With present conditions of development, the situation is accurately portrayed by the status of the water supply available for diversion by the Imperial canal having a capacity at this time of about 6,500 second-feet. The water supply available for this canal is measured by the discharge of Colorado river at Yuma and has been less than desired for diversion by the Imperial canal for the following periods when the flows were as indicated:

In the latter years during these periods the Imperial irrigation district has been diverting the entire flow of the Colorado river by utilizing a temporary sand and brush dam across the entire channel of the river below its heading. There was, of course, a very acute water shortage in 1924 and a very extensive crop damage on account of shortage of water. The Imperial valley irrigation system has been in operation 26 years. The fact that there were no shortages up to 1915 and that the frequency of shortages is increasing, would appear attributable to the double effect of the expansion of irrigation facilities on the Lower Colorado river for the utilization of rights long ago initiated, and the depletion of summer flow of the river thru increasing irrigation diversions in the upper basin.

What the situation will be in the near future, unless storage is provided between the two basins so as to make the lower basin independent of the upper basin with regard to irrigation supplies, can only be conjectured. Of the irrigable area of 515,000 acres in the Imperial irrigation district of California, there are at present approximately 400,000 acres irrigated. There are roughly 300,000 acres now irrigated in Mexico and it is definitely known that a much larger area can easily be irrigated. A greater demand on the Yuma project is only awaiting renewed activity in the development of the Yuma Mesa lands, of which but a little over 1,000 acres is now irrigated out of an irrigable area of 44,000 acres. The heavy cost of maintaining the irrigation and levee systems in the Palo Verde valley has delayed the development of this valley, but active steps in providing drainage and better flood protection in the valley, in recent years, should be followed by an immediate expansion of this area.

The Office of Indian Affairs has for a number of years been desirous of developing the Parker valley with an irrigable area of 110,000 acres. With the development of this valley and of the extension of the irrigated areas in Palo Verde and Yuma valleys and on Yuma Mesa, all or most of which are believed to be prior to right to the Imperial Valley diversion, the waters remaining available for diversion by the Imperial canal will be further reduced with more frequent and more intense shortages of irrigation supplies, particularly in August, when the requirements for water are at a near maximum. The Imperial Valley irrigation rights are in turn undoubtedly prior to a very large part of the rights which have been developed in the upper basin States.

E. Storage Investigations

The need for storage on the Colorado River was recognized at a very early date, but for various reasons its accomplishment was a protracted task.

26

While a number of early proposals had been made for storage on the Colorado River, particularly by J. W. Powell 25 and Elwood Mead,2 a reconnaissance report by A. P. Davis and J. B. Lippincott 27 covering examination made in 1901-02 was apparently the first to specifically recommend study of the Boulder Canyon site. This report was also notable for its proposal for a general plan of investigation below Boulder Canyon, corresponding strikingly with the developments which have now been built or authorized. This program envisioned. (1) a dam at the Yuma site (later built as Laguna Dam); (2) diversion of water at Black Point for the Blythe area in California (now part of the Palo Verde project); (3) diversion at Headgate Rock above Parker, into canals covering the Colorado River Indian Reservation (later constructed as the Headgate Rock Dam); (4) a dam at the Williams River for storage purpose, and river regulation (substantially the site of Parker Dam now constructed); (5) diversion at Bullshead with canal into lands of the Needles Valley, and investigation of Bullshead for a high dam for storage purposes (approximately the site at which Davis Dam is under construction, but for different purposes); (6) the investigation of reservoir sites at Las Vegas Wash and the Virgin River (substantially the Black Canyon and Boulder Canyon areas). The Reclamation Service suggested, however, the advisability of investigating reservoir possibilities on the Colorado River in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming

above the point where streams carrying high quantities of silt enter, so that we may have knowledge of such storage possibilities as exist where provisions do not have to be made for silt.

This was the first reference to the coming contest between advocates of upper-basin versus lower-basin storage.

This early report was followed by others, increasingly specific. For several years, the Reclamation Service concentrated its attention on upper-basin storage,28 returning to the consideration of Boulder Canyon in 1917, when Louis C. Hill and Homer Hamlin called attention to

25 Maj. J. W. Powell. "Exploration of the Colorado River of the West and its Tributaries," U. S. Govt. Printing Office, 1875. Cf. Report of the Secretary of

the Interior, November 19, 1902.

