EVENTS INTERVENING BETWEEN EXECUTION OF THE COLORADO RIVER COMPACT AND ENACTMENT OF THE BOULDER CANYON PROJECT ACT

A. Issues

Six years elapsed after execution of the Colorado River Compact before enactment of Federal legislation ratifying the compact and authorizing construction of the necessary storage works and of the All-American Canal. The project became a national issue during this interval. Arizona opposed it, and was joined in that opposition by the opponents of public power development, by American owners of lands in Mexico who were opposed primarily to the construction of an All-American Canal, and by others who did not believe that the project could pay for itself. The very magnitude of the undertaking constituted a source of inertia. Space does not permit a detailed account of this interesting period of conflict, but representative references may be found in the footnotes.1

1 Committee hearings and reports on Colorado River bills during this period ́(1922-28) include the following:

1922.-Hearings, House Committee on Irrigation, "Protection and Development, Lower Colorado River Basin," on H. R. 11449 (67th Cong., 2d sess.) (June 15, 1922-February 21, 1923).

1923.-Hearings, House Committee on Irrigation, "Protection and Development of Lower Colorado River Basin," on H. R. 2903 (68th Cong., 1st sess.) (April-August 1923). In addition to the formal hearings, Arizona and California each printed extracts, excerpts, and supplements.

1924.-Hearings, House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Protection and Development of Lower Colorado River Basin,' on H. R. 2903 (68th Cong., 1st sess.) (February 9-May 17, 1924). (A supplement, "Information by Citizens of Arizona," was published.)

Hearings, Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Colorado River Basin," on S. 727 (68th Cong., 1st sess.) (December 17, 1924-January 23, 1925). 1925.-Hearings, Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Colorado River Basin," on S. Res. 320 (68th Cong., 2d sess.) (October 26-December 22, 1925).

1926.-Hearings, House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Colorado River Basin," on H. R. 6251 and H. R. 9826 (69th Cong., 1st sess.) (February 5May 17, 1926); same title, hearings on H. R. 9826.

Report of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, on H. R. 9826 (69th Cong., 1st sess.; H. Rept. No. 1657 (1926)).

32

(1) The Weymouth report.-On February 28, 1924, the results of 2 years of additional work under the Kinkaid Act were embodied in a report made by Chief Engineer F. E. Weymouth of the Bureau of Reclamation to the Commissioner of Reclamation. The conclusions of this report (unpublished) were:

(a) That there was immediate need of flood protection in the lower Colorado River Basin for the Imperial Valley, attention being called to the immediate danger during each flood period that the river might break into the valley and destroy it;

(b) That there was a shortage of water in the Imperial Valley in each low-water year, there being only 3,500 second-feet or less available for the entire valley at such times;

1 Continued

Report of the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on S. 3331 (69th Cong., 1st sess.; S. Rept. No. 654 (April 19, 1926)).

1927.-Hearings of the House Committee on Rules, "Hearings on Boulder Dam," on H. R. 9826 (69th Cong., 2d sess.) (January 20-22, 1927).

Report of the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Estimates for Irrigating Lands Under Colorado River Compact," on S. J. Res. 131 (69th Cong., 2d sess.; S. Rept. No. 131 (January 17, 1927)).

Report of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Protection and Development, Lower Colorado River" (H. Rept. No. 2212, 69th Cong., 2d sess.) (February 23, 1927).

1928.-Hearings of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Regulating the Colorado River," on H. R. 5770 (70th Cong., 1st sess.) (January 7, 1928).

Hearings of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Protection and Development of Lower Colorado River," on H. R. 5773 (70th Cong., 1st sess.) (January 6-14, 1928).

Hearings of the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Colorado River Basin," on S. 728 and S. 1274 (70th Cong., 1st sess.) (January 17-21, 1928). Report of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H. R. 5773 (70th Cong., 1st sess.; H. Rept. No. 918) (March 15-24, 1928).

Report of the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on S. 728 (70th Cong., 1st sess.; S. Rept. No. 592) (March 20, April 9, 1928).

