In furtherance of this plan legislation was enacted approving the compact as a six-State agreement, and waiving the requirement of seven-State adherence, by Colorado (appendix 222), Nevada (appendix 223), New Mexico (appendix 224), and Wyoming (appendix 226). Utah enacted a similar act (appendix 225) but it was repealed by the act of January 19, 1927 (Laws 1927, p. 1). That State's adherence to the compact as a six-State document was not effected until enactment of the act of March 6, 1929 (appendix 229).

Six-State ratification was recommended to California by Mr. Hoover. A resolution to that effect was introduced in the California Assembly March 12, 1925. However, in its place the so-called Finney Resolution was adopted by the legislature April 8, 1925 (appendix 221), which included a stipulation that California's ratification should not become effective until Congress should authorize the construction of a dam providing at least 20,000,000 acre-feet of storage capacity. This had the effect of making the compact inoperative until further legislation had been enacted by the Federal Government. Subsequent efforts to modify or repeal this condition. failed by large majorities.

Mr. Hoover, testifying on the third Swing-Johnson bill, on March 3, 1926, reported the situation as follows: 14a

The compact was ratified by all of the States except Arizona, whose legislature did ratify it subject to certain reservations, but approval was refused by the governor. A subsequent attempt was made to ratify the compact on a sixState basis and failed in California.

The failure to secure solution to this primary question and thus clear the road for construction in the lower basin has been largely due to the desire of some groups in different States to assure themselves as a condition of ratification that their views as to the character of engineering works and their control should be adopted.

Except for one group in Arizona, I do not believe there has been any serious challenge to the equity established by the compact.

As a method for advancing solution of this problem it has been proposed that construction under authority of the act now before the committee should not be undertaken until California unreservedly ratifies the compact on a six-State basis, and that assurances should be given to the northern States that no water rights would accrue to the citizens of any noncompact State from storage of water as the result of this dam.

If adopted, this method at least composes a very large part of the interstate water conflict, leaving only the question of Arizona to be settled. It has been my feeling that if Arizona could confine her discussions with the lower States to the water rights only, solution could be found. The difficulty is that her officials have insisted upon injecting numbers of other questions as a condition for agreement on water rights.

14 Hearings of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H. R. 9826 and H. R. 6251, p. 45.

E. The Governors' Conference, 1927

In 1925, after the failure of negotiations among Arizona, California, and Nevada, the Governors of the seven Colorado Basin States met at Denver, Colo., August 22 to September 1, and September 19 to October 5, 1927, in an effort to devise means to bring about a sevenState ratification of the Santa Fe compact. This conference produced several resolutions, the most notable being a proposal for a settlement among the States of the lower basin:15

The governors of the States of the upper division of the Colorado River System suggest the following as a fair apportionment of water between the states of the lower division subject and subordinate to the provisions of the Colorado River Compact in so far as such provisions affect the rights of the upper basin states: 1. Of the average annual delivery of water to be provided by the states of the upper division at Lees Ferry, under the terms of the Colorado River Compact (a) To the State of Nevada, 300,000 acre-feet.

(b) To the State of Arizona, 3,000,000 acre-feet.

(c) To the State of California, 4,200,000 acre-feet.

2. To Arizona, in addition to water apportioned in subdivision (b), 1,000,000 acre-feet of water to be supplied from the tributaries of the Colorado River flowing in said State, and to be diverted from said tributaries before the same empty into the main stream; said 1,000,000 acre-feet shall not be subject to diminution by reason of any treaty with the United States of Mexico, except in such proportion as the said 1,000,000 acre-feet shall bear to the entire apportionment in 1 and 2 of 8,500,000 acre-feet.

3. As to all waters of the tributaries of the Colorado River emptying into the river below Lees Ferry, not apportioned in paragraph 2, each of the states of the lower basin shall have the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of such tributaries within its boundaries before the same empty into the main stream, provided the apportionment of the waters of such tributaries flowing in more than one state shall be left to adjudication or apportionment between said states in such manner as may be determined upon by the states affected thereby.

4. The several foregoing apportionments to include all waters necessary for the supply of any rights that now exist, including water for Indian lands for each of said states.

