BANCROFT 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
S-i , 
 
 
 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL 
 WATER-POWER ACT 
 
 HEARING 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 BANCROFT LJBRAJW 
 
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON WATEK POWEK 
 OF THE HOUSE OF KEPEESENTATIVES 
 
 SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS 
 
 THIRD SESSION 
 ON 
 
 H. R. 14469, H. R. 14760, and H. R. 15126 
 
 29414 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 1921 
 
SELECT COMMITTEE ON WATER POWER. 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. 
 
 JOHN J. ESCH, Wisconsin, Chairman. 
 
 NICHOLAS J. SINNOTT, Oregon. THETUS W. SIMS, Tennessee. 
 GILBERT N. HAUGEN, Iowa. SCOTT FERRIS, Oklahoma. 
 
 EDWARD L. HAMILTON, Michigan. FRANK E. DOREMUS, Michigan. 
 
 ADDISON T. SMITH, Idaho. EDWARD T. TAYLOR. Colorado. 
 
 JAMES C. MCLAUGHLIN, Michigan. GORDON LEE, Georgia. 
 
 SAMUEL E. WINSLOW, Massachusetts. ALBEN W. BARKLEY, Kentucky. 
 
 JOHN A. ELSTON, California. JOHN E. RAKER, California. 
 
 SYDNEY ANDERSON, Minnesota. EZEKIEL S. CANDLER, Mississippi 
 
 GEORGE ESCH, Clerk. 
 
O Co 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Statement of 
 
 Hon. John Barton Payne 5 
 
 Hon. Newton D. Baker 18 
 
 Hon. Edwin T. Meredith 27 
 
 Mr. Henry J. Pierce 31-40-45 
 
 Mr. Stephen T. Mather 39-73 
 
 Hon. John J. Rogers 45 
 
 Mr. J. Horace McFarland 46 
 
 Mr. William C. Gregg 52 
 
 Mr. Charles W. Kellogg 65 
 
 Mr. E. Elmer Smith 69 
 
 Mr. O. C. Merrill 73 
 
 Mr. Millard F. Bowen 117 
 
 Letters submitted by 
 
 Mr. Albert L. Scott 121 
 
 Mr. M. O. Leighton 122 
 
 Mr. J. H. Levering 122 
 
 San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 125 
 
 Miss Harlean James 126 
 
 Mr. T. Gilbert Pearson 126 
 
 Mr. Robert Sterling Yard 127 
 
 Mr. Harris A . Reynolds 129 
 
 Mr. John J. Harris 130 
 
 Financing water powers 130 
 
 Lake Yellowstone project 133 
 
 3 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER 
 
 ACT. 
 
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON WATER POWER, 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Tlmrsdo.y, January 6, 1921. 
 
 The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Esch (chair- 
 man) presiding. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The Select 
 Committee on Water Power has been called this morning to consider 
 H. R. 14469, introduced by myself, exempting from the provisions 
 of the water-power act national parks and monuments; H. R. 14760, 
 introduced by Congressman Rogers, of Massachusetts, having a like 
 purpose, confining the matter, however, to water power in national 
 ks; and H. R. 15126, introduced by myself, relating more par- 
 ticularly to the personnel and the establishment of an additional 
 personnel for the Federal Power Commission. 
 
 ^ We have present with us this morning the three Secretaries con- 
 LOstituting the Federal Power Commission. In what order do the 
 ^Secretaries desire to be heard ? 
 
 O Secretary BAKER. We would like to have you hear Mr. Payne 
 </>first, 
 jj5 The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear Mr. Payne. 
 
 ^STATEMENT OF HON, JOHN BARTON PAYNE, SECRETARY 
 ^ OF THE INTERIOR. 
 
 to Secretary PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, the general subject of water 
 CCpower will be dealt with by the chairman of the commission, Secre- 
 Stary Baker. The particular matter that I thought you wanted to 
 
 thear from me about was House bill 14469, introduced by the chair- 
 __man of this committee. 
 
 CD When the water-power bill was passed and went to the President 
 for signature it was sent to the different departments affected; I 
 called the attention of the President to the fact that it placed the 
 national parks and monuments at the disposition of the W^ater 
 Power Commission, and that my view was that that should not be; 
 that jurisdiction over the parks and monuments should be retained 
 bv the Congress, and I wrote the President on the, 4th of June to that 
 effect. 
 
 There was a great deal of desire on the part of the country for the 
 signing of that bill, and I was called upon by Senator Jones, chair- 
 man of the Committee on Commerce of the Senate, and Senator 
 Walsh. Then I conferred with Senator Underwood and with a few 
 other gentlemen. The House had adjourned, but I reached Congress- 
 man Mondell. The result was that Senator Jones wrote a letter, 
 proposing that the bill be amended to meet the objection., which I 
 have here. Do you want me to read it ? 
 
