Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. MEANS. NO; I assume that a certain proportion remains for Owens Valley.

Several reports have been prepared on this water supply in Mono Basin. I will just give you a list of them:

The first is published in Bulletin No. 4 of the department of public works of California. That is a study of the resources under the appropriation made by the legislature before the last. They estimate that the same streams which the city of Los Angeles proposed to take as giving an average run-off of 215,000 acre-feet, or a continuous flow of 298 second-feet.

In May, 1923, the same department of public works of California had a report made by Mr. Whistler, who was formerly a Reclamation Service engineer, upon the proposition which Judge Raker mentioned, of taking this Mono Basin water to Inyokern Valley. Inyokern Valley is a valley south of Owens Lake. It is this valley marked "Salt Springs Valley" on this map indicating].

Mr. Whistler estimated the average run-off of these same creeks as 204,000 acre-feet, or 283 second-feet. He estimated that certain of the peak floods would get away and could not be used; and that there was net available for diversion 189,000 acre-feet, or 261 secondfeet.

Mr. Conklin, in the report that Mr. Hayden mentioned, estimates the water available for diversion as 150,000 acre-feet, or 210 cubic feet per second.

Mr. W. L. Huber, a civil engineer in San Francisco, employed by the Southern Sierras Power Co. and the irrigation company, made a further study of the water supply, and came to practically the same conclusion as Mr. Conklin: That there was available for diversion 155,000 acre-feet, or a continuous flow of 215 second-feet.

Mr. HAYDEN. Is it not true that to get water into Los Angeles from the Colorado River would require a lift of 1,200 feet, and as Mr. Mulholland told us, that would require, if the total quantity that the city needed were utilized, a continuous application of some 200,000 horsepower from the Colorado River to lift the water over the mountains; whereas the water from Mono Basin and the upper reaches of the Owens River, if conserved and stored, would flow by gravity down to the city. Instead of using a tremendous quantity of power to lift it to the city, the water would produce power as it came down?

Mr. MEANS. The difference is this: In one case you have a drop of about 4,000 feet, through power plants; in the other case you have to lift water, according to Mr. Mulholland, 1,200 feet. My figures are 1.500 feet-that the water will have to be lifted in order to bring it to Los Angeles.

So we have in one case pumping water up 1,500 feet, and in the other case water falling down 4,000 feet.

Mr. HAYDEN. What is the value of the power that could be extracted from that fall of 4,000 feet?

Mr. MEANS. The value of the power that could be extracted would be sufficient to pay all of the cost of bringing the water to the city. at the present rates at which the city is selling power.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Mr. Mulholland ever investigated this source of water supply?

92265-24-Pr+. 11

Mr. MEANS. He certainly must have done so; he went to the trouble of making filings upon it; and the report was prepared

under his direction.

Mr. RAKER. His testimony before this committee on that subject was that they had investigated that, and had filings. I asked him about that; and he told this committee, that they had abandoned their intention to get water from Mono Lake-that is, not from Mono Lake, but from the tributaries or the streams that make Mono Lake.

Mr. MEANS. Now, Mr. Mulholland testified concerning that matter in a case in California last fall.

There was a suit filed by the Craig Ranch Co. against the city of Los Angeles, as a result of the city cutting off the supply of the farms in San Fernando Valley last fall. Mr. Mulholland testified as follows:

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Mulholland, you testified this morning that there was 550 second-feet firm water in the Owens Valley of which

Mr. MULHOLLAND. That would be a mean, in my judgment, a mean, one year with the other. I want to correct that since I had a chance to gauge it over in my mind since I left it.

The noon hour intervened between these two questions.

Mr. CRAIG. Will you do that?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. It will be, in my judgment, year by year, nearly 600 second-feet, of which the city will own under the average condition, at least 80 per cent.

He was talking of the water in the Owens Valley in this case.

Mr. CRAIG. That would be 480 second-feet?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes, sir. I want to say in addition to that and to elaborate it to its full extent so as not to make a fragmentary record, that there is about 120 second-feet of that due to recent purchase by reason of last year's experience of shortage of water. There is about 120 second-feet,

nearly that, added to the prospective flow. There may come a year that under extreme conditions that there might not be that much water, but I am speaking of the expectancy which is the average flow.

