highest reliable flow that could be regarded as reliable from Mono Basin is about 160 second-feet.

Senator PHIPPS. 160 second-feet?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator PHIPPS. Which is more than half the amount you have been getting and are at the present time getting through your aqueduct?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. There isn't sufficient water in Mono Basin, as I explained a few moments ago. Domestic water supplies must be based upon some factor of safety. You can not design and plan and build for the full 100 per cent, the theoretical 100 per cent from a shed, as indicated by past records. You must have a factor of safety. We don't know whether the years coming are going to be drier than the ones we have had or not. That is a factor that we always have to take into consideraion.

Senator PHIPPS. Well, what allowance did you make?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. About 25 per cent.

Senator PHIPPS. 25 per cent off of 160 would leave you 120, wouldn't it?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. Yes; that much being left would not justify the construction, the expenditure for construction of an aqueduct from here to the Mono Basin.

Senator PHIPPS. You would not have to construct the aqueduct from here to Mono Basin, however?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. You certainly would.

Senator PHIPPS. Why so, if you could bring that Mono Basin water into Owens Valley drainage, around by the abode meadows, by gravity, put it into the waters of the Owens River, it comes through Owens gorge, doesn't it?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. No: it does not come down through Owens Gorge, if it is turned into Adobe Meadows. If you bring it through Owens Gorge, it goes through an 11-mile tunnel from Silver Lake to Thompson's Crossing on the Owens River. If it is put into Adobe Meadows it goes around the Gorge through Adobe Lake and Adobe Meadows, thence past Benten and into the upper end of the Owens Valley.

Now, there is a gap in there of some 50 or 60 miles where it would not be necessary to build an aqueduct. However, it would be necessary to build an aqueduct from the Mono Basin to the Owens River Basin and then build another aqueduct just as long as the present aqueduct to get that small additional supply into this city, and it would only last a year or two; it would not be worth while; the cost of the construction of aqueducts or conduits such as the present Owens River Aqueduct does not increase in proportion to the size of the conduits, so it would be a very costly job for a small conduit over that distance, for the small quantity of water; it would not be feasible.

Senator PHIPPS. You would not consider an 11-mile tunnel an impediment, would you?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. Well, I think if that had not been considered an impediment a long time ago, probably that water would have been in the Owens River now, in the Owens River drainage. In 1908 careful investigations were made on that. As you probably

know, Senator, there are hot springs that pass through the Mono Craters, come from the cleft in the earth's surface, the long line of Mono craters, and this tunnel would pass right through that line of craters, and the hot springs are in there, and there is no assurance but that if we get into those regions we might, as we would say, get into hot water, and for that reason many years ago the though of driving that tunnel was not very seriously regarded.

Senator PHIPPS. Still, there is 160 second-feet of water to be considered. Have you made any survey and estimate of the cost of transporting that water by way of the Adobe Meadows?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. Why, no; I have not, personally, but figures have been made on that recently by representatives of the Southern Sierras Power Co., proposing to sell that water to the city, where they submitted an estimate; I don't recall offhand what the estimated cost was.

Senator PHIPPS. Didn't the city make its own estimate?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. No, sir; not on that line.

Senator PHIPPS. Did they make it on any line?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. Yes; we made an estimate some years ago of that long tunnel and bringing the water into the Owens or Long Valley, Compton's Crossing; yes, sir.

Senator PHIPPS. Do you recall what that estimate showed?

Mr. VAN NORMAN. Well, it is a good many years ago, but my recollection is it was eight or ten million dollars for that 11-mile

tunnel.

Senator PHIPPS. I think that is all I wanted on that point.

The CHAIRMAN. You may continue with your statement, Mr. Van Norman.

Mr. VAN NORMAN. In closing, gentlemen, I just wish to impress upon you the fact it is a real necessity that we are facing, and we wish to be able to proceed with our plans as soon as possible. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Allen P. Bixby, commander of American Legion, Department of California.