 5 
 
6 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Very well. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. It is addressed to me as Secretary of the In- 
 terior and dated June 9, and reads as follows: 
 
 The water-power bill awaits the President's signature to become law. I under- 
 stand your objection to his signing it is because our national parks are embraced within 
 its scope. This bill is so important at this time that its failure to become a law would 
 in my judgment, be little short of a calamity. Hundreds of millions of dollars are 
 awaiting its enactment to go into enterprises that will save coal, start industry, and 
 increase production. 
 
 If it does not become a law now, this season will be lost and these large works be 
 greatly delayed, and some may be abandoned. 
 
 Your objection has not been heretofore made, although this legislation has been 
 pending for many years. I admit its force. On reflection I believe it is better not 
 to allow permits to develop the water power in these great national beauty spots 
 except by special act of Congress in each case. Therefore, if this bill should become 
 a law, as I trust it may, I assure you that as chairman of the Commerce Committee of 
 the Senate, I will gladly introduce a bill in the opening of the next session of Congress 
 to repeal this pro-vision of the act and do all in my power to get it passed. 
 
 I believe the Congress will act promptly upon it. 
 
 I trust that with this assurance you will feel justified in withdrawing your objection 
 and urge the President to sign the bill. 
 Most sincerely, yours, 
 
 W. L. JONES. 
 
 I then wrote to the President, as follows: 
 
 JUNE 9, 1920. 
 Subject: Water-power bill. 
 
 MY DEAR MR. I'KKSIDKNT: Supplementing my letter of the 4th instant, I have 
 had a conference with Senator Jones, chairman of the Commerce Committee of the 
 Senate, and Senator Walsh of Montana, who has been pressing a project involving 
 the Yellowstone Park. The result is embodied in a letter herewith from Senator 
 Jones to the effect that when Congress reconvenes he will introduce and press for 
 early passage a hill repealing the park feature of the water-power bill. 
 
 Senator Walsh fully concurs, and while they do not assume to speak for the Senate, 
 they express the view that since the western Senators make this arrangement as a 
 basis upon which I may recommend to you the signing of the bill, that we may safely 
 rely upon the passage of such an amendment. 
 
 I stated the arrangement to Senator Underwood on the telephone. lie authorized 
 me to say to you that he thought you could safely rely upon this, and that the southern 
 Senators and Representatives, so far as he could speak for them, would cordially 
 cooperate to this end and he hoped you would sign the bill. 
 
 In view of this I recommend that the bill be signed. 
 
 The bill was signed, pursuant to that understanding. 
 
 As to the necessity of preserving the National Parks I have dis- 
 cussed that in my annual report, and if you will allow me to have 
 that read into the record I think it will cover all that I care to say, 
 Mr. Chairman, unless you have some questions you want to ask. 
 
 The Chairman. Very well. 
 
 (The matter referred to follows:) 
 
 THE PRESERVATION OF OUR NATIONAL PARKS AND MONUMENTS. 
 
 This is a vital question. 
 
 With the rapid settlement and changing conditions of the West, the wisdom of 
 creating national parks and permanently setting apart as natural museums, pleasure 
 grounds, and game preserves such wonder lands as the Yellowstone Park, the Grand 
 Canyon, the Yosemite, the Sequoia (with its gigantic trees), and other national parks 
 and monuments, and preserving for the present and for future generations these won- 
 derful works of nature, and the wild animals and birds, so plentiful in the early days 
 but now so scarce, is increasingly evident. 
 
 The conflict between the demands of commerce and the preservation of these won- 
 der places involves constant vigilance. In my view their preservation is of the first 
 importance.' It should be the settled policy of the country, regardless of any question 
 of utility, that when in the wisdom of the Congress national parks or monuments are 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 7 
 
 definitely set apart they must be preserved in their integrity, forever free from any 
 form of commercialization. 
 
 If this principle is not recognized, and commercialization in any form is allowed to 
 creep in, it will be only a question of time when our Wild West will be only a memory 
 and the big game of our country will be extinct, and these places and objects, now so 
 wonderful, will be seriously and permanently injured. 
 
 It may be well to note, however, that if the argument of utility were permissible, 
 there is usually a ready answer. The water does not remain in the park, and may 
 ordinarily be stored to as good or better advantage outside the park. This is well 
 illustrated in the proposition to dam the Yellowstone River at the outlet of Yellow- 
 stone Lake. 
 
 The Geological Survey maintains a gauging station on the Yellowstone River near 
 the Canyon Hotel, about 13 miles below the outlet of the lake. The average daily 
 flow at this station, based on complete records for 23 months, is 3,110 second-feet. 
 There are five small streams emptying into the river in the 13 miles between the pro- 
 posed dam site at the outlet of the lake and this station; hence the flow at the outlet 
 of the lake is obviously much less than at this station. 
 
 A station is also maintained on the Yellowstone River outside of the park, at Corwin 
 Springs, Mont., near the head of the Yankee Jim Canyon, some 8 miles below Gardi- 
 ner. The average daily flow at this point, shown by measurements made during the 
 same period, is 5,870 second -feet. 
 