Hearings of the House Committee on Rules, "Boulder Dam" (70th Cong., 1st sess.) (April 24-May 2, 1928).

Report of the House Committee on Rules, on H. R. 5773 (70th Cong., 1st sess.) (May 15, 1928).

Each State has also published reports stating its viewpoint:

Arizona.-"Official Report of the Proceedings of the Colorado River Conference Between Delegates Representing California, Nevada and Arizona,” August 17, 1925; "The Colorado River Question" (1928); "Proposals as to a Basis for a Lower Basin Compact" (1929).

California.-"California Proposals as a Basis for a Lower Basin Compact" (1929); "Analysis of Boulder Canyon Project Act" (1930); "The Boulder Canyon Project" (1930); "Colorado River and the Boulder Canyon Project" (1931); "California's Stake in the Colorado River" (1947).

Nevada. "Reports of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, 1927-35" (1935): "Boulder Canyon-Lower Colorado River Power and Water Set-up" (1928), by Geo. W. Malone, State engineer.

(c) That it was practicable to build reservoirs on the Colorado River sufficient in capacity to provide reasonably uniform flow from year to year;

(d) The results of investigation of eight dam sites on the main river indicated that the most advantageous site from the standpoint of river regulation, flood control, storage for irrigation, and power development was that at Black Canyon;

(e) That the immediately urgent problems of river control and utilization of the Colorado River Basin could be solved by (a) the construction of Boulder Canyon Reservoir with a dam in Black Canyon, raising the water 605 feet and forming a reservoir of 34,000,000 acre-feet capacity; (b) reservation of 8,000,000 acre-feet at the top of the reservoir for flood control, with provision for a decrease of 4,000,000 acre-feet, depending upon upstream development; (c) provision for priority of use of remaining storage for irrigation over power; (d) construction of a powerhouse with 1,200,000 horsepower installed capacity; (e) construction of an All-American Canal from Laguna Dam to Imperial Valley.

(2) Controversy over a "high dam."-For some time there was controversy as to whether the storage dam should be a high, i. e., "power" dam, or a low dam built primarily for flood control. Senator Hiram Johnson and Representative Phil D. Swing led the fight for a high power-producing dam.

In a statement on July 14, 1925, Mr. Hoover said:

The high dam is urgently needed now and for the next 25 years in order to accomplish the necessary objectives at the earliest moment.

The needs of the Imperial Valley and Los Angeles are imperative, and any delay courts disaster.

Testifying before the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, December 10, 1925, Mr. Hoover said: 2

. . I believe the largest group of those who have dealt with the problem, both engineers and business folk, have come to the conclusion that there should be a high dam erected somewhere in the vicinity of Black Canyon. That is known usually as the Boulder Canyon site, but nevertheless it is actually Black Canyon. The dam so erected is proposed to serve the triple purpose of power, flood control, and storage. Perhaps I should state them in a different order-flood control, storage, and power, as power is a byproduct of these other works.

There are theoretical engineering reasons why flood control and storage works should be erected farther up the river and why storage works should be erected farther down the river; and I have not any doubt that given another century of development on the river all these things will be done. The problem that we have to consider, however, is what will serve the next generation in the most economical manner, and we must take capital expenditure and power markets into consideration in determining this.

'Hearings, Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, "Colorado River Basin," on S. Res. 320 (68th Cong., 2d sess.) (1925), p. 601; reprinted during debate on the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Congressional Record, December 8, 1928, p. 266; quoted in S. Rept. 592, 70th Cong. (1928), p. 10.