20 Letter of Elwood Mead, State engineer of Wyoming, to Capt. E. M. Chittenden, in H. Doc. 141, 55th Cong., 2d sess. (1897).

27 First annual report of the Reclamation Service (1902), H. Doc. 79, 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 106, et seq.

28 Report of the Reclamation Service for 1914 (p. 71).

the feasibility of a dam 500 to 600 feet high at that site.29 Some of the notable reports are cited in the margin.30 Three, particularly, affected the scope of the Boulder Canyon Project Act: (1) The report of the All-American Canal Board in 1918,31 of which Dr. Elwood Mead was chairman, and which specifically recommended legislation which would combine authorization for construction of storage at Boulder Canyon with authorization for construction of an All-American Canal to serve Imperial Valley; (2) the Fall-Davis report of 1922,32 which supplied the basic data on which the negotiation of the Colorado River Compact 29 Cf. letter of Louis C. Hill to George W. Malone, State engineer of Nevada, September 20, 1928.

30 Cf. "Report on the Utilization of the Waters of Colorado River for Irrigation and its Relation to the Imperial Valley, California," by C. E. Grunsky, dated June 30, 1907, addressed to Hon. James R. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior (S. Doc. 103, 65th Cong., 1st sess.).

"Colorado River and Its Utilization," by E. C. LaRue (Water Supply Paper No. 395, U. S. Geological Survey).

"The Lower Colorado and the Salton Basin," by C. E. Grunsky (Transactions American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LIX, pp. 1–51, December 1907).

"Irrigation and River Control in the Colorado River Delta," by H. T. Cory (Transactions American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LXXVI, pp. 1204–1453, December 1913).

Unpublished compilation of material on the Colorado River, by John T. Whistler, of the United States Reclamation Service, and on file in the Reclamation Service offices at Washington, Denver, and Yuma (1914).

Eighteenth annual report of the U. S. Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior, 1918-19.

"Preliminary Report on Imperial Valley and Vicinity," A. P. Davis, committee print, published for Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, House, 66th Cong., 3d sess. (1921).

"Problems of Imperial Valley and Vicinity," S. Doc. 142, 67th Cong., 2d sess. (1922).

"Report on the Problems of the Colorado River Basin," F. E. Weymouth, Department of the Interior, in manuscript, 8 vols. (1924).

"Water Power and Flood Control of Colorado River below Green River, Utah" (Water Supply Paper No. 556, U. S. Geological Survey, 1925)..

Cf. hearings before the Committees on Irrigation and Reclamation on S. 728, H. R. 5773, 70th Cong., 1st sess. (1928).

"Colorado River Development," Geo. W. Malone, S. Doc. 186, 70th Cong., 2d sess. (1928). The latter contains a "Chronology of Colorado River Investigations" (p. 40-41).

See also the references collected in Sykes, "The Colorado Delta" (1937), p. 177 et seq.

For a "selected classified list of references and sources relating to utilization of lower Colorado River" see report of the American Section of the International Water Commission, H. Doc. 359, 71st Cong., 2d sess. (1930), appendix 3, p. 97, by Frank Adams, consulting engineer. Cf. bibliography in "Colorado River and the Boulder Canyon Project," (Colorado River Commission of California, 1931), p. 357 et seq.

31 See appendix 101.

32 See appendix 103.

77831-48- -3

proceeded, and which also recommended Boulder Canyon storage and the construction of the All-American Canal; and (3) the Weymouth report of 1924,33 which, in far more detail, spelled out the Boulder Canyon project in substantially the form accepted in the Boulder Canyon Project Act. These three reports are referred to again, infra.

F. Proposals for Power Development

34

(1) Early plans. The power potentialities of the various storage sites on the Colorado River were recognized at a very early date,3 and their development was actively promoted by public and private agencies.35 Nevertheless no main stream dams for the generation of power had been constructed in the lower basin prior to Hoover Dam.

(2) Effect of power on selection of Black Canyon site.--The selection of the Black Canyon-Boulder Canyon site for the construction of flood control and irrigation storage works was largely dictated by considerations involving the marketing of power to finance the structure. The report by Senator Johnson of the Senate Committee on Irrigation

33 "Report on the Problems of the Colorado River Basin," by F. E. Weymouth (in manuscript, 8 volumes), U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1924.