 The volume of water in the river outside the park is, therefore, nearly or quite 
 twice as great as at the outlet of the lake. Indeed, based upon these measurements 
 and the area of land drained, it is the opinion of this department that it is more 
 than twice as great. This increased volume is due to the fact that between the 
 gauging station" near Canyon Hotel and Corwin Springs, the Lamar River, Gardiner 
 River, Tower Creek, Trout Creek, Alum Creek, Otter Creek, Sour Creek, Broad Creek. 
 Deep Creek, Hellroaring Creek, Antelope Creek, and other small streams empty into 
 the Yellowstone. A much better site for a dam due not onlv to the greater volume 
 of water, but to its location, its deep, narrow rock walls is Yankee Jim Canyon. 
 
 THE FLOOD-CONTROL ARGUMENT. 
 
 An argument, quite impressive until analyzed, is that a dam at the outlet of Yellow- 
 stone Lake is necessary in order to prevent flood damage from high water in the lower 
 Yellowstone Valley during flood seasons; but. like the argument of utility, this is 
 readily answered. 
 
 (a) Yellowstone Lake is a natural reservoir. It is on high ground, 7,741 feet alti- 
 tude, and the drainage area, compared with other sections of the park, is more restricted 
 and less subject to flood waters; the river from the outlet of the lake to the Upper 
 Falls is placid and little subject to sudden rise. In May, 1020, for instance, when the 
 Lamar and other tributaries were raging, Yellowstone Lake was covered with ice. 
 
 (6) The volume of the water in the lake which would be affected by a dam at its 
 outlet is, as previously shown, only half as large as the volume outside the park. 
 
 (c) A conclusive argument, however, is found in the fact that a dam built in Yankee 
 Jim Canyon would not only control such overflow as comes from the lake but the 
 larger volume from the Lamar and other tributaries of the Yellowstone. 
 
 The flood-control argument, therefore, demonstrates that the dam should be out- 
 side the park, and not at the outlet of the lake. 
 
 PENDING PROJECTS FOR STORAGE DAMS IN YELLOWSTONE PARK. 
 
 A number of projects looking toward using Yellowstone Park for storage of water 
 for reclamation purposes have been proposed : 
 
 1. The Idaho project. The first involved the use by Idaho people of Lakes Yellow- 
 stone, Shoshone, Lewis, and Heart, the four largest lakes of the park, and the Falls 
 River Basin in the southwest corner of the park, and under a permit granted by the 
 department before I became Secretary some surveys were made of Yellowstone 'Lake 
 and the Falls River Basin. The proposition is to build a dam at the outler of Yellow- 
 stone Lake for storage to hold the level of the lake at approximately its high-water 
 mark, the water thus stored to be conveyed by tunnel through the Continental Divide 
 to Heart Lake, thence into Snake River, to be used in the neighborhood of Twin Falls, 
 Idaho; and to use Shoshone and Lewis Lakes as reservoirs for the storage, the water 
 also to be used in Idaho; to construct two dams in the Falls River Basin, erroneously 
 claimed to be a swamp, the water to be stored there for use in the vicinity of Idaho 
 Falls and north thereof. Only the Falls River Basin part of this project has been 
 pressed. 
 
, 
 
 8 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 2. The Montana project. An association composed of Montana people has been 
 organized to secure the right to build a dam at the outlet of Yellowtone Lake, the 
 water to be used for irrigation in southeastern Montana. At first there was rivalry 
 between Idaho and Montana, but this appears to have been composed. It is urgecl 
 that it is only desired to build the dam 6 feet high. The most casual inspection of 
 the shores of the lake shows that any material raising of the water would overflow 
 many wonderful hot springs, as well as considerable timber areas; the timber in 
 places comes down to the water's edge. 
 
 If the precedent of using the park is established and a 6-foot dam built and the water 
 devoted to reclamation or power uses, increasing demands will speedily arise as other 
 lands come under cultivation or need for more power arises, and the demand for a 
 higher dam and more water will arise and will be well-nigh irresistible. A dam at 
 the place suggested of 25 feet could be built and the question would be "Why not"? 
 The park having been opened up, it would then be only a relative question. Such 
 a dam would submerge 9,000 acres of timber, meadow, lake beach, and small lakes 
 chiefly in the Pelican and Upper Yellowstone Valleys, only a few feet above the level 
 of Lake Yellowstone. The dam would submerge the small lakes and ruin the hot 
 springs at the thumb of the lake. The I'ppor Yellowstone Valley, which would be 
 submerged, is our best moose range. 
 
 THE FALLS HIVER PROJECT. 
 
 This involves a section of the park now practically inaccessible. Claimants urge 
 that its conversion from a marsh to a storage lake by the building of dams would 
 enhance its beauty. Fortunately during the summer it was visited and photographed 
 by exploring parties and found to possess wondrous beauty containing meadows 
 (fine moose pasture), forests, lakes, trout streams, and a number of beautiful water- 
 falls, ranging from 130 feet to 380 feet. 
 
