of opinion.

Mr. HAYDEN. There is an engineering controversy now that rages almost as fiercely as the old controversy as to whether the Isthmian Canal should be built at Nicaraugua or at Panama; or whether the Panama Canal should be a sea-level canal or a lock canal. That

controversy is raging over the Colorado River at this time. The irrigation engineers, looking at it from the point of view of locating the storage as near as possible to the land to be reclaimed, favor the lower site. The power engineers insist that the dam shall be located in the upper reaches of the river, so that they may have the benefit of a regulated flow for all the sites below.

This thought has been in my mind: If we are not going to accomplish anything in a practical way, until the question of the Colorado River compact and an understanding between the States is determined, could the interim be profitably employed by a study of the facts by an engineering commission, in which the Congress and the country had confidence?

Secretary HOOVER. You are correct. There is an engineering controversy on here, that reaches the same degree of heat that the legal controversies have reached. There are various other controversies about this river. I have never heard of a river in history that developed as much heat as this river is developing. [Laughter.] The Secretary of the Interior has, I think, appointed a committee of engineers from three or four branches of the Government, to consider these very questions. To try to secure some unity of view as to the proper program for the development of the river. The conclusion of this commission should be valuable.

Mr. HAYDEN. That commission, Mr. Secretary, however, is appointed by the Secretary of the Interior for his guidance and advice, to help him make up his mind as to what he should recommend to Congress with respect to legislation.

My thought was that this river and the problems connected with it are of such tremendous importance that Congress ought to ask for that advice itself; and it ought to get the best advice obtainable. Do you not think it would be possible, if the President of the United States asked their advice and assistance that he could get the best engineers in America to give a portion of their time to the study of this broad problem and give us the benefit of their knowledge?

Secretary HoOVER. Well, there is no final court of appeals among engineers, like there is among lawyers and as I am an engineer myself I can speak frankly about engineers. Congress, as advised by the Secretary of the Interior and the various engineers, will need draw its own conclusions. Certainly a report should be made by this commission, and if unity of view can be obtained it will greatly assist you in coming to conclusions.

Mr. LITTLE. As I understood the Secretary-perhaps I am wrong about it-this commission had grounded its action upon the principle that this water would be used for agricultural purposes first, and then if there is any left, for water power. And I am for that.

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, may I divert the Secretary's attention to the project, as distinguished from the compact he has discussed here: As chairman of the commission, he knows that very well; but he is also an engineer of international reputation. And I would appreciate it if Secretary Hoover would give the committee briefly a statement as to what the so-called Boulder Dam project is; the urgency for it and what its benefits would be.

Secretary HOOVER. Boulder Dam is in the lower canyon-and always when we speak of Boulder Canyon we speak of the Black

92265-24-PT 1-5

Canyon proposition, which are not far apart. A dam of some kind at these points would give immediate protection to the land development already made in the lower river. The situation of that development is one of a great deal of solicitude. You have had, no doubt, described to you the physiographic conditions there by which the people in the Imperial Valley, and the Yuma Valley, too, are carrying on a day-to-day fight with the floods of this uncontrolled river. At any time it may, by unusual flood, break through the dikes which these people are maintaining. Such a break has occurred once in recent history; and it cost an enormous sum of money to put the river back to where it belongs; and a second break would undoubtedly do much more damage than the first, because of the channels created by the first break.

We have here a vast value of property, property running into $60,000,000 or $75,000,000 and perhaps more. We have a population of 50,000 or 60,000 people that are in acute jeopardy from the floods of this river. The problem of controlling the flood flow of this river is one of the most acute problems of river control in the whole of our country.

And therefore there is every urgency for action in some form that will give relief.

In my own mind the urgency of the situation is, first, for flood control and, second, is the development of such works as will enable the further extension of irrigation of that region, and, third, the development of power from which a large portion of the expenditures should be ultimately recovered.

Mr. SWING. What is your private opinion as to the best place in which to put that control dam?

Secretary HOOVER. Well, my own opinion is that the flood-control works should be in the lower canyon.

Mr. SWING. Now, in view of the urgency which you have so well described, is it your opinion that a proper safeguard could be put into this legislation which would satisfy a fair-minded man by protecting the rights of the upper basin up to the extent to which they are set forth in the compact?

Secretary HOOVER. That is purely a legal question. It was suggested at one time that the compact should be enacted as a part of legislation for the erection of a Government dam and that the rights of the Government or users of water could be established by such legislative action. I understand that the upper States have objected to that, as they state that it would not give them their legal requirements. This is a question of law and I confess my inability to answer it.

Mr. SWING. Well, I will put it this way: Do you feel that the urgency and the menace in the lower valley, the Yuma Valley, the Imperial Valley, and Palo Verde Valley are such that they should have as prompt relief as possible?

Secretary HOOVER. It is certainly urgent.

Mr. GARBER. Well, however great the emergency would be, the first essential step would be to secure the necessary Federal legislation in approval of this compact, would it not?

