Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator PITTMAN. Does the Department of the Interior at the present time approve of that?

Mr. BACON. I don't know what the Department of the Interior approves of.

Senator PITTMAN. I don't think there would be any question in my mind, there isn't any question in my mind but what the AllAmerican Canal, conserving the waters from Mexico and the placing in irrigation of all this land, is a desirable, practicable, economic thing; but what I am getting at is not what we western men think, but what we face where there is a tremendous majority who know nothing about the West; and that is the reason I ask you this question; if we are put up against it, we western men in Congess, either to drop this additional expenditure of $30,000,000 as a condition to the building of the dam, or to fight for it for several years, which would be the best policy?

Mr. BACON. Let me ask one further question before I answer that. Is the objection raised because it places additional acreage under cultivation?

Senator PITTMAN. The objection is raised that because there is a feeling in the eastern part of the country, where the majority of the Congressmen live, that irrigation projects, in the first place, have not been an ultimate success, or a great success; and the second reason, because they contend there is already too much agricultural land at the present time under cultivation. I am just giving you their reasons. And in the third place, that it is not necessary. Now, whether we believe that or do not believe that, that is the contention. We do not believe it and we are fighting it, and we are fighting it with a gallant little minority that looks like they are going to be badly overruled, from the present indication of things. What we want to do is to get a dam there. We want to pursue the policy of one of the most ignorant of animals, that is the coyote, we want to catch this rabbit, and then we will fight and tear it to pieces afterwards.

Mr. BACON. Let me answer this question this way: Suppose you have authorization to build the dam at Boulder Canyon, that means that during the dry season instead of having two or three thousand acre-feet of water, as sometimes happens, there would be a steady flow of 3,000,000 feet. Suppose this All-American Canal is withdrawn, that nothing that can be construed as an irrigation project is attached to the bill, what will be the result? We will have there this increased flow of the river. Now, if there is power developed here on the American side, they must perforce take their water through the old canal. That means that every day you develop a thousand acres here you are not only developing a thousand acres on the American side but you are also promoting the development of a thousand acres down here in Mexico. It will develop faster down here than it will up here [referring to map], because this is newer land, it is richer land, it is the richest land you can possibly get, that fine alluvial soil that is brought down there in silt, and you will be taxing the American farmer for it.

Senator PITTMAN. I so agree with you, but the question is, If we can not convince about 30 or 40 Congressmen in New York City and many in other big cities there, who know nothing about water

on earth, and it is evident that the fight is going to last for several years without any decision at all, would you rather for us to drop that idea and just simply build a dam in accordance with the accepted policy of the United States, which they can not go back on, that it is the policy of the Government to protect against destructive floods-now, which would you rather we should do? That is all I am getting at.

Mr. BACON. If I were to be asked whether I would rather eat or sleep, I think I would have a hard time to answer the question.

Senator PITTMAN. Suppose, however, you were asked whether you would rather eat once a day or not at all, what would be your answer?

Mr. BACON. I think I would answer that I would rather eat three meals a day. It is an extremely difficult question to answer. I believe this: I don't think that the Senators in the East will fail to grasp that situation; that if we leave this thing alone, that condition as it exists there to-day on that canal, that you are simply placing a tax on your American farmer to promote agricultural industry in Mexico. You are placing a premium on cultivating lands in Mexico to produce agricultural products that are going to compete with the American farmer. And as far as the financial end of it is concerned, if the objection is that this can not be financed, I think your bill could be framed that the financing could be taken care of without any drain on the American Government. I think that objection could be eliminated by men who are familiar with that phase of it.

Senator PHIPPS. I would like to refer to a statement credited to Mr. Ballard, an official of the California Edison Co., a private enterprise, who stood ready to construct a dam for power purposes at their own cost and expense, providing they were given the United States' rights and authority by the Federal and State Governments. Do you think Mr. Ballard has a good basis for his statement?

Mr. BACON. I think so; Mr. Ballard is a good business man and knows what he was talking about. He was so careful in making that statement that he read it instead of giving it verbally.