 The bill authorizing this project (S. 3895) passed the Senate April (i, 1920, appar- 
 ently without opposition. While in the House the purport of the bill became known, 
 serious opposition appeared, and it did not pass, but is still pending. 
 
 DANGER TO THE FALLS. 
 
 The water stored in Yellowstone Lake, in the case of the Montana project, if not 
 used until the late summer would lessen the flow over the falls during the early sum- 
 mer months, when the park is filled with visitors. The Idaho project proposed to 
 divert the surplus water from the lake so it would not go over the falls. It is probable 
 that such interference with the normal flow would injure Ui<> falls and materially 
 decrease the volume of water in the canyon. 
 
 LEWIS AND SHOSHONE LAKES. 
 
 Lewis and Shoshone Lakes are both in well-timbered forests, and their shores slope 
 upward very gradually; the rise is almost imperceptible over an area of several miles; 
 vast quantities of timber would be destroyed; and when the \valor would be drawn 
 out, shallow water or mud flats would greet the visitor. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Mr. Secretary, are there any applications now pend- 
 ing under this Water Power Bill for rights in the national parks ( 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. The secretary of the commission, Mr. Merrill, 
 is here, and he can give you that information better than I can. but 
 some applications have been received. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Is it your view that this provision of the bill I am 
 just trying to find out if there is any real objection to the enforcing 
 of the law as it now stands under this provision, that licenses shall 
 be issued within any reservation only after a finding by the Commis- 
 sion that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the 
 purpose for which such reservations were created or acquired and 
 shall contain such conditions as the Secretary of the Department 
 under whose supervision such reservation falls, shall deem necessary 
 for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservation. J 
 just wondered whether or not if that was strictly enforced any one 
 could get into the parks at all. 
 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 9 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. That would depend entirely upon the view of 
 the persons charged with that duty. There are many people who 
 think that the utilitarian part should be controlling, regardless of 
 the effect upon the park. In other words, they think that the use 
 of the water in some form is better for the country than the park use, 
 and, therefore, you have the personal point of view of the persons 
 charged under that act with the enforcement of the law. 
 
 I ought to have said that upon the organization of the Water 
 Power Commission we adopted a resolution that we would not en- 
 tertain, pending this question before the Congress, any applications 
 for permits in any national park. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then, up to date, even though the applications have 
 been filed under this provision, no one has a right inchoate, a right 
 that he could proceed under to get a permit ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. None whatever. We have declined to receive 
 such applications. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. So, up to this time the integrity of the parks is abso- 
 lutely protected? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Yes. sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, would it meet the conditions and 
 the understanding at the time the power act was signed, if national 
 parks and monuments w^ere limited to their existing boundaries ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I think so, Mr. Chairman, because the Congress 
 has control of the subject, and when you create a new park you can 
 then make such disposition of this question as seems wise. My in- 
 sistence is that when the Congress creates a national park, Congress 
 alone should determine whether any other use shall be made of the 
 park or any part thereof. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Secretary, do you think that Congress 
 is better able to determine a technical question of that kind than the 
 Water Power Commission acting upon the advice of engineers and 
 surveyors who go upon the ground and make a report ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. It is not a technical question. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. It certainly is technical as to the character of 
 the land. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. The moment you put it on the ground of a mere 
 technical question, you destroy the integrity of the park, because 
 you can always get engineers and experts who will say that the park 
 will not be injured and that the utilitarian use is greater than the 
 park use. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Upon what information would the Congress 
 act as to the advisability of utilizing any waste water within a national 
 park ? None of them have visited the particular section I have in 
 mind, and how would Congress act intelligently, unless they had a 
 report from engineers and surveyors who would be upon the land 
 and make report ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Congress has every possible facility for getting 
 information. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. But only the same facilities that the Cabinet 
 would have. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I am not saying that the Water Power Com- 
 mission could not get the information. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is it not rather unusual for three members of 
 the Cabinet to attempt to discredit themselves in handling a matter 
 
10 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 of this kind, and put it in the hands of Congress, where the Members 
 and Senators are not able to secure first-hand information ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. You are entirely wrong. There is no sort of 
 discredit. This question involves a fundamental question involving 
 the policy of the United States, and Congress having passed the 
 water-power bill and placed the parks and monuments under the 
 jurisdiction of the Water Power Commission, it may be regarded by 
 members of that commission as an instruction that if it appears that 
 the utilitarian benefits may result, then it would become the duty of 
 the commission to grant permits. 
 
