Stored waters delivered for domestic and agricultural purposes to be charged for, and the rates so charged to be collected by the Department of the Interior for account of the Federal Treasury. I would not impose a charge upon those who are now receiving water from the river only for stored waters. Those who are now receiving the natural discharge of the river would not be disturbed or their position changed. Neither would it be necessary for those who receive water for domestic or agricultural purposes to participate in the financing of the corporation created for the purpose of constructing the dam and power installation. The financing can and should be completed without calling upon the users of water, as they will be burdened with the cost of constructing aqueducts, canals, and distributing systems, which on account of the distances to be covered will be as much of a burden as they will be able to

carry.

The cost of the dam would be $55,000,000, which would include $30,000,000 to be appropriated by the Federal Government, and $25,000,000 to be provided by the corporation. The first power installation and trunk transmission lines would require $29,000,000, or a total of $90,000,000, of which $30,000,000 would be provided by the Federal Government and $60,000,000 by the cooperative corporation.

The Federal Treasury would also secure a return on this $30,000,000. The rates established for water should pay a reasonable rate of interest and provide an amortization fund which would eventually clear the Federal investment.

For water stored and delivered for domestic purposes, $1 per acre foot per year would not be an unreasonable charge. For water stored and delivered for agricultural purposes, $0.50 per acre foot per year would not be excessive. Under these rates, and assuming that the Los Angeles metropolitan district will require a flow of 1,500 second-feet for domestic purposes, and that the remainder of the stored water will be used for irrigation, the annual receipts for domestic water will be approximately $1,000,000, and from irrigation water will be approximately $3,000,000, a total of $4,000,000 per year, equal to 13 per cent on the Federal invest

ment.

The rate necessary for the corporation as proposed to secure for the electric power generated in order to make the plan feasible would depend upon taxation, but based on the assumption that the Federal Government would hold title to the dam and reservoir, and that the public lands required for power plants and transmission lines, and for housing the employees, could be leased from the Government at a nominal annual rental, so that the taxes would be limited to the actual investment in the power plant and transmission systems and assuming present normal income tax, then the rate for power would not exceed $33 per horsepower year and might be as low as $30 for power delivered 100 miles from the generating station. Under this plan, I would include in the investment trunk transmission lines extending toward the existing transmission lines to a distance of 100 miles from the generating plant, so that all customers may receive power under uniform conditions. In fixing the distance at 100 miles, I desired to avoid duplication of

investment, and transmission lines from the power house 100 miles in length would not parallel any existing transmission lines, but would make it economically feasible for the participating companies who desired power to build to the ends of these trunk transmission lines and accept delivery at this distance.

The corporation would operate under a power commission permit for a period of 50 years. At the expiration of 50 years the Federal Government would have the option to acquire all of the generating plants and transmission lines at the then unamortized portion of the investment, plus a fair valuation for the outstanding stock. With the understanding that if the Federal Government did not take over the property at the expiration of 50 years, then the corporation would operate under a continued permit for another period of 50

years.

The power company as proposed would be operating into four States, and would come under the jurisdiction of four public service rate-fixing commissions, and it is possible that this might bring about a complication which would interfere with financing. However, if a Federal, commission should be empowered to fix rates for power generated on interstate streams, such as exist in this case, and be empowered to allocate to the States at interest the proportion of power to which they are entitled under the plan proposed and to reallocate to the purchasers within the States at interest the power allocated to the States, this condition would not arise.

I am of the opinion that the law creating the Federal power commissions should be amended; that the Secretary of Commerce should be added to this commission and that a permanent chairman, not a member of the Cabinet, be appointed, and that the commission be empowered to fix rates for power generated on all interstate streams, the rate so fixed to control until the power is delivered to distributing company or corporation under the jurisdiction of State rate-fixing commissions. The amendment should also give the power commission authority to employ the necessary engineering force and exercise supervision over all dams and impounding works constructed on interstate streams or on streams so located that citizens and property in another State might be endangered through the failure of a dam or impounding works on the stream.

