Senator WALSH of Montana. Would you give us some kind of an idea about the development in the use of power for industrial purposes and municipal purposes, leading up to how you expect to utilize this tremendous development of 600,000 horsepower?

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, the city of Los Angeles does not hope to secure this entire 600,000 horsepower. There are communities in the State of Nevada, communities in the State of Arizona, and other communities besides Los Angeles in the State of California that have expressed a desire to be supplied with power from this project, and the city takes the position that all of those requirements should be met.

Senator WALSH of Montana. The witness who just addressed us talked in a general way about the development of the country, but 600,000 horsepower is an awful development.

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes; it is.

Senator WALSH of Montana. And I would think that before we went into the thing we would want to have some kind of an idea about whether the power is going to be used, whether there is going to be a market for it.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Senator, before you came in, Doctor Durand covered that in a statement regarding the increase in population and the increase in electrical energy, and he predicted that by 1930 they could consume the whole of the project.

Senator ASHURST. There seems to be a disposition to overlook the necessity of Arizona for hydroelectrical energy. Unless Arizona receives large amounts of hydroelectric power we can not operate our mines. Arizona to-day needs immediately 200,000 horsepower. We will require a million horsepower in the not remote future.

Senator JOHNSON of California. There is a third of the horsepower, Senator Walsh, right there.

Senator WALSH of Montana. That goes a long way toward answering my question.

Mr. CRISWELL. May I say to Senator Ashurst at this point that the city of Los Angeles has at all times realized the needs of the State of Arizona in this matter and has endeavored not to do anything which would interfere with that need.

Senator WALSH of Montana. No one would assume that the city of Los Angeles is going to take the 600,000 horsepower.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Mr. Criswell, there are quite a number of large and growing cities in southern California, other than Los Angeles, which would call for power?

Mr. CRISWELL. Oh, yes. San Bernardino, Riverside, Pasadena— all of those cities have an interest in this matter.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It is practical and feasible to carry the power that distance?

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. They have all expressed an interest in this matter, and they are all asking for this legislation.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Of course, everybody in that country wants that money spent. There is no doubt about that proposition. Senator SHORTRIDGE. No; they want the power at reasonable rates. Senator WALSH of Montana. I have no doubt they want the power, but they want the money spent.

Senator JOHNSON of California. On the contrary, they stand ready to see that every dollar of it is repaid. It is not a question of spending that money, Senator, if you will pardon me for saying so. is a question of the necessities of the territory, and they stand ready

Senator WALSH of Montana (interposing). I would not want you to understand that I have excluded that factor, but we can not possibly consider this without considering the other feature of it.

Senator JOHNSON of California. That is quite true; but the first desideratum is the necessity of this thing, not for the expenditure of an appropriation, because we have endeavored to safeguard in this bill so that every dollar will be returned. If you had been here during the discussion yesterday, I think that would have been made plain, and, if you will permit me, I would like to have some of these gentlemen who have testified--if you will give them half an hourmake plain to you the financial aspect of this situation. The financial aspect, the acceptance of an appropriation, is not appealing to them at all; it is the other aspect, the flood control, the reclamation. the power that comes, and the possibilities for domestic water. Those are the things. This is not the ordinary instance of an appropriation desired by a locality for the expenditure of money. The benefits which are to come from the expenditure of money, I beg to assure you, are what are influencing these people.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Well, Senator, I would not like to have you think that I doubted for a moment the good faith of these people and their interest based on all the considerations you speak of, but your people down there would be quite different from the rest of the world if they did not look with some satisfaction at the expenditure of this enormous amount of money in that locality.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I know of no State or of no people that do not agree with the people of my State on this phase of that problem. Senator JOHNSON of California. What you suggest, Senator Walsh, I recognize; and I am not quarreling with that suggestion as a general proposition, but this is not that kind of a case. That is what I

want to make clear.