 Now, 1 say that that is a fundamental question of policy which 
 the Congress itself should in each case determine. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. And yet you must admit that Congress has 
 no way to advise itself? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I do not admit so. Congress has every means 
 of getting information. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. They can not visit these remote sections, and 
 they must act on the information furnished by engineer and other 
 trusted employees. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. It is not necessary to go to Heaven in order to 
 get information about it. We know it is a desirable place. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I urn in favor of this bill because of the con- 
 ditions under which the bill was signed but it seems to me it would 
 be very unusual to want to impose upon the Congress, composed of 
 nearly 500 men, a matter of utilization of the waste water of a park 
 for any purpose, which information and action must be based upon 
 an examination upon the ground by some experts who would make a 
 report to the Water Power Commission and on which report the 
 commission would act. 
 
 Secretary PAYNK. Congress, when it creates a park, necessarily 
 considers the whole question, and it has the information at its service, 
 which is at the disposition of the Water Power Commission, at the 
 disposition of the Interior Department, and of all of the persons 
 affected pro and con. For instance, a man came to me the other 
 day and proposed that the Grand Canyon should be used as a reser- 
 voir for water. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Of course, no one would consider such a 
 proposition as that. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. That man was considering it. 1 want to make 
 it difficult for people to destroy these ])arks. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. So do I, Mr. Secretary; absolutely so, and if 
 there is any project that would in any way injure any scenic attrac- 
 tion in a national park I would be opposed to it, but it seems to me 
 that it is very unusual for the Government to refuse to allow the 
 people to use water which is going to waste. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. The water does not remain in the national parks. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. No, that is what I am saying. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. If you will be good enough to read my report 
 you will see that in the case of the Yellowstone there is an admirable 
 place for a dam at the Yankee Jim Canyon; that the volume of 
 water there is twice as large as at the Lake in the Yellowstone Park, 
 and that when you have analyzed the question to its bottom you 
 will find that it is only a question of expense, because the land which 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 11 
 
 would be used in the park as a reservoir does not cost the project 
 anything. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. And then you want Congress to determine 
 whether or not that sort of project should be utilized ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I think Congress would not waste very much 
 time on it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. No, I think probably that is true. I would 
 not support any proposition of that kind, but what I am surprised 
 about is that the three members of the Cabinet, executive officers, 
 are unwilling to assume the responsibility of determining whether 
 or not the waste water should be utilized in the national parks. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I have said already that it is not a mere ques- 
 tion of expediency; it is not a question of determining by experts 
 whether this or that result might follow; it is a borad, national ques- 
 tion of policy which the Congress ought to take the responsibility 
 of determining, and I repeat that if this water-power bill is not 
 amended, commissions may come wfro will regard the act creating 
 the commission as an instruction requiring them, if it appears expe- 
 dient from a practical standpoint, to permit the use of the water in 
 the national parks. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Then, you are afraid to trust the judgment 
 of three men prominent enough in public life to be selected as mem- 
 bers of the CaMnet ? 
 
 Secretary P^NE. I leave that entirely to you. You know them 
 just as well as I do. I prefer to trust the Congress. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You prefer to trust Congress, Mr. Secretary, 
 because there has been a propaganda organized and conducted within 
 the last six months over this country which has thrown a scare into 
 every Member of the House and every Member of the Senate, and 
 that propaganda is based absolutely on false statements. 
 
 I have a circular here sent out by the head of one organization, 
 containing a photograph of the Colonnade Falls, in which it states 
 under that photograph that "this and 40 other waterfalls, cascades, 
 and hot springs will be destroyed" if the proposed reservoir in the 
 southwestern corner of Yellowstone National Park is established. 
 
 Now, when a Member of Congress gets that circular he assumes 
 that the statements are true, and yet they are absolutely false; that 
 sort of information has been disseminated throughout this country 
 and has scared the Members of Congress. Many Members of Congress 
 have come to me within the last two or three weeks who were in 
 favor of the Fall River Basin project last session who now say: 
 "Now, Smith, we are in favor of this proposition we were in favor 
 of it before but my people at home are so aroused that it would be 
 political suicide for me to vote for it and I of course will not be able 
 to vote for it." 
 
 So that is the reason that those opposing the Fall River Basin 
 want to take from the executive branch of the Government the duty 
 of deciding this proposition and put it into the hands of a great num- 
 ber of men who will not take the trouble to investigate it, but will 
 be guided in their action by these false statements, which have been 
 disseminated all over the country. Now, if Colonnade Falls or any 
 other waterfall in the Yellowstone National Park would be injured, 
 I would not be in favor of the utilization of the waste waters of that 
 
12 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 section of the park, and if the engineers report show that any water- 
 fall, any hot springs, or any cascade would be disturbed in the least, 
 I would not advocate the bill for a minute. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Let me say first about the timidity of Congress. 
 Congress is accustomed to propaganda. I do not know of any body 
 in the world so capable of measuring the value of propaganda as the 
 Congress. So that I do not think the Members of Congress are 
 terrified because of some propaganda. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You ask any one of them, and they will tell 
 you they are terrified and are afraid to go home, almost, if they should 
 vote for this bill. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I do not see the relevancy of that. 
 
