Page images
PDF
EPUB

or that scheme a preference. So far as I am aware drillings have not been made at the Mohave site, and I do not know whether they have been made at the Parker site, or at some of the other sites; and no one can say with any certainty that a dam could be constructed anywhere in the Colorado River until he has put the diamond drill down to find out what the conditions are for the foundation.

The general principle is this, that for the purpose of flood control and for irrigation the location of the controlling works near to the land to be irrigated is an advantage. It would be easier to control the discharge of water for either purpose from a dam 50 or 100 miles from the areas to be protected than from a dam 500 or 700 miles distant. There is no question about that.

There is, however, a question that has arisen concerning the desirability of placing in the lower river storage of a quantity far in excess of the needs either of flood control or of irrigation use, because in the future development of the canyon section of the Colorado River there will be required the location of storage reservoirs in the upper basin of sufficient capacity to regulate the flow of the stream so as practically to make a constant discharge through the canyon section. That will have to be done regardless of whether a dam of the capacity of 1,000,000 or of 50,000,000 acre-feet is placed in the lower basin. It is entirely independent of any consideration of the lower river. The question therefore arises whether it is wise to put an investment in the lower river that must necessarily be duplicated in the upper river, unless conditions with respect to the dam in the lower river justify the investment in it irrespective of what may be required later and farther up.

The other question that has been raised and which needs careful consideration is the effect upon the water supply and upon eventual power development of the erection of dams of excessive height in the lower section of the river, due to the unnecessary wastage of water from evaporation on the large areas to which the reservoir will expand if dam heights rise above 300 or 400 feet. I will merely call attention to the statements in the report of Colonel Kelly and the report of Mr. La Rue, of which the latter will give testimony later on, that a reservoir of the height which has sometimes been proposed at Boulder Canyon, 605 feet above the river bed, would waste through unnecessary evaporation enough water to irrigate from 50,000 to 100,000 acres of land and to produce from 200,000 to 250,000 horsepower.

There is also the necessity of so locating the various dams that the reservoir level of one dam shall approximately reach the tailwater elevation of the dam above in order that head may not be wasted between them. If you have a difference of 40 or 50 feet in the reservoir level of one dam and the discharge level of the dam next above, that 40 or 50 feet will be lost because it is not a practicable economic proposition to build a dam in the Colorado River with the depth of foundation necessary (considering the great cost of such a foundation) to develop a head of 40 or 50 feet.

Those are certain general considerations with respect to the scheme of development. I do not think I will go into any further details as to that part of it.

There is one other consideration to which I wish to call your attention affecting action upon the Boulder Canyon, or any other project in the lower river at the present time, which may involve any considerable water storage, and that is the Colorado River compact.

You may be aware that the Federal Power Commission has had before it, practically since its organization, applications for power development covering the larger part of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry down. Only one of those applications had such a status, due to rights acquired prior to the passage of the Federal water power act, that the commission thought it might be justified in acting favorably upon it. This was the Girand application at Diamond Creek in Arizona. This project, however, would have a storage capacity, as I recall, of about 300,000 second-feet. That is not the entire capacity behind the dam, but the points from which the water could be drawn would limit its usable capacity to some 300,000 acre-feet.

Senator PITTMAN. You used the words before "second-feet." Did you mean acre-feet?

Mr. MERRILL. It should be acre-feet in both cases. In view of the possibilities of acquisition of rights on the river through a storage even of this amount, and the belief on the part of the Federal Power Commission that a necessary prerequisite, or at least a most desirable prerequisite to any development of consequence on the Colorado River was an agreement between the seven States on the matter of the compact, the commission, after an extended hearing to representatives of the entire seven States in the basin, suspended action, not only on the Girand application, but on every other application within the Colorado River basin-the main river and its tributaries in the seven States, including the Gila.

If it is of interest to the committee I can put the list of these projects into your record. I can also give the action of the Federal Power Commission taken during the last four years and upon this Girand situation.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be well to have it in the record.

EXTRACTS FROM MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION SHOWING ACTION TAKEN ON APPLICATION OF JAMES B. GIRAND, ARIZONA

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Washington, December 4, 1925. Eighteenth meeting of commission held on May 20, 1921: "In the matter of the application of James B. Girand, of Phoenix, Ariz., (project No. 121), it was voted that a preliminary permit for a period of one year be issued for a power project on the Colorado River near the outlet of Diamond Creek in the State of Arizona, such permit to be issued subject to the provisions of the act, to the rules and regulations of the commission, and to the following special conditions recommended by the executive secretary:

"(a) That the permittee install and maintain a stream-gauging station below the site of the proposed dam unless stations installed by the United States Geological Survey shall be found upon investigation to provide records of stream flow adequate for determining the power capacity of the proposed project.

"(b) That the permittee make sufficient explorations by test pits and borings to determine the safety of the foundations of the proposed dam and power house, and investigate thoroughly the adequacy and safety of the proposed spillway and spillway discharge channel.