Senator WALSH of Montana. All of these cities have exhibited an interest in this project.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Their interest in this project does not arise from what you imagine; their interest in this project arises from their necessities in the most rapidly growing territory that there is in the United States, none excepted.

Mr. CRISWELL. May I say, Senator, that their interest in this project arises very largely from the fact that during the past summer every one of the localities which has been mentioned here had to curtail the use of water in those localities. It is a desire for an additional water supply. For instance, we can not grow, there is not a city in southern California that can grow any larger than it is at the present time without an additional water supply, because people can not live unless we can assure them water.

For instance, in 1905, when the city of Los Angeles saddled itself with a debt of $24,500,000 for the building of this aqueduct, we had at that time a water supply for not to exceed 250,000 people. We had a population of about 165,000, and yet we voted this enormous bond

issue for the purpose of securing an additional water supply in order that our city might continue to grow, and to-day we have more than 1,000,000 people.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. And you are soon to have 2,000,000?

Mr. CRISWELL. And as we approach the 2,000,000 mark-well, we can not furnish water for more than 2,000,000 people.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your observation that the continued growth of Los Angeles is wholly dependent upon the development of this project?

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, I would not say that it is wholly dependent upon the development of this project, but this is the most feasible project which our engineers have found for the procurement of an additional water supply and additional power.

Senator ASHURST. In the determination as to whether or not there is a market for power, it is an evidentiary fact that ought to be remembered that a large financial institution in the west, which has at its command $500,000,000, has offered to build Boulder Dam and convey it to the United States Government for $1, provided this corporation may have the right to generate the electricity.

Mr. CRISWELL. The resolution which I filed with the committee, which was adopted last January by the city council as showing the desire of the city officials to participate in this development, of course, might be subject to the criticism that they were only city officials who were speaking. Therefore, the council, at an election held on the 12th of last May, submitted the question to the voters of the city pursuant to a provision in our city charter. The question which we submitted was this:

Shall the city, through its proper officials, contract with the United States Government for its equitable share of hydroelectric power rights at a dam to be constructed by the Federal Government on the Colorado River at or near the Boulder Canyon in order that the city may develop power for use within its limits and for pumping water from the Colorado River for use within the city?

At that election there were 121,516 votes cast in favor of the proposition and 27,828 votes cast against it; or, in other words, about 82 or 83 per cent of the voters voted in favor of this proposition. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to file this certified statement on that proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. It may go into the record.

(The certified statement referred to is as follows:)

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., December 12, 1924.

I hereby certify that the council of the city of Los Angeles did at its meeting of May 12, 1924, canvass the returns of the special municipal election held Tuesday, May 6, 1924, upon the following proposition, to wit:

"Shall the city, through its proper officials, contract with the United States Government for its equitable share of hydroelectric power rights at a dam to be constructed by the Federal Government on the Colorado River at or near the Boulder Canyon, in order that the city may develop power for use within its limits, and for pumping water from the Colorado River for use within the city?"

and that said canvass of said returns showed that the total number of votes cast on above mentioned proposition at said special municipal election was 149,344, and that at said election 121,516 votes were cast in favor of the proposition submitted at said special municipal election, and 27,828 votes were cast against the proposition submitted at said special municipal election.

[SEAL]

ROBERT DOMINGUEZ,

City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Council.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I do not wish to interrupt the thread of the discussion, but referring to the thought expressed a moment ago touching the present or future market for power as it relates to the growth and development of Los Angeles, it should be borne in mind that that development of the city will depend, and vitally depend, upon an increased water supply. That is a very grave phase of the problem confronting that city. I merely wanted that thought here to be lodged in the record.

Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Criswell, I want to say that a number of those who are members of this committee and those who are not in the Senate, as far as I have made inquiry, are favorable to the development of the lower Colorado in the way that you people down there want it developed, but we are vitally concerned at the same time in the protection of the interests of those States in which these waters have their source. I have been recently told-and, of course we all know that these rights are protected, at least we believe they are protected, under the provisions of this pact between the seven States; and as it happens a half dozen of the seven have already ratified the pact according to and through their different and separate legislatures.