 Secretary PAYNK. 1 want to make an observation about what you 
 said about the Idaho project, because that project was represented 
 to me 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. The Fall River Basin project, not the Yel- 
 lowstone Lake project. 
 
 Secretary PAYXE. That was represented to me as a swamp. Now. 
 since that question came up two parties have gone thoroughly 
 through that section of the park. It is not a swamp ;ni( l there are 
 many admirable waterfalls, and if you want me to 1 will send the 
 chairman, for the use of this committee, 50 photography of that 
 section. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Oh, yes. Mr. Secretary, thoso^>hotographs I 
 have here. They were not taken in that section of the park at all. 
 
 Secretarv PAYXK. Have von ever been through the Fall River 
 Basin * 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I have heen. I went in there on the 7th day 
 of August, at a great deal of discomfort, and visited that Fall River 
 Basin, and the information that I have from personal observation 
 convinces me that the report of the Director of the (ieological Survey 
 in 1878, in which he says that the basin is well nigh impassable be- 
 cause of the "swampy, springy nature of the soil" is correct. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE (interposing). Now. if this committee wants to 
 know what those facts are. two parties have boon through that section 
 of the park during the last summer, and von can call them here and 
 get the facts. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Wo 1.1. would you prefer their statements to 
 the statements of your own officials, men of your own department? 
 
 Secretary PAYXK. That was a verv long while ago, and I do not 
 know the circumstances under which it was made. 1 do know that 
 sometimes things got into reports that are not absolutely accurate: 
 but here are gentlemen who at their own expense went through this 
 section of the park, took many photographs, and they are men of 
 reputation and standing. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Why should we accept the opinion of a pri- 
 vate citizen who is prejudiced instead of an officer of the Govern- 
 ment ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Why should you not accept an opinion of a 
 private citizen, if he is a reputable man ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Because he is prejudiced. I know to whom 
 you make reference. I was in there myself; surveyors have been in 
 there who will testify, and if their report shows that any portion of 
 the scenic attractions of Yellowstone National Park are to be ruined, 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT 13 
 
 or even impaired, by the construction of this reservoir I would not 
 be in favor of it for a minute, any more than you would be in favor of 
 it; but I contend that those people living over in eastern Idaho, 
 whose crops are burning up during July and August, are entitled to 
 that waste water. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Now, when you come to consider what we call 
 the Smith bill, or now, if you will, we want to give you all the facts. 
 Gentlemen who spent weeks in there not a single day, as perhaps 
 you did, but weeks and have got photographs 
 
 The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Have these parties filed any report 
 in writing ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I have a written report. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Could they present their report and make it a 
 part of the hearing ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. They did that of their own account. One of 
 them is here now and will give you the facts. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. Would it not be well, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that 
 this is a matter of an irrigation reservoir? Would it not be well if 
 Mr. Smith made that point, that this is an irrigation reservoir and not 
 a question involving water power ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. It is not a water power but I am just speak- 
 ing of the danger in this legislation of throwing everything onto Con- 
 gress instead of allowing the executive branch of the Government to 
 administer the law and determine whether or not these projects 
 would be injurious to the parks. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I just want to clarify this matter for myself and for 
 Mr. Smith. When this bill was first before the Committee on Public 
 Lands, the Idaho bill, the committee started to report it; I objected; 
 and the committee did not report the bill, although the Secretary of 
 the Interior had made a favorable report. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Not the present Secretary. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. No, sir; not at all. At my request the Director of 
 Public Parks came before the committee and a public hearing was 
 had, testimony was taken in which the Director, who is now present, 
 thought no injury would be done, but would like the opportunity to 
 investigate. 
 
 Now, the executive department has investigated, and I take it from 
 the Secretary's report, which I have read, and from Mr. Mather*s 
 statement that has been given out, and undoubtedly will be made 
 to-day, a change has occurred after an investigation of the parks, and 
 I hope my friend, Congressman Smith from Idaho, will not take the 
 attitude that Members get scared over these facts ; but we want the 
 information. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. We want the information but the Members 
 are scared; there is no doubt about that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I feel I ought to state that I want to ask one question 
 and then I am through. Mr. Secretary, if you have gone into it, I 
 would like to have you answer this question: In the bill I find this 
 language in the law: 
 
 The work of the commission shall be performed by and through the Departments 
 of War, Interior, and Agriculture, and their engineering, technical, clerical, and other 
 personnel, except as may be otherwise provided by law. 
 
14 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Now, the proposed bill before the committee, on page 2 
 
 The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You are starting now on considera- 
 tion of the bill ? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The Secretary was going to leave, and I would just 
 like his view on this one matter. 
 
 On page 2, lines 9 to 17, of H. R. 15126, I find this language: 
 
 In the performance of its work the commission shall utilize in so far as practicable 1 
 the field offices and field personnel of the Departments of War, Interior, and Agricul- 
 ture, and it is authorized to employ in the District of Columbia and elsewhere such 
 expert, technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose 
 of performing the duties imposed by this act, and as may be from time to time appro- 
 priated for by Congress. The detail of persons for such purpose from the Departments 
 of War, Interior, and Agriculture 
 
 And so forth. 
 
