e Williams and Gila Rivers, wlll permit a nearly constant flow in e high line transmission canal, thereby minimizing the capacity this canal to approximately 18,000 cubic feet per second-will ake possible the practical development of over 400,000 hydroelectric orsepower along the high-line transmission and lateral canals well stributed throughout the central western portions of Arizona. Return seepage and surplus waters resulting from the irrigation of early 4,000,000 acres of land in the lower basin States, will ultiately afford fully 2,000,000 acre-feet of stabilized flow returned to e Colorado River in the Yuma district, the most of which can only e used on lands south of the international boundary. The ultimate and inevitable results of complete utilization of all olorado River waters, properly available to the "lower basin" cates, by Arizona, California and Nevada, will be an aggregate crease in population of many million people. This increase in pulation will be accompanied by extensive agricultural, horticulural, animal husbandry, mining, manufacturing, banking, comercial and other industrial developments reflected throughout every ommunity of the southwest, to a degree unequalled in any country. The taxable value of all these developments and the increased alues which will be reflected to the entire Southwest by the compreensive development of all Colorado River resources will ultimately mount to several billion dollars. Increased internal revenue from all sources throughout the Southest due to such a comprehensive development of Colorado River sources will ultimately amount to many million dollars yearly. The Federal Government is the owner of the major portion of tillle acreage which will be reclaimed by an Arizona high-line canal, e remaining acreage being divided between State and private nership. It has been suggested that the exchange by the Government of veloped acreage of lands to be reclaimed and ready for settlement r practically all the labor required for complete development of lorado River irrigation and power resources, giving deserved prefence to all ex-service men who desire either employment in any cacity during construction of the project or for homes within the reimed areas that the labor thus secured will represent a very bstantial percentage of the entire labor cost of development. Add to this the amount the Government should pay on account of neral national benefits resulting from such a volume and character internal improvement, and it would seem that the States of the ower basin," to whose direct credit and benefit the entire value of e Colorado River development will be reflected that these States ould pledge their faith and credit, directly or indirectly with the I of the Government as herein stated, to complete the financing of comprehensive Colorado River development. All the acreage of reclaimed lands and the power to be developed uld furnish the basis of credit for a substantial portion if not for entire cost of development, less the amounts agreed to be assumed 1 assessed as the portions of such development costs to be conbuted on account of general Federal and State benefits, and not argeable directly to the various project acreage and to general wer development benefit account. The foregoing is a brief answer to every claim that an Arizona high-line irrigation and power canal is infeasible, and to the further claim that if found feasible there is no practical method of financing so comprehensive a project. In short, this is Arizona's case. GEO. W. STURTEVANT. REPLY BY COL. WILLIAM KELLY FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Hon. CARL HAYDEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. HAYDEN: In reference to your letter of the 5th inclosing a letter from Mr. George W. Sturtevant to Governor Hunt on the Arizona high-line canal, the following is submitted: Many of Mr. Sturtevant's comments on the "special board" repor are general and unsupported assertions, and nothing will be gaine by replying in kind. Mr. Sturtevant's specific criticisms of the boar report may be summarized as follows: 1. Board report was based upon insufficient investigation and dats 2. Mileage of canal and tunnel stated by board greatly in exces of actual mileage. 3. Board's estimate of probable cost of construction excessive. 4. Doubts expressed by board on area available for irrigatie unjustified, since tillable acreage is over 3,500,000 acres exclusive a land now under cultivation. 5. Board's estimate of evaporation and seepage losses in cata excessive; said losses will not exceed one-half per cent of water trat mitted. 6. That secondary storage can be provided at Williams River a Gillespie and Sentinel sites on the Gila, and at Granite Reef site t the Salt to an extent that main canal capacity of 19,000 second-f will suffice. I will reply to the specific criticisms ad seriatum: 1. The board stated in its report that the data available was sufficient to give accurate estimates. Had the project shown a promise of being feasible the board would have hesitated to make s report without more precise data, but the board found that eve assuming all conditions to be the most favorable possible the proj: would still be far beyond the realm of feasibility, and therefore cluded that further investigation would not be warranted. 