It was finally
See thirteenth

34 James B. Girand, of Phoenix, was granted a preliminary permit by the Interior Department for the development of a power project on the Colorado River near the outlet of Diamond Creek in the State of Arizona. See first annual report of the Federal Power Commission (1921), pp. 32, 118. canceled following passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. annual report of the Federal Power Commission (1933), pp. 227–28. On November 5, 1909, Henry C. Schmidt filed an application with the Territory of Arizona for a permit to develop power at Boulder Canyon. A permit was issued by the Secretary of the Interior November 10, 1913, under the act of February 15, 1901 (31 Stat. 790), contemplating a dam to be erected at the mouth of Boulder Canyon, about 125 feet high, to generate approximately 40,000 horsepower. The project was to be financed with French capital, which became unavailable because of the First World War. The permit remained alive until October 24, 1921, when it was revoked.

In April 1910, the Santa Fe Railway initiated studies to determine the feasibility of generating power on the Colorado River by means of generators mounted on vessels anchored in the river channel. The idea was abandoned. More serious studies were undertaken between 1914 and 1917, looking to the electrification of the railroad between Winslow and Seligman. This involved investigation of nine dam sites, of which Boulder Canyon and Diamond Creek were the most favorably considered. Studies were made of a project for a dam 200 to 250 feet high. By 1919, however, changing conditions had caused the investigation to be indefinitely suspended.

35 See testimony of E. F. Scattergood, chief electrical engineer and manager, bureau of power and light, city of Los Angeles: Hearings of Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on S. Res. 320, 68th Cong., 2d sess., p. 66, et seq. (1925); Geo. W. Malone, "Compilation of Data on the Colorado River," and "Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric and Steam Costs Compared," both in hearings of the House Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on H. R. 5773, 70th Cong., 1st sess. (1928), appendix, pp. 543, 552.

and Reclamation 36 on the fourth Swing-Johnson bill said, as to the choice of this site:

BOULDER (OR BLACK) CANYON PROPER LOCATION FOR DAM

The overwhelming weight of opinion favors the Boulder or Black Canyon site. These two sites are close together and are frequently termed the upper and lower Boulder Canyon sites. A dam at either site will inundate practically the same territory. Natural conditions at this point are extremely favorable for the construction of a great dam at a minimum of cost. An immense natural reservoir site is here available. A development at this point will fully and adequately serve all purposes-flood control, reclamation, and power. It is the nearest available site to the power market; an important element from a business or financial standpoint.

As said by Mr. Hoover, Secretary of Commerce:

"... I can conceive the development of probably 15 different dams on the Colorado River, the securing of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 horsepower; but the only place where there is an economic market for power today, at least of any consequence, is in Southern California, the economical distance for the most of such dams being too remote for that market. No doubt markets will grow in time so as to warrant the construction of dams all up and down the river. We have to consider here the problem of financing; that in the erection of a dam-or of any works, for that matter-we must make such recovery as we can on the cost, and therefore we must find an immediate market for power. For that reason it seems to be that logic drives us as near to the power market as possible, and that it therefore takes us down into the lower canyon (hearings on S. 320, 68th Cong., 2d sess., p. 601)."

(3) Applications prior to the Federal Water Power Act.-Prior to enactment of the Federal Water Power Act in 1920,37 development of water power on the public domain was controlled by the Interior Department. Under the enabling act 38 which authorized the admission of Arizona to the Union, all power sites on the river in that State were withdrawn. A number of applications for permits or rights of way within the basin had been filed, and were pending when Congress authorized" negotiation of the Colorado River Compact, a year after passage of the Water Power Act.

(4) The Federal Water Power Act.-The power project applications theretofore filed with the Department of the Interior were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission. By 1921 the Commission had received 11 applications for permits. With few exceptions, the Federal Power Commission, upon passage of the act authorizing negotiation of the compact, suspended action on all applications for permits and licenses in the basin, at first on its own motion,40 and finally

36 S. Rept. No. 592, 70th Cong., 1st sess. (1928).

37 Act of June 10, 1920 (41 Stat. 1063).

38 Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. 557, 570).

39 Act of August 19, 1921 (42 Stat. 172).

40 See third annual report of the Federal Power Commission (1923), p. 61; fourth annual report (1924), p. 91; fifth annual report (1925), p. 112; sixth annual report (1926), p. 72.