Very recently I have been informed that one of the reasons given by the Governor of Arizona-which is the only State up to this time that has failed to ratify the pact-is that he had thought best that Arizona and California, before he saw fit to ratify it, should have a separate agreement of some kind, and that he had appealed to the Governor of California to meet with him in conference and see if they could not reach an understanding on certain peculiar interests that would be necessary and provided for in this separate agreement. The Governor of California had entirely ignored his request to have a conference, and, I believe, did not even reply to a courteous letter. Do you happen to know whether that is true or not?

Mr. CRISWELL. I do not, Senator. All I know of it is that I have read something of that kind in some of the newspapers. I will say for myself that on account of my attitude at the primary election at which our governor was nominated I have not much influence with the governor.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. That should not cause an estrangement.

Senator KENDRICK. The importance of it, Senator Shortridge, is found in the fact that those of us who otherwise would like to support this legislation and do everything we can for its enactment must, it seems to me, withhold that support until these rights are protected. Therein lies the importance of this question.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I perceive its importance. I am not at all familiar with the character of the communication from one governor to the other-which suggests North and South Carolina-or whether our governor replied or not. I know nothing of the incident referred to; but it may well be, and I dare say it is-the thought of the Governor of Arizona that his State is entitled to certain rights and privileges, and that those rights and privileges depend upon some arrangement between his State and California. Possibly he did not take part in that primary, but, in any event, any such agreement or compact between the two States would be subject to the ratification of Congress.

Senator KENDRICK. The only thing that suggested the question is that if the Governor of California is as vitally interested in the development of his State as those of us farther up the river are in the protection of our State, he might answer a courteous letter and make an effort to cooperate with the Governor of Arizona in ironing out this difficulty.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I am not assuming, and I do not propose to assume, that he in point of fact declined or failed to reply to the communication referred to. Indeed, I am not aware of the position of the Governor of Arizona. I do not know what is the matter with him in point of fact. I understand that he has opposed the ratification of the pact which has heretofore been ratified by the other six States. The vigilant Senator from Arizona, who is a member of this committee, perhaps may enlighten the committee, if it be desirable, as to what the trouble, if any, is with the Governor of Arizona.

Senator KENDRICK. I have no intention of casting any reflection. My thought is to get information for the benefit of the committee and to try, if possible, to suggest some way by which we may support this legislation; but I may say here to the Senator from California. that a failure to answer a courteous letter of this kind would suggest that there was something the matter with the Governor of California as well as the Governor of Arizona.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The failure to reply might be attributed to the character of the communication.

Senator KENDRICK. Possibly.

Senator ASHURST. It has been brought out here many times that Arizona is the only State that has failed to ratify the compact. There is no doubt that some correspondence that took place, or that did not take place, between the two governors induced a large number of persons to support Governor Hunt's present attitude. The Democratic State Conference declared for the ratification of the compact when a proper supplemental agreement is made with California, and the Republican platform declared in substantially this language:

We favor the ratification of the Colorado River compact only when a supplemental agreement is made with California.

I am glad to have the opportunity to say this to you gentlemen from California so you will go home and urge your governor to enter into the proper supplemental agreement with the Governor of Arizona.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. In a word, if you can inform us, what is it that Arizona wants in the way of a supplemental agreement precedent to her ratifying the pact which has already been entered into? Senator ASHURST. The Governor of Arizona will state that to the Governor of California, if you will pardon me.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we permit Mr. Criswell to finish his testimony.

Mr. CRISWELL. I would like to say, in connection with the question which was asked by the Senator from Wyoming, that we in California have had the feeling at all times that we were perfectly willing, in view of the fact that Arizona has not ratified the compact, that whatever the Congress feels is necessary to protect the upper States should be written in the bid. We in California ratified the