STATEMENT OF ALLEN P. BIXBY, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN LEGION, DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. BIXBY. I want to submit a statement explaining, very briefly, the activity and interest of the American Legion locally and nationally on the subject that you have under consideration.

A resolution advocating the construction of an All-American Canal in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, and a storage dam on the Colorado River, at a site to be determined by Government engineers, was submitted to the committee on resolutions at the first convention of the American Legion, Department of California, in September, 1919. This resolution calling for preferential filing rights for veterans on public lands was considered and recommended by a subcommittee consisting of Walter Kibbey, of El Centro; Dr. C. D. Lockwood, of Pasadena; and Walter F. Lineberger, of Long Beach. Mr. Lineberger, now Congressman from the ninth district of California, was chairman of the subcommittee. The resolution was unanimously adopted by the committee and presented to the

committee on resolutions at the First National Convention of the American Legion at Minneapolis, in November, 1919. The national committee unanimously approved the resolution, and referred the same to the national legislative committee with a request for favorable action.

The national legislative committee, pursuant to the request, appeared before the proper congressional committee, and recommended the passage of such legislation.

In 1920 Congress enacted the Kinkaid bill, providing for an investigation and report under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. Following that report the Swing-Johnson bill was drawn and introduced in both Houses of Congress, and the National Convention of the American Legion in October, 1923, indorsed this measure by a resolution which reads as follows:

Whereas the Department of Interior of the United States has recommended to Congress the construction of a project for the protection and development of the Lower Colorado River, commonly known as the "Boulder Dam and All-American Canal project," as the first unit of the ultimate complete development of the resources of said river; and

Whereas this project is vitally necessary to safeguard the lines and property of many ex-service men and thousands of others living in the Lower Colorado River Basin, now constantly threatened with devastation and destruction from annual floods of that river; and

Whereas under said project thousands of ex-service men and women will be given the preferred right to acquire homes and farms by entry upon several hundred thousand acres of public lands in Arizona, Nevada, and California, now arid and worthless, but which by this project will be made intensely productive and valuable: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Legion, in national convention assembled, does hereby favor the adoption by Congress of a program for the ultimate complete development of the Colorado River, and favors as the first unit of that program the passage of legislation that will carry out the recommedations heretofore made by the Interior Department providing for the construction of said Boulder Dam and All-American Canal, and that the national legislative committee of the American Legion be directed to use all legitimate means to secure the passage of such legislation.

I will submit this report for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. John R. King, former national commander of the American Legion. Is Mr. King present?

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. KING, FORMER NATIONAL COMMANDER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. KING. Gentlemen, perhaps I had best qualify myself before saying a word into the record. I served the American Legion as department commander in the years 1921 and 1922: as its national executive committeeman from the Department of California in 1922 and 1923, and as its national commander in 1923 and 1924. I have been familiar with the opinion of the American Legion as regards the Swing-Johnson bill as legislation, the Boulder Canyon Dam, and the general Colorado development as a general proposition. When I became department commander in 1921 the Legion then was on record, through its committee on resolutions, in its 1919 convention, as being in favor of the type of legislation that was afterwards the Swing-Johnson bill. I believe that the subcommittee that considered that was composed of Walter Lineberger, as we know him, now Congressman for the ninth district, Doctor Lockwood, of Pasadena, and

Walter Kibby, then of El Centro, and now of Los Angeles, Calif. At every American Legion convention of the Department of California since 1919 the Boulder Canyon project, the development of the Lower Colorado, has been enthusiastically and unanimously endorsed. In every national convention it has received serious consideration and has been endorsed without reservation. When I became department commander, I was not entirely familiar with all the rules of procedure that a commander should know, and so I took it upon myself to go into the Imperial Valley and make a personal investigation of the conditions as they existed at that time, being particularly interested in the work going forward there in behalf of the disabled ex-service man. After three days intensive study and inspection in the Imperial Valley I came away even more convinced than ever that the only solution for the southern part of California was the development of the Colorado River through the Boulder Canyon Dam and the All-American Canal.