In the case of the Colorado River, the commission should also have the authority to prescribe the silt storage capacity of all dams to be constructed on the Colorado River and its tributaries above Boulder Canyon, so that the storage of silt may be well extended beyond the capacity provided for in the Boulder reservoir. The commission should also be empowered to collect from the power companies under its jurisdiction a sufficient toll to pay the expenses of the commission, including its corps of engineers and the necessary office force.

Inasmuch as the storage for silt is essential in order to prolong the life of all structures on the river, this becomes a part of flood protection, and I am of the opinion that it would be equitable for the Government to participate in the cost of these dams, at least to the extent of the silt storage provided, and to collect a charge for stored waters sufficient to repay the investment with interest over a reasonable period of time, probably 50 or 60 years.

The CHAIRMAN. I also have a letter addressed to the chairman by Mr. Mulholland setting forth some data. That also may be inserted in the record at the place where Mr. Mulholland gave his testimony. The next witness is Mayor George E. Cryer, of Los Angeles.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. CRYER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Mr. CRYER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not appear before you as an expert, in the ordinary sense of the term, and I do not hope to add anything to the mass of statistical data that you have before you. I have been directed by the committee in charge of the presentation of this matter to appear before you and present a résumé of the position of Los Angeles and its readiness and ability to bear its share of the cost of this enterprise, and I have been directed to reduce my statement to writing. Like a good soldier, I am here to perform that mission to the best of my ability. Los Angeles is keenly alive to the importance of Colorado River development. She realizes very fully that that great project must be accomplished if provision is to be made for the millions of people now residing in southern California, and for the added millions who desire to come here and establish their permanent homes. No city can safely grow beyond the capacity of its water system to supply that vital necessity. No city or district can safely grow beyond the point where it can furnish employment to support its people. Recognizing that people are coming to us in ever increasing thousands our city is exceedingly solicitous to make provision for them.

Los Angeles wants nothing to which she is not justly entitled. She wants nothing for which she cannot pay. She wants nothing that rightfully belongs to sister States, districts, or cities. She does desire to throw the weight of her wealth, her influence and her resources into a great cooperative movement to accomplish a project for the common benefit of all. Her people look upon Colorado River development as the greatest conservation project yet proposed for the Southwest. We desire to see conserved and put to beneficial uses that which now wastes itself in the sea.

We wish to convert that which is now a potential menace, threatening untold destruction to life and property, into a means of conserving and supporting life and property. While people are in need of water for domestic purposes, while thousands of acres of the richest lands in the world lie idle and useless under the parching rays of the desert sun, we think it almost criminal that the life giving floods should be allowed to become an instrument of destruction. We grow restless with impatience when we see our resources in oil and gas unnecessarily consumed and exhausted for purposes which could be much better served by the potential hydro-electric energy now being dissipated.

Our people come from all sections of the United States, and from all parts of the great Colorado basin-in fact from all over the world. We are truly a cosmopolitan city. We do not believe that we view this project in any narrow or selfish light. The benefits of the plan are sufficient to meet the needs of all on this side of the international line who are within reach of the proposed development.

Los Angeles is able, and not only willing but anxious, to have the opportunity to bear her just share of the burden of this enterprise. As to the attitude of our people-their readiness and willingness to bear their share of the burden and their ability so to do-there can be no question. Four years ago, when the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Reclamation Service formally recommended to Congress the project-the construction by the United States of a great dam at Boulder Canyon to conserve the flood waters of the Colorado River, and of a canal system, including the All-American Canal, to apply the conserved waters to lands in the United States-the plan found instant favor here, and throughout southern California.

Men and women with the vision to see what its realization would mean recognized at once that the plan held promise of great benefit to the Southwest-flood protection, reclamation, abundant and cheap hydroelectric power, and an added source of domestic water for the coastal regions of California. Since that time the project has grown steadily and rapidly in public favor. Urged on by a realization of the necessity of making provision for the needs of a rapidly mounting population-the necessity of building up our back country -our people repeatedly have indicated their attitude. They have said by their ballots that they were overwhelmingly in favor of Colorado River development and that they stand ready to bear their share of the expense.