Mr. CRAIG. As I understand it, that includes the run-off too, the mean? Mr. MULHOLLAND. The whole yield of the watershed, the run-off of the watershed.

Now, this statement which Mr. Mulholland, I think, made in December of last year, shows his opinion at that time of the amount of water available in Owens Basin.

Now, as to his examination of the Mono Basin, Mr. Conklin reported his examination of that; and it is evidenced by the filings of water which were made of the streams in Mono Basin.

Mr. HAYDEN. Which do you think would be most advantageous to the city of Los Angeles, in order to furnish a domestic. water supply for 5,000,000 people-to get the water from the Colorado River, or to get it from Mono Basin and the Owens River:

Mr. MEANS. To get it from Mono Basin and the Owens River, for two reasons: First, the cheapness of the water, due to the power developed; that is to say, the power will pay the cost of getting the water to Los Angeles. And, second, the question of quality of the water, which is exceedingly important.

It has been said that the water of the Colorado River is not a desirable water for a large city. When I was in the Reclamation Service I had collected waters from all important Western streams, for chemical analysis. Among others, we collected water nearly

every day from the Colorado River at Yuma; and we collected. water from the Owens River.

I may say that the results of those analyses were published in Water Supply Papers Nos. 237 and 274.

Briefly, the Colorado River carries, on the average, about 700 parts of total solids per million parts of water, and has considerable hardness. The Colorado River carries 700 parts of total solids, as against 288 in Owens River. The Colorado River carries 324 parts of hardness, per one million parts of water, as compared with 98 parts of hardness in the Owens River.

Mr. HAYDEN. If the waters of the Colorado River were stored and desilted, and the clear water came out of the reservoir

Mr. MEANS (interposing). This is in solution; it is not in suspension; it is material dissolved in the water.

Mr. HAYDEN. It would be perfectly clear to the eye, and still carry the solids?

Mr. MEANS. Yes; in other words, the Colorado River carries twice the solidity of the Owens River, and nearly four times the hardness, making it not a satisfactory water for a large city. I can say without fear of successful contradiction that if Los Angeles uses that water supply, they will have the poorest water supply in America, for a large city.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, as to quality!

Mr. MEANS. Yes, sir; as to quality.

Water Supply Paper No. 496 shows the analysis of the water supplies of all important American cities; there are some 307 cities of which the average analyses are given; and there is no city of large size that has water anywhere nearly as bad as the Colorado River water would be.

Mr. HAYDEN. Could it be possible that Mr. Mulholland was considering the Colorado River water supply for the city of Los Angeles as an aid to a trade, when the time came to buy and secure title to the Mono Lake and upper Owens River water?

Mr. MEANS. I would not try to interpret Mr. Mulholland's mind. Mr. SWING. The reverse of that would be applied to you, would it not: That you are here protesting against their getting water, for the purpose of aiding a sale which your company wants to make, and that if Los Angeles goes to the Colorado River for a supply you will have lost a purchaser?

Mr. MEANS. Well, Los Angeles took up negotiations with the company, and they never have been concluded, so far as I know. The CHAIRMAN. We will hear from Mr. Phipps, if you have finished, Mr. Means?

Mr. MEANS. Just one other question I want to touch upon. We were talking about the waters in Mono Valley. I made a report to Mr. West last summer, in which I summarized all of the waters that Los Angeles could acquire.

My conclusions were that there were available for city use 947 second-feet of water, in both Mono Basin and Owens Lake, consisting of the present water which Los Angeles now diverts; the 210 second-feet available from Mono Basin; and the recovery of certain waters, by lowering the water plane in Owens Valley: the water plane there is very high; the lands there are water-logged:

and the quantity lost by evaporation is very large. I can give you such details of that as you want.

Mr. HAYDEN. Please read your conclusions.

Mr. MEANS. As I say, my conclusions were that there were 947 second-feet that could be acquired there.

Mr. SWING. One other question: When were you employed in this case to make this study?