Secretary HOOVER. If this compact is to be completed, it requires the action of Arizona. The Arizona Legislature failed to take

any action upon it; and the matter can not be acted upon by Congress, I presume, until next winter.

Mr. GARBER. Would you advise any appropriation by Congress until such compact was approved?

Secretary HOOVER. Well, I would be glad to advise it; but I believe you must satisfy the upper States that they are adequately protected.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Mr. Secretary, I was about to ask this question: Whether or not the rights of the upper States, they having promptly ratified the compact, are not just as sacred as the rights of the lower-basin States?

Secretary HOOVER. There can be no question of any difference of rights. The upper States have a large area of land and they have a large number of people already settled on lands, just as the lower States have.

Mr. SWING. Well, is this not true: There is a difference in the kind of property? And is it not true that human life is involved in the problem of the lower States?

Secretary HooVER. The danger of life and destruction, of course, lies in the lower basin. There is this to be said, also: That the State of Arizona is the only party that is obstructing the completion of this agreement, and the State of Arizona itself is one of the States that is fundamentally in the greatest danger. It is not the action of the upper States that has impeded this settlement. Mr. RAKER. In considering all of those matters, and to make it practical, as well as to consider the rights of all the States, you would have to consider the right of the Federal Government and get the consent of Members of Congress and of the people through their Representatives; and in considering the rights of the Federal Government, it being practicable to prevent floods, and to use the water for irrigation: and then, as everybody knows, with the dam constructed, if that water is used in the proper way, there will be electrical energy developed from the construction of the dam which can be used to repay the cost of its construction.

Now, with those matters in view, and if those three things are true, we ought to so conduct ourselves—I mean in legislating-as to bring about the three results, ought we not?

Secretary HoOVER. Certainly.

Mr. RAKER. And it would be a perfect crime to spend the money of the public and lose the energy, if you can expend it and retain the energy and repay the cost of the construction of this dam?

Secretary HOOVER. Obviously, we want to make use of the electrical energy to its full limit. We do not want to undermine any established population engaged in agriculture by power development, however. As I have said before, there is no practical limitation on the development of power at Boulder Canyon site by any feature of this compact. Such limitation would fall upon power developments of lesser poverty and a generation or two hence, if ever.

Mr. RAKER. Now, let me ask you this question: If the compact was approved by the seven States and ratified by the Federal Government, and this legislation is enacted and an appropriation is made to carry it out, from forty to one hundred million dollars, or whatever it might be a few millions makes no difference if it is necessary and to be repaid-if the upper States should consent and pri

vate individuals should construct the Diamond Creek Dam and the Flaming Gorge Dam and other dams for the purpose of using the water not only for domestic and agricultural purposes but for electrical development, could such a development be had by the States through these means, in your judgment, having in view the amount of water that flows down that stream, that it would impair the investment of the Government in building a dam at Boulder Canyon?

Secretary HOOVER. Well, from a physical point of view, I do not see how such a thing could happen. The more dams there are built above, the better from the Boulder Canyon point of view, as I assume always that in power the first dam will have priority.

Mr. RAKER. So that this contention about building a dam at Flaming Gorge or Glen Canyon, or some of the other places suggested-if that is done, and if the Government builds this dam at Boulder Canyon to the highest extent possible, do you believe the Government would be absolutely and perfectly safe in spending its money for the three purposes I have given, namely, to control the flood, to prevent those people from being flooded out; for irrigation, and the development of hydroelectric energy, whereby it would eventually repay the Government for the construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam?

Secretary HOOVER. There is no doubt about it in my mind as to the volume of power. What the economic result would be I am not able to say. You should get the reports from Secretary Work's new commission. If the Government builds this dam I assume it has proved, and I am sure every dam above it will benefit it.

Mr. RAKER. Certainly.

Secretary HOOVER. Any dam built above it would equate the flow of the river, and will store it to some extent.

Mr. RAKER. There would be more water both above the dam and below?

Secretary HOOVER. Surely, that is correct. There would be more water for serviceable purposes if we stored the floods.

Mr. ALLGOOD. I do not get specifically the reason why the legislature of Arizona refused to ratify this compact.

Secretary HOOVER. I am afraid I can not give you that argument. There was a great deal of improper confusion as to the meaning of the compact; there was a good deal of misrepresentation. The Arizona Legislature. I think, divided evenly on the compact. And there is, of course, a great deal of agitation in the State for the ratification of the compact. It will probably find its determination in the next election.

Mr. ALLGOOD. A matter of politics?

Secretary HoOVER. There was politics in it, in Arizona, unfortunately. That was the only State in which politics entered into the ratification of the compact. Some of the other States had Republican legislatures and Republican governors, and in others Democratic legislatures and Democratic governors; and all of the others kept this question out of politics; they decided upon merits.

Mr. LITTLE. Is it not a fact that, if these problems about the water power could be disposed of, all the rest of the questions would be very simple!