 Of course, that is a change of policy entirely. Would you give us 
 your view of the necessity tor that change, if you have gone into it ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Presumably, all of the clepartments have all 
 they can do, and it is the feeling of the commission that the com- 
 mission must be independent, so far as its help is concerned, so that 
 it can get the information on which it may act by people who are 
 under its direct control. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then, is it your view that better results would be ac- 
 complished, more efficient work would be obtained if it was made in- 
 dependent, as this amendment suggests. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, on January 3 the House adopted an 
 amendment to the sundry civil bill, to the section in that bill pro- 
 viding the appropriation of $100,000 for the Federal Power Commis- 
 sion. The language of the amendment was as follows: 
 
 Provided further, That no portion of this appropriation shall be available for any 
 expense connected with the leasing of any power facilities in any national parks or 
 national monument. 
 
 The House has adopted that amendment. Do you think notwith- 
 standing the fact that it has adopted the amendment and the possi- 
 bility that the Senate may indorse it, that we should, nevertheless, 
 act upon this bill ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I think so, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the bill is broader than this 
 amendment ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. That is only for the specific appropriation, and 
 the next appropriation bill might have nothing of that sort in it. 
 I think this is so fundamental that we ought to start right and deal 
 permanently with the subject. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There is one other question I overlooked. This bill 
 authorizes, H. R. 14469, the Congress to grant these permissions, 
 It is your judgment, the authority had better be given to Congress 
 than to deny it entirely, so as to leave it up for future consideration \ 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. You can not deny the Congress the power, 
 because Congress creates the parks. That [referring to the bill] is 
 not a grant of power; it only provides that no one else may grant 
 permits no other power may do it. You can not deny the power 
 to Congress. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 15 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. Secretary, the chairman asked you a while ago 
 about limiting this bill to the present boundaries of national parks. 
 I understood you to say you had no objection to that. Do you think 
 it would be wise to limit *it to the present boundaries? If it is proper 
 that the present parks should be thus protected, why is not the same 
 force to be applied in the future to any parks the Government may 
 establish ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. The principle applies and should apply to every 
 park, whether now or hereafter created. I am told that people who 
 are interested in this subject feel that if we should enlarge some of 
 the parks, as some people think we should, that it might become a 
 very serious matter. The basis of my remark to the chairman that 
 I saw no particular objection to that is that when Congress creates or 
 adds to any park, Congress may then make such provision with 
 respect to the subject as it deems wise. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. But if this bill should limit it to present boundaries 
 and Congress in the creation of new parks should be silent upon the 
 subject, the presumption would be carried that the water power 
 commission could do with those extended or new parks just what 
 you do not think it ought to do with these that now exist. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Right, but I assume Congress would not be 
 silent. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Mr. Secretary, I understand that it is your view 
 that in proper cases these easements should be granted by Congress ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. No. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Or, is it your view that Congress in no case should 
 grant the easements? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I would not say in no case, but I should say 
 that under no circumstances, unless the situation is so compelling 
 that there is no other way to meet it, and I illustrate that by saying 
 that the water does not remain in the park and that the mere question 
 of expense or of expediency is not an argument in favor of doing any- 
 thing which might destroy or injuriously affect a national park, 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you know of anybody, Mr. Secretary, 
 that wants to injure the national parks, the scenic attractions ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I know of no man who will admit that he wants 
 to destroy a national park. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Idaho. I would like to see that man. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. But I know a lot of men who think that these 
 people who insist on preserving the national parks are eastern cranks, 
 and that as a matter of fact the idea of preserving them at the 
 expense of losing the water which could be used for power or recla- 
 mation is an argument that the western man has no patience with. 
 Now, I deny that. I found as genuine an interest in the parks in the 
 West as in the East. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Undoubtedly so. I think that is true. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. But I also find that special interests are press- 
 ing for the right to encroach upon the national parks and their inter- 
 est is in the use of the water power and the getting of free lands in 
 connection with the use of the water power, and not in the use of 
 the park lands for park purposes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But the misfortune is, Mr. Secretary, that we are in 
 favor of the parks and their utilization and maintenance as strong as 
 the people in the East if not more so. 
 
16 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-PC )\VKK ACT. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Generally speaking; yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But we are expending our money to build the roads 
 to the parks and from the parks and maintaining and paying our 
 taxes, but out good friends in the East are mighty tight on the purse 
 strings when it comes to assisting in maintaining and building up the 
 parks, and I hope they will just loosen up a little in the future. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Secretary, can you imagine the attitude 
 of mind of a thousand farmers out on the desert, with their crops 
 burning up and seeing the water running past them, because of the 
 fact that they are not permitted at their own expense to save it ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Congressman Smith, you know that argument 
 is greatly overlooked. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I do not think it is in this particular case. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Because I gave a hearing to the Montana people 
 with reference to the damming of the Yellowstone River at the outlet 
 of the Yellowstone Lake when I was in the Yellowstone National 
 Park in July, and I said to them, as I point out in my report they 
 argued quite at length and when they got through I said "Now, 
 gentlemen, we have hydrographic stations in the Yellowstone River 
 near the Canyon Hotel, and a like station outside of the park at 
 Corwin Springs. There is twice as mueh water outside of the park 
 at Corwin Springs as there is in the park where you ask a permit 
 to build your dam. Why do vou not want to build the dam outside 
 the park?" 
 
