acre-feet, the annual shortage would be 8,145,000 acre-feet. During such a 20-year period there would be less than half enough water to supply the needs of the lower basin. I therefore suggest that all dams constructed on the lower Colorado River should conform to a comprehensive plan of development, which will provide for maximum use of the water resources and prevent an unnecessary waste of these resources. Such a comprehensive plan of development is suggested in my report recently published by the United States Geological Survey as Water Supply Paper 556. The Swing-Johnson bill calls for the construction of a high dam at or near Boulder Canyon. If a dam were constructed and operated as planned, it would cause an unnecessary waste of water, a loss of 400,000 horsepower and cause 100,000 acres of irrigable land to remain in its desert state forever. If such a dam were built and 600,000 horsepower developed, the low-water flow of the river would be increased far beyond the present needs for irrigation in the basin in the United States. This water could be quickly put to beneficial use in Mexico and before many years pass about 1,000,000 acres of land would be under irrigation in that country, which would mean that 1,000,000 acres of irrigable land in the Colorado River Basin in the United States must remain a desert. A high dam at or near Boulder Canyon can not be made to form a unit of a comprehensive plan of development that will provide for a maximum use of the waters of the Colorado River. You have been told that a high dam at or near Boulder Canyon is necessary to desilt the river and provide power so that 1,500 secondfeet of water may be lifted some 1,200 to 1,500 feet and carried to Los Angeles for domestic use. A report which I have prepared indicates that 1,500 second-feet of water from the Colorado River can be carried to Los Angeles by means of a gravity aqueduct with a saving of $100,000,000 to the taxpayers of that city, that is, the cost of the gravity aqueduct may be $100,000,000 less than the aqueduct which involves pumping. If life and property on lower Colorado River are to be protected from the ravages of the floods, a dam must be built to control the flood flow of the river. A dam for flood control only should be located at Glen Canyon or Mohave Canyon. In six years a dam could be built at Glen Canyon which would remove the flood menace. Such a dam would cost about $30,000,000. A dam for flood control only may be built at Mohave Canyon for about $15,000,000. This dam may be built in about three years. A dam at Mohave Canyon to provide 22,000,000 acre-feet of storage capacity for irrigation and flood-control purposes would cost about $20,000,000. I offer the following recommendations: First. That $500,000 be appropriated for additional surveys and explorations of the foundations by means of diamond-drill borings at the following dam sites: Glen Canyon, Bridge Canyon, Hualpai Rapids, lower Black Canyon, and Mohave Canyon. Second. That Congress authorize the construction of a dam for flood control and irrigation storage at the Glen Canyon or Mohave Canyon site, the site to be selected by the Federal Power Commission. Third. That the investigation suggested in the first recommendation be carried on under the direction of the Federal Power Commission and that such commission be required to prepare a report showing a comprehensive plan of development of Colorado River below Green River, Utah. Fourth. That after the Federal Power Commission has agreed on a comprehensive plan of development that the Federal Government should refuse a permit for the construction of any dam on Colorado River that does not conform with such a comprehensive plan of development. Fifth. That some definite action be taken by the Federal Government to assist the seven Colorado River Basin States in reaching an agreement as to the allocation of the waters of Colorado River between the interested States. Sixth. That the United States Government enter into negotiations with the Republic of Mexico for the purpose of establishing a treaty between the two Governments definitely fixing the amount of water from the Colorado River that may be used in Mexico. Gentlemen of the committee, I offer these recommendations as my own, not speaking for the Geological Survey or the Department of the Interior. The CHAIRMAN. Are these recommendations based upon your observations made since the report to which I made reference? Mr. LA RUE. They may have been based on further studies made by me. The CHAIRMAN. When were those studies made? Mr. LA RUE. What do you mean, as to what particular feature of my testimony? The CHAIRMAN. I have read with considerable care your work, and I heard you make a few minutes ago certain observations, which I take it are the result of some study since the preparation of your report and are not contained