Senator PHIPPS. Your own remarks have been confined almost entirely to the possibilities of a dam being constructed at Boulder Canyon or Black Canyon site?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator PHIPPS. Of course, you are aware that many other dam sites along the river have been located; that so-called filings have been made? I believe to-day in Washington the power commission is holding hearings on the Girand application for a dam at Diamond Creek. Have you given any study or attention to the possibilities of flood control by reason of these other proposed dams along the river?

Mr. BACON. I would not consider that the study that I have given would be at all authority.

I have taken the word of the reclamation engineers who investigated the entire river. And to show you how complete that investigation was, I have here a chart reproduced from page-it is a map opposite page 186, Senate Document No. 142. They inspected dam site after dam site along that river, coming down that river; some

15 or 20 sites were investigated and reported on by this committee of engineers who made this investigation; and after all this data had been digested a report was made confining the development to Boulder Dam as being the most practicable development. While I heard Mr. Ballard myself testify before the House Committee on Irrigation that if they were given the opportunity to go on the Colorado River and develop, and they have made some pretty thorough investigation themselves, he stated that their first development would be at Boulder Dam. That seemed to bear out the contention that this is the most practicable site.

Senator PHIPPS. You do not know whether or not the Department of the Interior to-day is standing firmly behind the findings of the so-called Fall-Davis report, or whether they have other ideas on the subject of flood control; do you?

Mayor BACON. I do not know what their stand is to-day. I do know that some months ago-I think about a year ago-an effort was made, possibly, to offset the Fall-Davis report. There seemed to be a desire to discredit it. The Board of Engineers practically agreed on the Fall-Davis report. We must concentrate on some one thing if we are going to get anywhere. That is the only desire of the people of the Imperial Valley, and those of us down here in the Southwest, we are going to back up what we believe to be the most practicable thing. We felt that the Government going in there and making the investigation, while they may have made a mistake, the chances are they would not, they would hit on the most practicable scheme of development.

Senator PHIPPS. Mr. Mayor, in the testimony you spoke of the necessity of increased water supply for the city of San Diego. Mayor BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator PHIPPS. Do you assert that it would be practicable to divert water from the Colorado River for domestic supply for the city of San Diego?

Mayor BACON. Well, Senator, it has got beyond a practical point; it is an absolute necessity. We know what our water possibilities are; we know what our water necessities are in southern California; and we know if we can not get water from something like this we may have to go up to the Sacramento River. Los Angeles has faced the same situation. You will be given further information on that. Senator PHIPPS. You have not found any possibility of a gravity flow from the Colorado River to San Diego, have you?

Mr. BACON. Oh, my, no; we will have to pump it, and it will be expensive water; it will probably cost us twenty-five or thirty millions of dollars to bring it into the city. We will have to have water no matter what it costs.

Senator PHIPPS. You would have your canal to conduct the water to the city, and you are still convinced of the necessity of the operation?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator PHIPPS. Which means constant daily pumping with some kind of power, presumably hydroelectric, to get it over the divide? Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator PHPPs. No possibility of tunneling through?

Mr. BACON. No; because it will be practically at sea level when we get it, and we would have to carry it some 70 miles through there

to the Imperial Valley. We will have to pump it up to a level of a thousand feet, carry it through tunnels probably 10 miles, then drop it down on the coast side of the mountains.

Senator PHIPPS. How much water would you expect to divert? Mr. BACON. Oh, we would need in the neighborhood of—a development of that kind in order to pay out, the city would probably grow to a size by that time; we will need probably in the neighborhood of 50,000,000 of gallons a day.

Senator PHIPPS. Has any estimate of the cost of raising that water a thousand feet been made?

Mr. BACON. I presume it will cost us 15 cents per thousand gallons to bring it into the city.

Senator PHIPPS. That is a higher rate than would prevail on the average for the furnishing of water to most of the large municipalities in the East.

Mr. BACON. No, sir; not in California. Los Angeles, I believe, has the lowest rate in the State. We are selling domestic water today in San Diego at 20 cents a thousand gallons, and I believe our rate is below the average municipality in the State. Water is precious out here.