5. Arizona and California each may divert and use one-half of the unapportioned water of the main Colorado River flowing below Lees Ferry, subject to further equitable apportionment between the said states after the year 1963, and on this specific condition, that the use of said waters between the states of the lower basin shall be without prejudice to the rights of the States of the upper basin to further apportionment of water, as provided by the Colorado River Compact. This proposal was not accepted either by Arizona or by California.16

F. Attempts at Federal Legislation, 1922-27

(1) The first Swing-Johnson bill.—On April 25, 1922, to carry out the recommendations of the Fall-Davis report," the first SwingJohnson bill was introduced,18 taking its name from Congressman

15 The recommendations of the four upper-basin governors appear in 70 Congressional Record 172, 70th Cong., 2d sess. (1928).

16 See Congressional Record, 70th Cong., 2d sess., December 7, 1928, p. 233, hearings, House Committee on Irrigation, "Protection and Development of the Lower Colorado River" on H. R. 5773 (70th Cong., 1st sess., 1928), p. 292; first report of the Colorado River Commission of Arizona, hearings (supra), p. 29. 17 S. Doc. 142 (67th Cong., 2d sess.), “Problems of Imperial Valley and Vicinity" (1922).

18 H. R. 11449 (67th Cong., 2d sess.).

Philip D. Swing, and Senator Hiram W. Johnson, both of California. This bill authorized construction of the All-American Canal and of a dam at or near Boulder Canyon and an appropriation of $70,000 000 to carry out the construction work. Hearings were held,19 but the

bill was not reported out.

(2) The second Swing-Johnson bill 20 was introduced December 10, 1923. It was generally similar to the first Swing-Johnson bill, but went into more detail with respect to power. It was not reported out. (3) The third Swing-Johnson bill 21 was introduced in the House December 21, 1925. This bill was submitted to Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work, and Secretary of Commerce Hoover, who suggested revisions. It would have authorized a reservoir of 20,000,000 acre-feet, thereby satisfying the requirements of the California Finney Resolution.

Following the conference with the Secretary of the Interior, the foregoing bill was redrafted and reintroduced, on February 27, 1926.22 The latter is commonly referred to as the third Swing-Johnson bill, omitting reference to the measure of December 21, 1925.23 The revised bill increased the capacity of the proposed reservoir to 26,000,000 acre-feet, and increased the authorization for appropriation to $125,000,000. It directed the construction of a unified power plant by the Federal Government in the place of allocation of power privileges by the Secretary of the Interior, and authorized the issuance of bonds to finance construction.

Secretary Hoover had proposed a similar plan.24 Testifying on the third Swing-Johnson bill on March 3, 1926,25 Mr. Hoover said:

There has been great conflict over the character and location of the first works to be erected in the river. I believe the high dam should be erected in the vicinity of Boulder Canyon, which would serve a triple purpose of flood control, water storage, and development of power as the best compromise in all these views. There are theoretical engineering reasons for establishing storage works farther up the river and flood-control works lower down the river. They will undoubtedly both be built in time. The practical problem, however, is what we need to do for the immediate generations, and it has always seemed to me that by one construction in this locality we can accomplish three purposes of storage, flood control, 19 Hearings, House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands (67th Cong., 2d sess.), on H. R. 11449; in five parts (1922-23).

20 H. R. 2903 (68th Cong. 1st sess.), hearings, House Committee on Arid Lands, April-August 1923 and February-May 1924; S. 727 (68th Cong., 1st sess.), hearings, Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, December 1924January 1925.

21 H. R. 6251, S. 1868 (69th Cong., 1st sess.).

22 H. R. 9826 (69th Cong., 1st sess.), hearings, House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, February-May 1926; S. 3331 (69th Cong., 1st sess.).

23 H. R. 6251 (69th Cong., 1st sess.).

24 Department of Commerce press release, January 16, 1926.

25 Hearings of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H. R. 9826, H. R. 6251, pp. 45-46 (March 3, 1926).

and power of sufficient extent to cover the next 40 years, and being the nearest point to market for power we would have a larger economic return from works established there.

There has also been great conflict over the method of financing the problem.

* In an endeavor to compose this conflict Secretary Work, Dr. Mead, head of the Reclamation Service, and myself proposed a short and, I believe, a simple plan by which the Federal Government should lend its credit to the issuance of bonds that no construction work or the use of this credit should be undertaken until valid contracts had been entered upon for the sale of power, the sale of domestic water, the sale of irrigation water in an amount that would cover amortization and interest on the bond issue necessary to carry out the project. There would, therefore, be no charge upon the taxpayer in the country as a whole. I am glad to say that this proposal seems to have met almost universal approval and has further composed a great line of conflicting interest.