As early as June 5, 1923, there was submitted to the voters of our city a proposal to incur a bonded debt of $35,000,000 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, and completing works for the development of electric energy from the waters of the Colorado River at or in the vicinity of Boulder Canyon, and of constructing substations, transmission lines, and other works for transmitting said electric energy, and for the acquisition of lands, rights of way, and other works necessary therefor. In the face of the most active and energetic opposition of private power interests, and notwithstanding the very persuasive argument that the voting of such a bond issue, in advance of any action by Congress, would be premature, the proposal nevertheless received a majority of more than 3.000 votes, though it lacked the necessary two-thirds majority for adoption.

Subsequent events have shown not only that the people of Los Angeles are strongly in favor of this project but that sentiment in its favor is constantly growing. It also has been shown that our people are ready and willing to assume the necessary financial obligation at the proper time and in the proper manner.

On May 6, 1924, there was submitted to the people of the city, at a regular election, the following proposition:

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?

The vote on that proposition was as follows: For, 121,516; against. 27,828; a clear majority of almost 100,000 votes in favor of the city's entering into the necessary contracts. One year later,

72578-25-PT 1- -12

June 2, 1925, there was submitted to the people of Los Angeles the following proposition:

Shall the city of Los Angeles incur a bonded debt in the sum of $2,000,000 for the acquisition, construction, and completion by the city of Los Angeles of a certain revenue-producing improvement, to wit, water works, including the acquisition of necessary lands and rights of way, and the construction of tunnels, canals, conduits, and other necessary works, in connection with an aqueduct system for obtaining an additional water supply for said city and its inhabitants from the Colorado River?

So firmly convinced were the people of Los Angeles that this project, whose consummation is so vitally necessary to the life and growth of southern California, would ultimately be carried out that they voted in favor of the bonds by a majority of almost 6 to 1, the results being: For, 86,154; against, 15,846. At the same election there was submitted to the electors the following:

Do you favor the enactment, as soon as practicable, of a State law under which southern California cities desiring so to do may join together in forming a metropolitan water district for the purpose of securing a domestic water supply from the Colorado River?

This proposition carried by a majority of almost 7 to 1, the vote being: For, 85,933; against, 12,469.

In this connection it may be noted that the proposed metropolitan water district bill had then just recently been before the California Legislature for adoption. This bill had been drawn with the express purpose of allowing the smaller cities of southern California to unite with the city of Los Angeles in the formation of a water district upon terms more favorable to the smaller cities and more nearly approaching equality than was possible under existing laws. It had been carried in the State senate by a decisive majority, but had been defeated in the more reactionary assembly, largely by the votes of members of the Los Angeles d legation.

The answer of the people of Los Angeles to the hostile legislators was the stinging rebuke contained in the vote mentioned above. Moreover, five of these hostile legislators offered themselves as candidates for the city council of Los Angeles in the recent city election. (June, 1925), in as many different councilmanic districts. Every one of them was decisively defeated.

This is not only persuasive of the attitude of the people of Los Angeles toward the project of bringing domestic water from the Colorado River, but as to their desire to enable their sister cities to join in that enterprise upon terms of greater equality than would be possible under existing laws.

It may be argued that the above-mentioned expressions of the people of Los Angeles at the polls are indicative of their attitude toward Colorado River development in general, but not as to the Swing-Johnson bill, the measure which committees of Congress have heretofore had under consideration.

If I may be pardoned a personal reference, I look upon the last city election and upon my return to the office of mayor of Los Angeles as being in the nature of an indorsement of the plan of Colorado River development as outlined in the Swing-Johnson bill.

Opposition to this bill among our people from time to time had taken various forms. Los Angeles is the home of Mr. Chandler, owner and publisher of the Los Angeles Times head of a syndicate