"(c) That if license be issued, it be for a period of 50 years and subject to the rules and regulations in force at the date of issuance of permit."

72578-25-PT 52

Twenty-second meeting of commission, held on July 11, 1921: "The executive secretary submitted an opinion of the chief counsel, dated May 14, 1921 (L. Decisions, James B. Girand), on the question whether it was necessary under section 4(e) of the Federal water power act, approved June 10, 1920 (41 Stat. 1063), to advertise a project where the applicant has priority under section 23 of the act. The question arose in the case of James B. Girand, who on the date of the approval of the Federal water power act, held a permit under the act of February 15, 1901, and who under the priority of such permit applied for a license under the Federal water power act for a power development on the Colorado River at Diamond Creek, Ariz., and a preliminary permit pending the preparation and submission of his plans to the commission. The chief counsel holds that section 4(e) of the act does not require the advertising of applications for licenses, including preliminary permits, pending the completion of the necessary data, where the applicant has priority under section 23 of the act. The executive secretary stated that this opinion has received the preliminary approval of the Secretary of the Interior and of the Secretary of Agriculture. The opinion was approved by the commission."

Thirty-second meeting of commission, held on April 17, 1922: "The executive secretary called attention to the hearings involving power and irrigation developments on the Colorado River, desiring the views of the commission as to whether or not consideration should be given to applications for power developments on said river. It was voted by the commission that action upon applications involving this river be suspended for the present so that consideration may be given to the bearing of any proposed project on a general plan of river development."

Thirty-fifth meeting of commission, held on June 29, 1922: "In the matter of the application of James B. Girand, of Phoenix, Ariz. (project No. 121), for an extension from July 19, 1922, to July 19, 1923, of the period of the preliminary permit issued by the Federal Power Commission to said James B. Girand on July 19, 1921, for a power project for the development of water power on the Colorado River at the mouth of Diamond Creek, Mohave County, Ariz., such extension being desired in view of the action of the commission at its meeting on April 17, 1922, in suspending, for the present, consideration of all applications for power development on the Colorado River; it appearing that an extension of the period of the permit is reasonable and necessary, it was voted that the period of said preliminary permit be extended for three months from July 19, 1922."

Thirty-fifth meeting of commission, held June 29, 1922: "In the matter of the application of James B. Girand, of Phoenix, Ariz. (project No. 121), for an extension from October 19, 1922, to January 19, 1923, of the period of the preliminary permit issued by the Federal Power Commission to said James B. Girand on July 19, 1921, and extended on June 30, 1922, for a power project for the development of water power on Colorado River, at the mouth of Diamond Creek, Mohave County, Ariz., such extension being desired in view of the action of the commission at its meeting on April 17, 1922, in suspending for the present consideration of all applications for power development on Colorado River, it appearing that an extension of the period of the permit is reasonable and necessary, it was voted that said preliminary permit be extended for five months, to March 19, 1923."

Forty-second meeting of commission, held on December 13, 1922: "The execu tive secretary stated that the Colorado River Commission had reached an agreement as to the apportionment of waters of the Colorado River pursuant to the act of Congress creating that commission; that this agreement will be submitted for ratification by Congress and by the legislatures of the States involved; and that it is desired by said commission that any license issued by the Federal Power Commission shall be made expressly subject to the provisions of the agreement. He also submitted a telegram from W. S. Norviel, of Phoenix, Ariz., stating that the execution of the Colorado River compact by said commission seems to have removed opposition to the Girand project and urging that the commission grant a license therefor. Action was deferred until the matter could be taken up by the chairman with Secretary Hoover and the President."

Forty-fifth meeting of commission, held on January 15, 1923: "The executive secretary presented the application of the Governor of Colorado, for a hearing in the matter of the issue of a license to James B. Girand, of Phoenix, Ariz. (project No. 121), for power development at Diamond Creek on the Colorado River. It was voted by the commission that if and when it took under further consideration the matter of the issue of the license on the

Girand application an opportunity would be granted to the representatives of the State of Colorado to be heard."

Forty-ninth meeting of commission, held on March 2, 1923: "In the matter of the preliminary permit of James B. Girand, of Phoenix, Ariz. (project No. 121), which expires on March 19, 1923, under which final application has been filed and upon which no action has yet been taken by the commission: It appearing that extension of such permit is desirable in order to protect the priority of the permittee until the legal question involved is submitted to the commission for formal decision, it was voted that the date of expiration of said preliminary permit be extended to September 19, 1923, and that the executive secretary be authorized to issue a formal written instrument evidencing such extension."

Fiftieth meeting of commission, held on April 19, 1923: "The meeting was devoted to hearing representatives of the States of Colorado and Wyoming and of the city of Los Angeles, Calif., against the issuance of a license, prior to the ratification by Arizona of the Colorado River compact, for the proposed project (No. 121) of James B. Girand for power development on Colorado River at Diamond Creek, Ariz.