in your report. The basis of them may be in this report, partially at least, but I am wondering if they are the result of what you have done since that report was made. Mr. LA RUE. There is no such definite conclusion in that report, to which you refer with respect to a gravity water supply for the city of Los Angeles. I have prepared that since I was attacked, and this was just recently. I mean, after I was bitterly attacked in Los Angeles I got busy to find out what was wrong. If the aqueduct would cost $540,000,000, I would want to find out and would want to drop it. And when I got into the matter I reached the same result that I had reached before, just by scratch-paper methods. The CHAIRMAN. You have spoken of an aqueduct to take care of the water; is that from Boulder Canyon to Los Angeles? Mr. LA RUE. No; from Bridge Canyon, the point of diversion. Senator SHORTRIDGE. What do you estimate it would cost, right at that point, Mr. La Rue, to construct the aqueduct to which you have referred? Mr. LA RUE. The gravity supply? Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, be it gravity or however you may describe it; what is your conclusion as to what such an aqueduct would cost? Mr. LA RUE. Fifteen hundred second-feet may be landed by gravity in Los Angeles for about $164,000,000. Senator JOHNSON. By whom were you attacked, to which you made reference a few moments ago? Mr. LA RUE. The chief engineer of the water bureau of Los Angeles. Senator JOHNSON. Do you mean Mr. Mulholland? Mr. LA RUE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Was that at the time this committee held its hearings in Los Angeles? Mr. LA RUE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. La Rue, in your argument there have been suggested to me and no doubt to the other members of the committee certain inquiries that we would like to take up. I am interested in knowing the particular objections you have from your study to impounding water and the construction of a dam at Boulder Canyon or Black Canyon. Mr. LA RUE. My answer to that is that the Colorado River, the same as any other river in the United States, should be fully developed, that we should not waste the resources of the river. They are limited as I have shown; the water supply is limited, the amount of power is limited, and some have estimated that within 50 or 60 years all of the power will be developed and in use. At the end of such period of development would it be good business on our part to come out 400,000 horsepower short? That power might be worth $200,000,000 or $250,000,000 at that time. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but I wish you would explain in detail why you think it is not feasible to build the Boulder Canyon Dam at a height of 550 feet. Mr. LA RUE. It is not infeasible to build such a dam from a purely engineering standpoint, and I wish to say right here that I have great admiration for the engineers of the Reclamation Service, and when they say they can build a dam there I believe they can do it. However, I question the advisability of building a dam at that site, because it would cause a waste of water The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Will you just state for the information of the committee why you believe these things to be? Mr. LA RUE. About 800 second-feet of water will go up in the air due to evaporation; and when it goes up in the air by way of evaporation it does not go over the dam and, therefore, does not develop water power. The CHAIRMAN. First, you say that the evaporation would be excessive. Mr. LA RUE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What would be the result of the construction of a dam 550 feet high or 605 feet high? Senator PITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, let us limit the inquiry to the construction of a dam 550 feet high first, so that we may keep our inquiry here straight. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, Mr. La Rue, first with a dam 550 feet high, what would be the acreage area of the pond or reservoir? Mr. LA RUE. That is all given in the report and charts. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. LA RUE. With a 550-foot dam the area of water exposed is 132,000 acres. The CHAIRMAN. What would be the evaporation in acre-feet per annum? Mr. LA RUE. That depends on how the dam is operated. It will be five times some figure, probably a little less than this-that is, 132,000 acres--because they do not hold it at high-water level all the time. I have not figured it at the 550-foot level. The CHAIRMAN. You say the evaporation will be very excessive. Can not you tell the acre-feet of evaporation in the case of a dam 550 feet high? Mr. LA RUE. About 550,000 or 600,000 acre-feet a year. The CHAIRMAN. Let me refer to the estimate given by Col. William Kelly that a dam at 605 feet, covering 160,000 acres, the evaporation peak, he says, would be 800,000 acre-feet. You estimate that the acre-feet would be 400,000 or 500,000 as the result of the construction of that dam? Mr. LA RUE. I would say 500,000 to 600,000 acre-feet, perhaps, with such a dam. The CHAIRMAN. Why is evaporation so great at that point? Mr. LA RUE. Because at the upper elevations it spreads out, other. wise they would not have such great storage capacity. The CHAIRMAN. On that ground, what height would you recom. mend the dam to be? Mr. LA RUE. I would not recommend a dam at that point of any height, because I can not make it fit into the situation, and I have tried some 15 plans and analyzed them. I can not make a dam of any height fit in at that site without waste above or below it. That was the reason I put up the profile you see on the wall, to show how these proposed dams are stepped down the river, and The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Before we take those up let us finish the inquiry about the Boulder Canyon Dam. First, there is your objection on account of excessive loss due to evaporation. What is your next objection to the construction of a dam at Boulder Canyon, keeping in mind a height of 550 feet? Mr. LA RUE. Because the plan they have, if they should build at Boulder Canyon, eliminates a dam at Mohave Canyon. By the other plan, providing storage at Mohave Canyon, and then developing power only through the boulder section, but not at those sites-and it would not make a bit of difference to me if it proved all right at those sites-but by this other plan you get some 400,000 horsepower more. The CHAIRMAN. What is the other plan? Mr. LA RUE. The other plan is explained in Water Supply Paper 556, and that plan is shown on this profile before you on the wall. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. La Rue, can you not for the record and for the benefit of any person who may read it-and that is what we are here for-give your reasons why you do not approve a dam at Boulder Canyon and show where these other 13 sites are and how they are to be arranged, so that anyone who may hereafter read the record of our hearings will clearly understand the situaiton? Mr. LA RUE. The plan which I have suggested in this report-and I may be corrected if that can be done, and I should be glad to have it checked over by Government engineers representing the three or four departments interested in the matter, and they may modify it, of course, as they see fit but this plan calls for the construction of 13 dams-not that they should all be built to-morrow, but that such work would cover a period of perhaps 50 or 60 years. The first dam proposed by me would be in Cataract Canyon, in Utah, and is called the Dark Canyon dam site. That calls for the construction of a dam to raise the water 512 feet. That is a relatively high dam, because we could not get away from it without building two other dams and involving a site that was infeasible. Senator JONES of Washington. Is that the first dam that should be constructed? Mr. LA RUE. Oh, no. Senator JONES of Washington. Please explain it in detail so we may understand it. Mr. LA RUE. I mean the first dam in elevation on the Colorado River. Senator JOHNSON. That is the first dam that you propose in point of time of construction? Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes; and when would you begin the construction and where? Mr. LA RUE. I have here in this recommendation a proposition that the Federal Government should attack that flood-control problem as quickly as possible and take care of the Imperial Valley in California. Senator JOHNSON. But what is the first dam that you would construct? Mr. LA RUE. Either in Glen Canyon or Mohave Canyon. Senator JOHNSON. Have you decided which one of those two should be first? Mr. LA RUE. No. Senator JOHNSON. Then would you build both of them at the same time? Mr. LA RUE. No. Senator JOHNSON. But you would build either the one or the other? Mr. LA RUE. Yes; and I have suggested that we leave that matter to the Federal Power Commission to decide. Senator JOHNSON. You would build either the one or the other that is, either at Glen Canyon, or the Mohave Canyon, to begin with? Mr. LA RUE. Yes, sir Senator JOHNSON. Where would you build the second dam after you built either the one or the other of those two? Mr. LA RUE. That would depend upon the plan adopted by the Federal Power Commission. Senator JOHNSON. Where would you build it? I am not asking about what somebody else might do. You are presenting to the committee a plan in opposition to a definite plan presented by us. Mr. LA RUE. We need diamond-drill borings in order to be sure. Senator JOHNSON. So that you can not say definitely at this time which dam would first be built under your plan? Mr. LA RUE. No, sir. Senator JOHNSON. Nor where it should be built? |