No longer than 30 days it was my privilege to make a personal inspection of the Colorado River. Once more I came away, even more firmly convinced that the salvation of Southern California and the entire Southwest depends upon the development of this Colorado River project.

More than that I can not say; more than that I need not say. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. It becomes necessary at this time to alter the program somewhat. Senator Ashurst desires 'one or two witnesses to be called for the State of Arizona.

Senator ASHURST. I thank the entire committee for this great courtesy which is now about to be extended to some citizens of Arizona, who will be heard very briefly. We think it is expedient and hope and believe that it may lead to some arrangement or composition of the present apparent disagreement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. George H. Maxwell.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. MAXWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. MAXWELL. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I have traveled 6,000 miles

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your qualifications and occupation, Mr. Maxwell?

Mr. MAXWELL. I am a citizen of Arizona and have been for 25 years the executive director of the National Reclamation Association, and am at present. I have also, since its organization, been executive director of the Arizona High Line Reclamation Association. I have devoted the last 25 years exclusively to the endeavor to promote water conservation, forest preservation, and the construction of the necessary irrigation work to bring about the complete reclamation of the arid lands of the West. I came to this meeting in the hope that it might be possible, with the La Rue report before us, to bring about complete harmony between the various sections of the West and the various interests in the United States of America which are seeking to carry out some plan for the utilization of the Colorado 7257825PT 1-9

River water, for flood control, or for power, or for reclamation. I do not believe that it will ever be possible to bring about any settlement which will be satisfactory to the Mexican interests and at the same time satisfactory to the people of the United States of America.

In the first place, I want to go back to the point raised by Senator Pittman with reference to the present attitude of mind of the Eastern people with reference to reclamation. I spent the best five working years of my life organizing a campaign to get through Congress, in the face of that fixed opposition, the national reclamation act. I believe that since the passage of that act, owing to a number of different conditions, that sentiment is today much stronger against the West than it was when we started our campaign to overcome it sufficiently to permit the national reclamation act to be passed. It is my very serious and sober judgment, as the result of 25 years of contact with this question and with eastern public sentiment on the subject, that any bill which combines reclamation with flood control will be impossible of passage at the present time. I believe that within ten years there will be a shortage of agricultural products in the United States, and that if we are a little patient that adverse sentiment will swing our way. But as far as power is concerned, there has never been, so far as my knowledge goes, an act of Congress passed in which the Federal Government enlisted in the development of power. Therefore, it seemed to me that Senator Pittman struck the keynote to this whole problem when he asked the question whether, if a bill could be obtained from Congress providing for flood control, it would be better to accept it, or to insist upon a bill which combined reclamation with flood control, or power and reclamation with flood control. The ease with which flood control can be provided on the Colorado River for the Imperial Valley, the Palos Verdes Valley, the Yuma country, is brought out for the first time in this La Rue report, and I am going to, very briefly, indicate the plan which is proposed there for flood control only.

We have in the United States today a completed project known as the Miami River project, which was built exclusively for flood control; and, as this La Rue report makes absolutely clear, a dam could be built at the Mojave Canyon site which would hold and entirely desilt the river and free the people of the Imperial Valley entirely from the danger of that constantly rising bed of the river, due to the silt, and holding back more than water enough to make the river entirely safe, so far as these menaced lands are concerned. with a dam only 95 feet high, which would reduce the largest flow of the river to 70,000 second-feet. A dam 135 feet high would reduce it to 37,000 second-feet. A dam 158 feet high would increase the storage to 10,200,000, and 240 feet would increase it to 24,000,000. Now, Mr. Chairman and Senators, there is one point about this whole question that, it seems to me, we ought to have always before us, and that is if any project is built in the lowest reaches of the river, anywhere below the north line of Arizona, which tends to regulate the flow of the river and thereby increase the possibility of the beneficial use of that river for irrigation, it is absolutely inevitable that that water will be, under the laws of the State, appropriated for use, and a right created which will forever prevent the upper States from appropriating and using that water.