B. Ratification of the Colorado River Compact by All States Except Arizona

3

The compact, as executed at Santa Fe, November 24, 1922, was unconditionally approved by the legislatures of all States of the basin except Arizona, at the 1923 sessions (appendixes 215 through 220, inclusive). In several of the States, however, there was local opposition. Mr. Hoover made speeches in support of the compact in San Francisco, December 1, 1922; Los Angeles, December 6, 1922; Phoenix, December 8, 1922; and on January 21, 1923, submitted replies to a questionnaire of Congressman Hayden (appendix 205). These efforts were successful, except in Arizona. The Sixth Arizona Legislature (1923) considered measures ranging from unconditional approval of the compact to a declaration that the compact was in direct conflict with the Arizona Constitution. The Senate passed a bill ratifying the compact with interpretations, by a vote of 10-9. In the House, a resolution which, as introduced, would have ratified the compact unconditionally, was amended by adding reservations, (1) requiring payment to Arizona of a royalty of $5 per horsepower per annum in perpetuity for the use of waters of the Colorado River system; (2) limiting Mexico to 2,000,000 acre-feet per year;' (3) "that the Gila River System, including the waters of said Gila River and streams tributary thereto, be not included, considered or involved in any way with the so-called Colorado River Compact," and as amended was passed February 15, 1923. A motion to strike the reservations was defeated, 23-22.10 This measure died in the Senate.

5

H. Con. Res. 9, Sixth Arizona Legislature.

H. Con. Res. 5.

8

5 S. B. 136, Senate Journal, Sixth Arizona Legislature, p. 613. The conditions or interpretations were as follows:

"That Articles IV and VI of such 'Colorado River Compact,' as ratified and approved by this Act, are understood to mean, that the regulation and control of the Colorado River System, as in said compact defined, and limited only by the diversion and apportionment of the use of the waters thereof, for agricultural and domestic purposes, shall, as to that portion of such System, located within the area of any one of the signatory states, and including the full and unrestricted right of taxation by way of the imposition of a royalty in perpetuity or otherwise, upon electrical power generated from any structure within the boundaries of such State, be and remain, in perpetuity, exclusively, in such State."

H. Con. Res. 1 (House Journal, p. 71).

7 Substitute H. Res. 15 (House Journal, pp. 210-212).

8 H. Res. 16 (House Journal, pp. 221, 222).

House Journal, pp. 299, 300.

10 House Journal, p. 299.

Subsequently, on March 8, 1923, a measure to ratify the compact. unconditionally " failed to pass the Arizona House by a tie vote, 22-22.12

By this narrow margin the Compact was subjected to a quarter century of conflict.

The compact was not finally approved by Arizona until 1944 (appendix 230).

C. Negotiations Between Arizona and California

After rejection of the compact in Arizona, an interval of a year or more elapsed, followed by a series of fruitless meetings between representatives of Arizona and California, some of which are cited in the margin.13 By 1925 it had become apparent that no agreement could be reached on which Arizona would ratify the Colorado River compact.

D. Ratification as a Six-State Compact

During the interim between the 1923 and 1925 sessions of the legislature, Mr. Delph Carpenter of Colorado initiated the proposal that the compact be ratified as a six-State agreement without awaiting action by Arizona. He stated:

The fact that the river formed a boundary between Arizona, California, and Nevada, and also the further fact that the entire Colorado River Canyon in Arizona is held by the United States as a Federal power reserve prompted me to make the suggestion without the feeling of any hazard to any of the other States in the event that the six or more State plan should be adopted.14

11 H. Con. Res. 9.

12 House Journal, p. 564.

13 In April and December 1925 conferences were held between a committee appointed by the California Legislature from its membership, and representatives of Governor Hunt of Arizona. In the latter, representatives of Nevada participated.

In December 1926 these conferences were resumed.

In January 1927 the California Legislature authorized a committee to meet with Arizona, and meetings of representatives of California, Nevada, and Arizona were held in Los Angeles. These were continued in February and May.

On August 22, 1927, a conference of governors and commissioners of all the basin States met at Denver, recessing September 5, reconvening September 19, and adjourning October 5.

In December 1927 a conference on power was held by representatives of the three States in San Francisco.

In January and March 1928 conferences were resumed in Washington.

14 Communication to Mr. Charles A. Dobbel, 1933. See also testimony of Mr. Hoover, hearings of Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, S. Res. 320 (68th Cong., 2d sess.), p. 600. See also Congressional Record, Senate (70th Cong., 2d sess.), December 8, 1928, p. 266.