Seeretary HOOVER. You mean the question about the water rights? Mr. LITTLE. Is it not a fact that if the water-power question could be disposed of, the rest of the problem would have very little difficulty in being solved?

Secretary HOOVER. No; the fundamental question here is one of water rights among the seven States.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, is it not the water power that is making most of the discussion?

Secretary HOOVER. I have been told that the power companies were taking one attitude in one place and another in another place. Mr. LITTLE. That is what I heard.

Secretary HOOVER. But how far the power question has entered into stopping the legislation for ratification in Arizona I could not

say.

Mr. LITTLE. I think it is the conflict of interests among waterpower companies that led to all the discussion.

Mr. RICHARDS. In your discussion, Mr. Secretary, do you have in mind the Black Canyon Dam in the Boulder Canyon?

Secretary HOOVER. I do not think the engineers have sufficiently determined yet as to where the best foundation lies in Boulder Canyon or Black Canyon. They are not far apart and must yet. be determined.

Mr. SWING. The urgency for relief in the lower Colorado River was such that, at the very time this compact was adopted by the Colorado River Commission, they adopted a resolution, which I think you have before you, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary HOOVER. Yes; this resolution reads as follows:

Resolution of Colorado River Commission concerning flood control for protection of Imperial and Palo Verde Valleys and Yuma project:

The Colorado River Commission at its twenty-seventh meeting held November 24. 1922, adopted the following resolution concerning flood control:

"The members of the Colorado River Commission have had constantly before them the great menace by annual floods to the lives and property of the people of the Imperial and Palo Verde Valleys in California, and the Yuma Valley in Arizona, and the anxiety of their thousands of citizens.

"Therefore, they earnestly recommend and urge the early construction of works in the Colorado River to control the floods and permanently avoid the menace, such construction to be made subject to the Colorado River compact." Mr. SWING. And was not the compact framed on the theory that a big dam would be built by the Government somewhere, which would augment the lower flow of the stream, and save the flood waters, and thus enable the division of 15,000,000 acre-feet; whereas without the dam, there would be years in which there would be only ten or eleven million acre-feet? It was based on the theory of the dam being built, was it not?

Secretary HOOVER. Not only on that, but upon the idea that nothing could be built except trouble out of the natural flow of the river.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you mean to say that it was in view of that that the compact was ratified?

Mr. HAYDEN. I can say that among the reasons for the failure to approve the compact by the Arizona Legislature was that some members of the legislature believed that the ratification of the Colorado River compact meant the construction of a dam at Boulder Canyon, and no other dam. That no consideration would be given

to any other site or any other plan on the river. Being opposed to the construction of the dam at Boulder Canyon, they opposed the compact. Now, is there anything in the compact which says where the dam shall be located?

Secretary HOOVER. No; there is not a word in the compact relating to the character of engineering development. The compact did not pretend to enter into that field at all. Any statement as to Boulder Canyon, of course, was merely the expression of my personal ideas and some of the members of the commission.

Mr. LITTLE. Was I not right when I said the whole question was a question of water power?

Secretary HOOVER. No; it is partly a question of interstate water rights.

Mr. LITTLE. That is what Mr. Hayden said.

Secretary HOOVER. Mr. Chairman, I have to go before another committee at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly appreciate your attendance, Mr. Secretary. Will you be able to return to-day?

Secretary HooVER. I think not.

Mr. LITTLE. I wish Mr. Hayden would finish what he said.

Mr. HAYDEN. I would say that, like any other legislative body. the several members of the Arizona Legislature have various reasons for what they do. Their motives are not to be impugned because they form a conclusion based upon what appears to them to be a certain state of facts.

In my opinion, after having talked with a number of members of the last Arizona Legislature, I am satisfied that several of them came to the conclusion that the ratification of the Colorado River compact inevitably meant the construction of a dam at Boulder Canyon, and at no other place. Being opposed to its construction at that point, and believing that it would be detrimental to the interests of the State of Arizona to have it built there, they therefore opposed the compact.