Fifty-first meeting of commission, held on April 22, 1923: "The executive secretary referred to the hearing before the commission on April 19, 1923, with regard to power development on the Colorado River and its tributaries, making reference to the application of James B. Girand for power development at Diamond Creek, Ariz., and to the application of the Utah Power & Light Co. for a power project on Green River at Flaming Gorge, in the northern part of Utah. After discussing the matter the commission voted to defer for the present action on all applications affecting the Colorado River."

Fifty-sixth meeting of commission, held on August 16, 1923: “The chief engineer presented a letter from James B. Girand requesting that action be taken on his application for a license for a power project (project No. 121) in Colorado River, at Diamond Creek, which application has been pending since February 27, 1922, or that he be granted a hearing by the commission, After discussion the commission instructed the chief engineer to call upon Mr. Girard to show what new matter he has to present to the commission which would justify the holding of a hearing."

Fifty-seventh meeting of commission, held on September 24 and 25, 1923: "The meeting was devoted to hearing counsel for James B. Girand and representatives of the States of Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, the city of Los Angeles, Calif., and others in the matter of the issue of a license, prior to ratification by Arizona of the Colorado River compact, for the proposed project (No. 121) of James B. Girand for power development on Colorado River at Diamond Creek, Ariz.”

Fifty-eighth meeting of commission. held on October 22, 1923: "The executive secretary presented the application of James B. Girand, of Phoenix. Ariz. (project No. 121), for a license for power development on Colorado River at Diamond Creek, Ariz. The commission, after discussion, deferred action thereon until a special meeting to be called by the chairman in the near future."

Fifty-ninth meeting of commission, held on October 26, 1923: With respect to the application of James B. Girand for a license on the Colorado River at Diamond Creek, Ariz. (project No. 121), the commission voted not to issue license at this time and held that the priorities established under the preliminary permit, issued on July 19, 1921, will hold good until the commission shall finally approve issuance of license or reject the application."

Sixty-ninth meeting of commission, held on May 23, 1925: "In the matter of the application of James B. Girand, of Phoenix, Ariz. (project No. 121), for a license for a power project on the Colorado River and on lands of the United States partly within the Hualpai Indian Reservation, it was voted that since the consideration of this project has been intimately associated with the terms of the pending pact between the States of Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, which Arizona has refused to ratify and to which California proposes stipulations, and since a hearing has been demanded by protestants to the issuance of this license from the upper reaches of the Colorado River, such hearing be granted them, to be held in September, 1925, in Washington, D. C. It was further voted that unless at such hearing adequate reasons are presented against the issuance of license it is the opinion of the commission that license should then be granted."

Seventy-second meeting of commission, held on October 20 and 21, 1925: "The meeting was devoted to hearing James B. Girand, of Phoenix, Ariz., applicant for license for a power project (No. 121) on the Colorado River at Diamond Creek, Ariz., and representatives of the several States, municipalities, and others opposed to the issue of such license."

Seventy-third meeting of commission, held on October 28, 1925: "In the matter of the application for license of James B. Girand, upon which hearing was held on October 20-21, 1925, the commission passed the following resolutions:

"Whereas at a hearing before the Federal Power Commission in Washington on October 20 and 21, 1925, on the application of James B. Girand for a power license (project No. 121) there appeared the governors, Congressmen, and other official representatives of the seven States through which the Colorado River and its tributaries flow; and

"Whereas these representatives opposed the issue of the license on the ground, among others, that any reservoir erected in the river at the present time might in some degree affect the water rights of each of the seven States, and it was represented that the States had not as yet reached any conclusion as to the negotiations of settlement of their respective rights as between themselves; and

"Whereas some 24 other applications for license for use of the waters of the Colorado and of its tributaries are pending before the Federal Power Commission, a list of which is hereto attached, and it seems, therefore, that a definite expression is called for as to a temporary Government policy covering all these applications: Therefore be it

"Resolved, That action on all applications for power licenses on the Colorado River and its tributaries now pending before this Commission and not finally acted upon, including the Girand application, is hereby suspended for a reasonable time; and

"That constructive governmental policy requires that the States affected should, and they are hereby earnestly urged to, reach as speedily as possible an agreement among themselves for the division of the waters of the river system, all to the end that thereupon development may proceed unchallenged upon interstate grounds.

"Whereas the Federal Power Commission has refused for the time being the application of J. B. Girand, together with other applications for power projects upon the Colorado River system, in order to give the States of the Colorado River basin further opportunity to reach an agreement among themselves as to a division of the waters of the river system; and

"Whereas said Girand has been given encouragement by the Federal Power Commission and predecessor agencies or departments of the Government during the past 12 years which has influenced him in the expenditure of considerable money in anticipation of a license; Therefore be it

"Resolved, That when the present policy of temporary suspension of action on all applications for licenses on the river is changed, and licenses may issue on the Colorado River, then the Girand application should be given a preferred consideration for license at Diamond Creek."

Projects affected by the Federal Power Commission's order of October 28, 1925, respecting the Colorado River

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »