Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE ALL-AMERICAN CANAL CONTRACTS

The contracts relating to the All-American Canal, although waterstorage contracts within the contemplation of section 5 of the Project Act, are also repayment contracts governed by a number of provisions of the Project Act not applicable to water-storage contracts in general. The canal is delineated on a map appearing as part of appendix 1106, following page A619.

A. Historical Background

(1) Construction of Alamo Canal, 1901; Mexican concession, 1904.Although appropriations for irrigation of the Colorado River had been initiated in 1895,' and water had first been delivered in 1901 via the Alamo Canal built through Mexico,' a concession from the Mexican Government was first obtained on May 17, 1904, by execution of a contract between that Government and Sociedad de Irrigacion y Terrenos de la Baja California, S. A. (appendix 1101). This agree ment authorized the Sociedad to carry, through the canal which it had built in Mexican territory and through other canals which it might build, water to an amount of 284 cubic meters per second from the waters taken from the Colorado River and territory of the United States by the California Development Co. The concession authorized the Mexican company to carry such water to the lands of the United States, with the exception that-

From the water mentioned in the foregoing article, enough shall be used to irrigate the lands susceptible of irrigation in Lower California with the water carried through the canal or canals, without in any case the amount of water used exceeding one-half of the volume of water passing through said canals.

1 See tabulation of filings in S. Doc. 142 (67th Cong., 2d sess.), p. 74. For the earlier history of irrigation plans for this area, see id., p. 71; Report of the AllAmerican Canal Board, 1919 (Government Printing Office, 1920), p. 17 et seq.; Tout, "The First Thirty Years" (1931), p. 25 et seq.; chronology in "Colorado River and Boulder Canyon Project" (Colorado River Commission of California, 1931), p. 225 et seq.; Bull. No. 21, "Irrigation Districts in California" (California Department of Public Works, 1929), p. 334; Sykes, "The Colorado Delta" (1937), p. 108 et seq.

2 Tout, "The First Thirty Years" (1931), p. 48; Freeman, "The Colorado River," p. 390.

For the full text of this concession, see "Colorado River and the Boulder Canyon Project" (Colorado River Commission of California, 1931), p. 319. Cf. report of the All-American Canal Board (1920), p. 19 et seq.

1

(2) Break of 1905.-The near disaster occasioned by the 1905 sweep of the Colorado River into the Alamo Canal, which took place on Mexican soil, emphasized the dangers of that route. This was aggravated by difficulties with Mexican laws which impeded adequate levee and canal maintenance.

(3) Early legislation and reports. The act of April 28, 1904,5 directed the Secretary of the Interior to institute investigations of the use of the waters of the lower Colorado River for irrigation, with the view of determining the extent to which its waters might be made available "through works under the National Irrigation Act and by private enterprise," and as to what legislation, if any, was necessary. A report was made, but no action followed.

On January 12, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt, in his message to the Senate describing the disastrous flood in the Imperial Valley, outlined a rough plan of development under Federal control. No legislation resulted.

On May 9, 1914, Commissioner of Reclamation A. P. Davis addressed a memorandum to Secretary of Interior Lane, on the importance of a secure water supply for the Imperial Irrigation District, emphasizing the danger of interruption of the water supply via the canal which led through Mexico. He said:

It is imperative that in some way arrangements be made to give the United States jurisdiction over this canal through some allocable arrangement with the Mexican Government. It is believed that the permanent safety of Imperial Valley depends on such an arrangement.

(4) Temporary weir; injunctions.-The alternate scouring and silting at the intake of the Imperial Irrigation District's canal in the United States created conditions making it impossible during certain portions of the year to divert enough water to supply the demand, and it was found necessary to use some device to raise the water level in the river in order to permit adequate diversions. To accomplish this, a temporary weir was constructed in 1910, and annually thereafter."

For the history of the 1905 break, see Sykes, "The Colorado Delta" (Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1937), p. 57 et seq.; id., p. 114 et seq.; S. Doc. 212 (59th Cong., 2d sess.), "Imperial Valley or Salton Sink Region" (1907); Kleinsorge, "The Boulder Canyon Project" (1941), p. 40 et seq.; Tout, "The First Thirty Years" (1931), p. 98 et seq.; report of the All-American Canal Board (1920), p. 26 et seq.; Report of the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on S. 728 (S. Rept. 592, 70th Cong., 1st sess. (1928), pp. 16–20).

5 32 Stat. 591; report was rendered thereunder January 6, 1905; H. Doc. 204 (58th Cong., 3d sess.).

• Congressional Record, 59th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 1028-1029.

7 "Colorado River and Boulder Canyon Project" (Colorado River Commission of California, 1931), p. 237; Sykes, "The Colorado River" (1937), p. 116 (photograph opposite).

The report of the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation (S. Rept. 592, 70th Cong., 1st Sess.) on the Swing-Johnson bill (S. 728), said (p. 24):

On account of the low-lying banks of silt material, it has been found impossible to construct and maintain a permanent diversion weir or dam without flooding the Yuma Valley, now highly productive, under the Yuma reclamation project of the United States. About 1915 it was found, by reason of changes in river channel, that water could not be diverted into the Imperial system without some artificial works in the river. The people of the Yuma Valley obtained an injunction against the construction of such works. The necessity of the case was such, however, that since that time temporary works have been put in the river annually by the Imperial irrigation district under a contract with the Yuma County Water Users' Association by the terms of which the Imperial irrigation district assumes full responsibility for any damages which may result to the Yuma County Water Users' Association, or anyone else on the Yuma project, by reason of such construction, and to guarantee payment the district is required to have executed annually and maintain a surety bond in the amount of $500,000. In addition to this the district agrees to, with all possible dispatch, change its point of diversion to the Laguna Dam, and is required to make bimonthly reports to the War Department as to progress being made.

In connection with the annual construction of the weir, it was necessary to obtain a permit from the War Department. 10

(5) Construction of Rockwood heading.-In 1917, the Imperial Irrigation District constructed Rockwood heading, about a mile and a half above the American border, and a canal 6,000 feet long to connect Rockwood intake with Hanlon heading, at the upper end of the Alamo Canal.1 The district had also undertaken heavy expenditures in Mexico in levees, dredging, etc.12

It was obvious that all these measures were temporary, until such time as construction of storage works should eliminate the flood danger, and the construction of an all-American canal should eliminate the dangers of Mexican control over the water supply. The river had ceased to maintain a continuous outlet to the sea, and was depositing silt in one channel, then another, at the rate of nearly 150,000 acre-feet a year, and building up its bed in places at a rate of several feet

8 "Colorado River and Boulder Canyon Project," supra, p. 237. For text of such an agreement, see id., p. 243.

10 Id., p. 238.

11 H. Doc. 359 (71st Cong., 2d sess.), pp. 21, 28, 116; Sykes, "The Colorado Delta" (1937), p. 116 (photograph opposite).

12 For a description of the levee system, see report of the All-American Canal Board, p. 30. See also id., p. 14, citing report rendered March 5, 1917, to the Secretary of the Interior by Messrs. Elwood Mead, D. C. Henny, and Joseph Jacobs. For later data, and a chronological summary of work done 1892-1927; see H. Doc. 359 (71st Cong., 2d sess.), p. 121 (1930). See also S. Rept. 592, 70th Cong., pp. 18-20.

annually. This situation, however, was to continue for nearly twenty years more, until Hoover Dam began to store water in 1934.13 (6) Laguna Dam contract of October 23, 1918. Primarily as a result of the difficulties summarized above, the Imperial Irrigation District entered into a contract with the United States on October 23, 1918, under which the survey and early construction of an allAmerican canal diverting at Laguna Dam was contemplated. For the right to use the Laguna Dam, the district undertook to pay $1,600,000 of its costs, or substantially the whole cost of the main structure, in 20 installments. This provision of the 1918 contract is reprinted herein as appendix 1103, the balance of the 1918 contract having been canceled, but this particular article specifically preserved, by the All-American Canal contract of December 1, 1932 (appendix 1106 herein).

The district agreed to build an all-American canal at as early a date as possible, and within a reasonable time. This contract was ratified by the electors of the Imperial Irrigation District January 21, 1919, although the report of the All-American Canal Board (which had been created in February 1918), infra, had not as yet been made. Subsequently, Secretary of the Interior Lane determined that it was not practicable for the district to build a canal without Federal assistance. Nevertheless, the district was required to make, and did make, payments until the entire $1,600,000 was paid.

(7) The All-American Canal Board.-By contract 15 dated February 16, 1918, between the Secretary of the Interior and Imperial Irrigation District, the All-American Canal Board was appointed, consisting of Dr. Elwood Mead (later Commissioner of Reclamation), W. W. Schlecht, and C. E. Grunsky. This Board was asked to submit "specific conclusions and recommendations as to the future. policy." On July 22, 1919, it submitted a report, 16 accompanied

13 For a graphic history of this area, and the losing battle against silt prior to construction of Hoover Dam, see Sykes, "The Colorado Delta" (Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1937). He divides his study into the following periods: (1) The period of relative stability, 1890-1900; (2) the decade of the great diversion, 1900-10; (3) the trend southward to a blind outlet, 1910-20; (4) artificial deflection to the south-south-east, 1920-30; (5) prospects of stability and a tidewater outlet, 1930-35. A supplementary study by the same author, “Delta, Estuary, and Lower Portion of the Channel of the Colorado River 1933 to 1935" records the initial effects of the closure of Hoover Dam, which was effected February 1, 1934.

14 For the full text of this contract, see Report of the All-American Canal Board (1920), p. 67.

18 Id., p. 65.

10 Report of the All-American Canal Board (Government Printing Office, 1920).

by a report of Porter J. Preston, engineer in charge of surveys and examinations. The Board's nine recommendations (appendix 101 herein) included construction of an all-American canal and the construction of large storage reservoirs as a part of the comprehensive development of the Colorado River.

(8) The Kinkaid Act.-Following the introduction of the Kettner bills authorizing an all-American canal," but on which Congress did not act, the Kinkaid Act (appendix 102), approved May 18, 1920,18 directed the Secretary of the Interior to make an investigation and report.

(9) The Fall-Davis report.19-This report (appendix 103), rendered February 28, 1922, specifically included in its recommendations the construction of an all-American canal.

(10) The Weymouth report. This report (unpublished), representing 2 years' additional work under the Kinkaid Act, made under the direction of Chief Engineer F. E. Weymouth of the Bureau of Reclamation, February 28, 1924, likewise recommended immediate construction of an all-American canal, as well as a storage dam at Boulder or Black Canyon.

Legislation authorizing the construction of the canal did not materialize, however, until enactment of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. The provisions of this act are summarized in chapter IV, and the provisions thereof bearing directly on the All-American Canal are referred to briefly below.

(11) Coachella Valley.-This area, which is served by its own branch of the All-American Canal, more than 100 miles long, was described as follows in the Senate committee report on the Swing-Johnson bill (S. Rept. 592, 70th Cong., p. 24):

It is

Special mention should be made of the conditions of the Coachella Valley, lying at the northern end of Imperial Valley. This valley, like Imperial Valley proper is below the channel of the river and is subject to the river's flood menace. not served by the present Imperial system nor can it be served by this system being above the level of the main canal. It secures its water supply from wells fed by waters from the mountains lying to the west and north. The drainage area being small, water levels are constantly going down and people of that section see facing them, in the very near future, the necessity of letting their highly productive ranches go back to desert.

17 See ch. I (G).

18 Act of May 18, 1920 (41 Stat. 600).

19 "Problems of Imperial Valley and Vicinity" (S. Doc. 142, 67th Cong., 2d sess., 1922). See also the report preliminary to this: A. P. Davis, "Preliminary Report on Imperial Valley and Vicinity," published Jan. 1921 for use of the House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands (66th Cong., 3d sess.).

« PreviousContinue »