Mr. MEANS. I have been employed by the company at intervals for a number of years.

Mr. SWING. Well, to make this study in this case?

Mr. MEANS. Within the last month, Mr. West asked me to come down; and at the time I had no thought of being used before a committee; he asked me to report to him conditions as to the flood menace, because he had heard such stories that he wanted someone outside of his own organization to report to him on the conditions. Mr. SWING. And at the same time, what did he say about the all-American canal?

Mr. MEANS. At the same time, he asked me to look into the allAmerican canal.

Mr. SWING. At that time, was it revealed to you what the opinion of your employer was, as to the all-American canal?

Mr. MEANS. No.

Mr. SWING. You did not know he was against it?

Mr. MEANS. No; Mr. West, as he usually does, assigned the matter to me for working out my own conclusions.

Mr. SWING. You knew and he knew that there was 33,000 horsepower development under the all-American canal which, under this legislation, would belong to the Imperial Irrigation District, which at the present time is a very heavy purchaser of power from your company?

Mr. MEANS. Well, I do not know. At the time I did not know that there was any power; and I do not think he told me. I have only found that out in reading the report.

Mr. SWING. Well, the fact that the irrigation district itself-leaving those taxpayers out of consideration-the fact that the district. alone pays $24,000 a year to your company-would that affect your view of the all-American canal, when you found that there would be 33,000 horse power which would be in the hands and control of your customer?

Mr. MEANS. No. I have some little studies that I have made of that power scheme

Mr. SWING (interposing). I suppose you will "knock" that, too? If the thing is not feasible, of course, you need not fear it.

Mr. MEANS. Well, I doubt if Mr. West does fear it. I might say that all that we know about power storage on the all-American canal is taken from the reports of the all-American canal and the Imperial Valley.

Mr. SWING. Your company has sought to get a site on the Alamo River, with a fall of not exceeding 40 feet; do you know that—in the Imperial Valley?

Mr. MEANS. No, I did not know that.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Means, for your statement.

TESTIMONY OF MR. LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS, JR., DENVER, COLO.

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. Please give your name and your connection with these companies.

Mr. PHIPPS. My name is Lawrence C. Phipps, jr., of Denver, Colo. I am vice president and treasurer of the Southern Sierras Power Co.; one of the original incorporators of that company some 13 years ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to make a statement, or do you prefer to have inquiries made of you?

Mr. PHIPPS, Mr. Chairman, I am not an engineer nor an operating man; and my knowledge of this proposition has been largely acquired here in the last two days.

was in Washington about a month ago, and I saw in the papers something about there being some hearings on about it; but I did not think about coming around to see what was going on, nor really give it any consideration. Most of it is an engineering matter; I am not an engineer.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions that the members of the committee wish to ask?

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Phipps, the statement was made that you were in town when this matter started about a month ago: and there was some question about the various private interests involved in the construction of a dam in Boulder Canyon by the Federal Government; and the understanding was that you were one of the officers of the company; and the committee felt that they would like to take your testimony relative to the matter.

Mr. PHIPPS. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Have you any interest in the holding company?

Mr. PHIPPS. Yes, sir. The holding company, the Nevada-California Electric Corporation, of which I am also vice president and treasurer, and was one of the incorporators some nine years ago, owns all of the stock and all of the bonds of the subsidiary companies, with the exception of a few scattered underlying issues that have been in the hands of the public for a number of years. And I am a stockholder of that company.

Mr. RAKER. And that company, as has been stated here this morning, has its offices at Denver?

Mr. PHIPPS. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. And you do your business and practically handle and direct the affairs of the other companies

Mr. PHIPPS (interposing). No, sir; Mr. Kassler of Denver does. Mr. RAKER. I mean, this holding company does that?

Mr. PHIPPS. No, sir. The management of the company is very largely left to the operating people-the management of the underlying companies is very largely left to the management of the underlying companies. Mr. West, the president and general manager of practically all of those companies, attends to the operating details. just as the engineers under him attend to the engineering features. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Caspar is that?

Mr. PHIPPS. No, sir: Kassler.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Kassler is the man that really conducts and controls the entire matter?

« PreviousContinue »