Mr. LITTLE. They opposed the compact because they did not want the dam at Boulder Canyon?

Mr. HAYDEN. That is what I said.

Mr. LITTLE. That is all the fight there was?

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that it would be of interest to the committee to have printed some information which I have, and which I think, when printed and made available to the committee, will illustrate the varying points of view that exist in the State of Arizona, with respect not only to the Colorado River compact, but to the construction of the Boulder Canyon dam, and the whole Colorado River question.

I have here a copy of the hearings before the Federal Power Commission, on the application of Mr. James B. Girand, for the construction of a hydroelectric plant at Diamond Creek, which took place on September 24-25, 1923. At that hearing appeared the Governor of Arizona and other distinguished citizens, and representatives from other States of the Colorado River Basin, in which the whole situation was discussed.

I ask to have that hearing, and the other data that I have here illustrative of Arizona opinion, published for the information of this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the data submitted by Mr. Hayden will be incorporated in the hearings.

Mr. HAYDEN. I ask leave to include such other material as, in my judgment, will illustrate the various opinions held by citizens of Arizona on this question.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, permission is granted. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, so that we may have the entire matter before us, I ask that the chairman obtain from Mr. Hoover, the chairman of the Colorado River Commission, the hearings and testimony taken relative to the adoption of the compact by that commission, and that they be printed as a part of these hearings. States and their hearing and the Federal Government is now having its hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

The

Mr. RAKER. It will be a little expensive; but the matter is so important and we are asking the Government to spend such a large sum of money, that we ought to be in a position to present it fully and fairly to the House and to the country, as to exactly what the situation is.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that we have the data brought here and see how much it will cost as we are limited in our printing. The committee will act on your request later.

Mr. RAKER. The request will be pending until we get that data here?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Hayden thought I was criticizing somebody in Arizona. I had no such purpose. Everybody in Arizona, or anywhere else, has a right to have water power where he wants it. There was no imputation in what I said. The only thing I was saying was that the only thing seriously discussed was that one man wanted water power at one point and another one wanted it at another point; and that is the reason Arizona decided not to ratify the compact. Secretary Hoover has just told us that that is the case. And I believe that all that is stopping this proposition now is a dispute as to the water power.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I would like to remind the gentleman that I speak for the people of one State. I have heard the statement being made that this matter is being delayed by private power interests, and that the action of this committee is being delayed by private power influences.

I want to say for the people of the upper basin States that we are compelled to oppose this bill because of our agricultural interests, and that the power development is a secondary considera

tion.

And on behalf of the people of my State, I want to make it plain to this committee at this time that there is no private power interest meddling with our rights, and in defending our rights to this river I resent any imputation that we are claiming rights because we want to protect private corporations.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Swing, do you wish to proceed?

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, will you let us have the benefit of the advice of the legal staff of the Reclamation Service upon this situation?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will ask them to come here.

Mr. LITTLE. But the gentleman does not challenge Mr. Hayden's statement as to what was done in Arizona?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I am not discussing Arizona. I am telling you what is actuating the people in my own State.

Mr. SWING. I want to say this: California in good faith atified the compact, although they thought, in some respects, it was taking away some of their vested and legal rights to the natural flow of the river for the benefit of the upper-stream States; but on the whole the compact having been negotiated in good faith and agreed to by our representatives, we agreed to it in our State legislature. I am ready, as I said before, and desirous of having incorporated in this bill a proper paragraph which will accord to the upperstream States a fair and just protection, not only to the rights which are now vested but also to all of those which are accorded them in the compact, which they and the State of California have ratified.

And I believe that a proper paragraph and a proper phraseology can and will be worked out to satisfy any fair-minded man.

Now, as to the flood menace, I just want to add one or two things

more.