By these three proposals—that is, the six-State ratification of the compact as a condition before any work is undertaken, by the requirement that contracts for the sale of water and power shall amount to a safe amortization and pay interest on any bond issue, and by the settlement of the initial rate-it would seem to me that we would have three compromises on the question of conflict that would settle probably 90 percent of the differences of opinion that have existed in respect to the method of development.

The third Swing-Johnson bill was favorably reported out of committees.26

The bill was prevented from coming to a vote by a filibuster on February 22 and 23, 1927.27

(4) The fourth Swing-Johnson bill 28 was introduced by Mr. Swing in the House on December 5, 1927,29 and by Senator Johnson in the Senate on December 6, 1927.30

The House bill was reported favorably by the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation with amendments 31 on March 15, 1928, after lengthy hearings.32 The bill passed the House with further amendments May 25, 1928 33 and went to the Senate.

26 Report of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation (five parts), December 22, 1926-January 28, 1927 (H. Rept. No. 1657, 69th Cong., 2d sess.); report of the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation (S. Rept. 654 on S. 3331, April 19, 1926, 69th Cong., 1st sess.).

27 Congressional Record, 69th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 67, pt. 4 (1927), pp. 43964453, 4495-4563.

28 H. R. 5773, S. 728 (70th Cong., 1st sess.).

20 Congressional Record, 70th Cong., 1st sess., p. 97.

30 Congressional Record, 70th Cong., 1st sess., p. 341.

31 Report of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H. R. 5773, March

15, 1928 (H. Rept. No. 918, 70th Cong., 1st sess.).

22 Hearings of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H. R. 5773 (70th Cong., 1st sess.).

33 Congressional Record, 70th Cong., 1st sess., May 25, 1928, p. 9990.

In the meantime the Senate had held hearings 34 on the companion bill, S. 728, and it had been reported favorably by the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation with amendments.35

The committee report, presented by Senator Johnson, described the purposes of the project as follows (p. 8):

PURPOSES OF PROJECT

The project will serve four main purposes:

(1) It will relieve a very serious and ever-present flood danger to the Imperial Valley as well as other sections along the lower river both in Arizona and California. Imperial Valley occupies a sink or basin lying from 100 to 350 feet below the head of the river. It has no drainage outlet. Hence its flooding means its permanent destruction.

(2) It will end an intolerable situation, under which the Imperial Valley how secures its sole water supply from a canal running for many miles through Mexico, as well as make possible the reclamation of public lands lying around the rim of the present cultivated section of the valley.

(3) It will conserve floodwaters of the river which in addition to providing for irrigation development will make it possible for cities of Southern California to contract for and secure a domestic water supply from the water thus saved.

(4) It will create a large amount of desirable hydroelectric power, making the project a financially feasible one.

The first session of the Seventieth Congress adjourned in May 1928 after considerable debate in the Senate and an Arizona filibuster.36 Before the Congress adjourned, however, it enacted a preliminary measure, next referred to.

G. Creation of the "Sibert Board" (Appendix 301) and Its First Report (Appendix 302)

During consideration of the fourth Swing-Johnson bill a joint resolution was enacted 37 providing for a thorough investigation of the economic and engineering features of the proposed project. Under this authorization the Secretary of the Interior appointed the so-called "Sibert board," consisting of Maj. Gen. William L. Sibert, chairman, Charles B. Berkey, Warren J. Mead, Daniel W. Mead, and Robert Ridgway. The board rendered a report (appendix 302) on December 24 Hearings of the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on S. 728 (70th Cong., 1st sess.), commencing January 17, 1928.

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

26 Congressional Record, 70th Cong., 1st sess., p. 10668, et seq.

37 Act of May 28, 1928 (45 Stat. 1011).

The full legislative history of this measure was as follows:

S. J. Res. 164.-May 28, introduced by Mr. Pittman, read twice, amended, and passed Senate; May 29, taken from table and passed House; May 29, approved (Public Res. No. 65, 70th Cong., 1st sess.), 69 Congressional Record (Senate), pp. 10200, 10257-10266, 10618, 10667, 10678; 69 Congressional Record (Senate), pp. 10731-10733, 10751.

77831-48- -5