2. The mileage of canal and tunnel as given by the board wer arrived at by scaling from the best available contour map on a s of 4 miles to the inch. Great accuracy can not be claimed for !! * results but the map has the normal accuracy for its scale and th distances given by the board are more likely to be exceeded found too great. The amount of tunnel required can be reduce lengthening the canal. It was believed by the board that the turt required would be nearer 80 miles than the 27 originally prope by Mr. Sturtevant or the 32 now claimed by him but the matter immaterial because even on Mr. Sturtevant's figures for lengt canal and tunnel the project is not feasible. 3. The board did not give an estimate of cost in its report but made he statement that the Sturtevant estimate would be greatly exceeded. conservative estimate made in my office and based upon the mileage I canal and tunnel claimed by Sturtevant shows that the project ill cost at least three times the $290,000,000 estimated as the total ost by Sturtevant. 4. No accurate investigation was made by the board as to the xact tillable area available because the project was found infeasible wen on the assumption that the full 3,500,000 acres be available. caling from the map indicated that practically all lands below the vel of the canal must be included to make up the 3,500,000 acres. soil survey of the 670,000 acres below the Sentinel site made in 919 showed that only about 55 per cent could be considered agriultural land. Under the circumstances the board felt justified in uestioning the figures given by Sturtevant. 5. The board's estimate that to serve the land in question, a diveron of 4 acre-feet per acre per year will be required is so conservative hat it will hardly be attacked as being too large by anybody with rigation experience in Arizona. Since the project is not feasible ith that amount of diversion, it is profitless to argue about canal sses. 6. To permit a uniform flow in the main canal of about 20,000 econd-feet will require about 3,000,000 acre-feet of storage, nearly vo and one-half times the capacity of Roosevelt Reservoir. There what seems to be a fairly good reservoir on the Williams at the unction of Big Sandy and Santa Maria Rivers, suitable for a dam erhaps 225 feet high. Unfortunately the elevation of stream at the am site is about 960, whereas the canal will cross at an elevation etween 1,700 and 1,750. A dam over 700 feet high would, therepre, be necessary and the contour map indicates that a dam of such eight would have a crest length of about 4 miles. The Sentinel eservoir site would give the capacity but the foundations are poor or a dam of the required height and the reservoir lies so low that it ill serve not over 10 per cent of the area contemplated. The illespie and Granite Reef Dams are not capable of furnishing the orage required with reasonable cost. Both would give shallow eservoirs with very large evaporation losses. Mr. Maxwell's proposition to shift from Spencer Canyon to Bridge anyon dam site will not make the project any more feasible. Very truly yours, 3473-24-8 WILLIAM KELLY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Ion. CARL HAYDEN, MY DEAR MR. HAYDEN: Colonel Birdseye and I had a talk with Ir. La Rue, as you suggested, on Saturday, and I think the immeiate mapping needs are pretty well understood. I inclose copies of he internal correspondence in this office which I told you of. Yours very cordially, GEO. OTIS SMITH, Director. femorandum for Secretary of the Interior. MARCH 22, 1924. In the consideration of the Colorado River problems involving the rigation of lands in Arizona, your committee (select board of enineers) found the lack of good topographic maps to be a serious andicap. It is believed that the extension at an early date of toporaphic maps, particularly over the lands in the lower Colorado and ila Basins, would be highly desirable in the further investigation of ossible irrigation development of this section. Without such maps is always difficult to verify the conclusions of individual investiators. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: With reference to the memorandum om Colonel Cosby, dated March 22: I have discussed the matter of topographic mapping in the lower olorado and Gila Basins (Arizona) with Messrs. Stabler and irdseye, and we agree that the work should be extended in this gion. In order that sufficient progress should be made to be of uch help in Colorado River investigations, a rather elaborate proram should be adopted, and financial contribution on the part of e State will probably be needed to make the program effective. I nderstand that plans are under way to have the State make approriations for this work, but that the money will not be available this ear. Considerable preliminary control work must be done before e actual mapping can be started, and Mr. Birdseye plans to make n allotment for this during the coming fiscal year. Cordially, GEO. OTIS SMITH, Director. |