From this point just south of the boundary line, where the river broke from its channel inundating Imperial Valley in 1905 and 1906, from that point to the head of the Gulf, on a direct line, is approximately 60 miles. From the same point to Salton Sea [indicating] on a direct line is also 60 miles. The fall from that point [indicating] to the Gulf is 115 feet. The fall from the same point [indicating] to the surface of Salton Sea in the heart of the Imperial Valley is 395 feet. In other words, this river runs across the edge of this basin as if it were on the edge of a saucer, looking down on this valley in the bottom of the saucer, and the law of gravitation has a 4 to 1 chance in favor of pulling it down into that valley as against the chance of gravitation pulling it into the Gulf of California.

Now, I have spoken of the nature of the silt and the instability of the banks, and of the fact that the river is continually building up its bed, and at recurring intervals the river undertakes to change its course; and the fact that the river in recent years has been trying to change its course from the Gulf back into the Imperial Valley, as shown by the big break in 1905 and 1906, the subsequent break into the Bee River and Volcano Lake in 1909, and the switch of the channel from Bee River to the north at Big Bend in 1918. It is still trying to get into Imperial Valley, and every year attacks our levee system in a dangerous way at some point.

Now, just a word as to Glen Canyon, as compared with Black Canyon: What was said by Secretary Hoover is true. If the Government is to recoup itself for the expense of flood control through the sale of power it will find the principal power market of that section located largely in southern California. To put the dam at Glen Canyon you would be removing your power several hundred miles farther from the market, and you would also be removing

your flood control 350 miles farther from the place which you want to protect. Control of this river is like control of a fire hose, the nearer to the nozzle the greater the control. So on the river, we want the dam as far down as possible.

Mr. SIMMONS. How many tributaries come in below Glen Canyon? Mr. SWING. A considerable number; you can see them on the map. The Little Colorado, the Paria River, the Virgin River, and a number of smaller streams flow into the Colorado below Glen Canyon. Mr. SIMMONS. Then the Glen Canyon Dam would not control the flood situation of those rivers?

Mr. SWING. It would not. It would leave uncontrolled 50,000 square miles of territory that would be covered and controlled by a dam at Boulder Canyon or Black Canyon. Furthermore, the character of those rivers is all of the flashy sort, which sends down in desert storms a large amount of water in a short period of time, and thus they are much more likely to create a breach in the bank by being of that flashy nature. Also their run-off is very likely to occur coincident with the run-off of the Gila, which is uncontrolled, and the combined discharge would always make a serious flood problem.

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, is it true that, so far as controlling the floods at Imperial Valley is concerned, a dam at Glen Canyon would not answer that problem?

Mr. SWING. It would not.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you contend that the desert storms preceptibly affect the flow down in your country?

Mr. SWING. Yes; indeed. The Gila River, for example varies from 100,000 acre feet a year to 4,000,000.

Mr. RAKER. We do not in this bill attempt to locate the dam at any point, do we?

Mr. SWING. It says at or near Boulder Canyon.

Mr. RAKER. So that the record may be straight, I think you made a slip there. There is no flood during the storm times up in those mountains, is there? I thought the floods were in June and July? Mr. SWING. Those are the run-off months

Mr. RAKER (interposing). When the snow is melting.

Mr. SWING. Yes; that is the heavy run-off season of the plateau region; but the desert region has its run-off, which is just as violent, and usually is at a different season of the year.

Mr. RAKER. Well, when is the flood time down at Yuma?

Mr. SWING. The regular flood season is in June and July although there are occasioned winter floods in December and January and once a flood in August. For instance, in January, 1916, approximately 200,000 second-feet of water has flowed by at Yuma, all of which except about 35,000 second-feet were from the Gila River. Now, at Boulder Canyon, which is only about 300 miles above Yuma, with cooperation with your weather bureau, you could so operate the dam at this point [indicating] that if a storm fell in the upper regions of the Gila River, you could, by shutting down your gates at Boulder Dam prepare the main bed of the Colorado to receive any unusual flow of the Gila. If necessary, you could make the bed of the Colorado absolutely dry.

Mr. RAKER. So that the matter may be clear, what is the flood time in Imperial Valley?