Senator PHIPPS. Water costs double what it costs in the Eastern States.

Mr. BACON. Probably so.

Senator PHIPPS. I have no further questions.

Chairman McNARY. Anything further?

Senator ASHURST. If I understand you, Mr. Mayor, you state there was no possible plan by which the city of Los Angeles could get potable water by gravity from the Colorado River?

Mr. BACON. I don't think so-I don't think I made that statement. Senator ASHURST, San Diego.

Mr. BACON. By gravity from the Colorado?

Senator ASHURST. Yes.

Mr. BACON. No. A plan was proposed, I think, by Mr. Maxwell, and it cost a thousand million dollars to bring it in.

Senator ASHURST. Are you not aware that the most recent report of the United States Government, to wit, the La Rue report, Water Supply Paper No. 556, issued about 10 days ago, now on the desk of the chairman here, points out that potable water by gravity may be brought to the cities here?

Mr. BACON. I don't think it could be brought to San Diego. There is a mountain divide between this section of the country and San Diego.

Senator ASHURST. I will ask you kindly to read the La Rue report, the most eminent engineer on the Colorado River that we have. He points out that it can be brought here by gravity.

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. Do you know the depth to bedrock at Boulder Canyon?

Mr. BACON. I can not give you those figures offhand: there are very complete drawings in that Senate Document 142.

Senator ASHURST. You are an engineer, but you are not familiar with this latest La Rue report?

Mr. BACON. No, sir; I have not had an opportunity to see it yet.

Senator ASHURST. It is obvious that you have had no opportunity to see it, because it has been rather difficult to obtain the same.

Mr. BACON. I don't pretend to read all the literature that comes out on the Colorado River.

Senator ASHURST. Are you familiar with the dam site on the Colorado River known as the Bridge Canyon Dam site?

Mr. BACON. I have heard that discussed; yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. Are you aware that Mr. La Rue points out the feasibility of the Bridge Canyon Dam site?

Mr. BACON. I believe Mr. La Rue has done that.

Senator ASHURST. In his recent report?

Mr. BACON. I have not seen that.

Senator ASHURST. And that he does not recommend the Boulder Canyon dam?

Senator ODDIE. Just a minute, please; I think the Senator from Arizona misunderstands Mr. La Rue's statement. While he doesn't speak of the Bridge Canyon as feasible, he also says that Black Canyon, which is the name now for the Boulder Canyon, is also feasible. There might be a conclusion drawn from an analysis of the two dam sites that one may be better than the other. He rather favors the Bridge Canyon, because he says it is a better power scheme.

Senator ASHURST. I think the eminent Senator from Nevada has correctly stated the situation. Now, as to water supply. There is water enough in the Colorado River to irrigate all the irrigable lands in Arizona and California. For every acre irrigated in Mexico it means that an acre in California or Arizona must forever be condemned to a desert situation. You are, of course, in favor therefore, I take it, as an American citizen, of the proposition that the lands of Arizona and California should be irrigated rather than Mexico?

Mr. BACON. Absolutely, sir.

Senator ASHURST. And I drew from your statement the fact that all of the water now going into the Imperial Valley must first pass through a Mexican stomach; is that true?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. Then the alimentary canal of the Imperial Valley nourishes a Mexican stomach before it reaches Imperial Valley?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. We have no treaty with Mexico under or by the terms of which we must send down one drop of water, have we? Mr. BACON. Not that I know of.

Senator ASHURST. We have not. Then, as a legal proposition, we may appropriate for Arizona and California every drop of water in the Colorado River? If I may answer that for you, I would say that we would not be an independent nation if we were precluded from taking all the waters of the Colorado River. I think it is quite important in this hearing to establish, first, that we are representing the American people, and we are not interested in those who have left their own country to go into Mexico to develop Mexican lands. There is no rule of comity, amity, or international law which requires the United States to send a drop of water to Mexico. Is that what you understand?

« PreviousContinue »