 Now, what do you suppose the answer was? That the project 
 could not afford to carry the expense. Why, I said, "That can not 
 be true, because you can build a dam in the Yankee Jim Canyon 
 much cheaper than you can on the ilat lands at the outlet of the 
 Yellowstone Lake." "Oh, but," they said, "lands would have to be 
 purchased for the reservoir to hold the water." "Oh," I said, "then 
 it is purely a question of expense. In the park the lands are public 
 and do not cost anything, while outside you would have to buy the 
 land and pay the damages for overflow." In my view this argument 
 can not be entertained for a moment. The parks were not set aside 
 for power purposes. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. But in the case of the Idaho project, Mr. 
 Secretary, it has been demonstrated by your own engineers that there 
 are no reservoir sites outside of the park that will aggregate more 
 than 37,000 acres. There are nine reservoir sites outside, but the 
 quantity of water that could be conserved in these nine reservoir 
 sites is only 37,000 acre-feet, whereas in this Fall River Basin, 200,000 
 acre-feet can be conserved by simply building one dam. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I have given t'he subject of outside availability 
 no consideration with reference to the Idaho project, but if you 
 want me to find one, I will try. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I should be very pleasecl if you could find one, 
 because the engineers of the Reclamation Service tried to find it and 
 did not succeed. 
 
 There is one more question I would like to ask, Mr. Secretary. 
 You know, the boundaries of the Yellowstone National Park were 
 established without surveys in 1872, just simply a blanket reserva- 
 tion. Is it not quite probable that there is a lot of land adjoining 
 the Yellowstone National Park that contains a great many scenic 
 attractions which should be inside of the boundary line of the Yellow- 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 17 
 
 stone Park, and is it not quite likely that some land in the park 
 really ha x s no scenic value and should be outside ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I do not know of any inside that ought to be 
 outside, but I do know some outside that ought to be inside. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Then, you will admit that you do not know 
 the conditions ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. For instance, I want the Grand Tetons in, 
 I am very much in favor of that. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I think they should be in. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. And I also want to exclude Jackson Lake 
 when you do that. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I think that would be a good idea, because 
 there would be a conflict of authority there in regard to the water. 
 But you are not ready to admit that the Fall River Basin should be 
 outside of the park ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. No ; nor will you, after you hear these gentlemen. 
 
 Mr, SMITH of Idaho. Well, if I am to believe them in preference 
 to my own observations, of course I would not. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Well, their opportunities were greater than 
 yours. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Will you make any distinction between appro- 
 priating water in the park and constructing a reservoir therein, 
 which might be termed a commercialization of the park, and the grant- 
 ing of a conduit right or a right of way across a park or a portion of 
 the park ? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. There might be a very material difference but 
 I do not visualize just what you have in mind. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. The park might lie between adjacent country 
 where you are taking the water from and it may be very inconvenient 
 to go around the park, and the crossing of the park might be a little 
 matter that the commission might take care of, a mere right" of way 
 for a transmission line or a ditch across a portion of the park. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. If the commission in dealing with projects out- 
 side of the park should find a situation of that kind, where it would 
 not injure the park and should make a suggestion to Congress, 
 Congress would not be slow to deal with it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Then, after all, Mr. Secretary, the Water 
 Power Commission will be interested somewhat in the park. In the 
 utilization of water in the national parks. And if they should find 
 that a park would not be injured, in making report to Congress, they 
 would probably accomplish just what you want to accomplish in 
 passing this bill 1 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I do not know that any situation such as Judge 
 Sinnott suggests would ever arise. I do not know, but if it should 
 arise, certainly the commission would deal with it by requesting 
 the Congress to act. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Then, in that instance, you would rely upon 
 the judgment of the Water Power Commission, upon information 
 furnished by these experts, instead of upon Congress"? 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. Not at all. Congress is not going to put a 
 rubber stamp on any recommendation of that sort without giving 
 it consideration. 
 
 2941421 2 
 
18 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Oh, yes; if three cabinet officers recommend 
 anything to Congress we pass it without much trouble. 
 Mr. BARKLEY. Cabinet 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho (interposing) . Mr. Secretary- 
 Secretary PAYNE (interposing). Even the President has recom- 
 mended certain things to the House and Senate that have not been 
 approved. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Since you have been Secretary of the Interior 
 we can not get a bill through Congress affecting the public lands 
 unless the Secretary of the Interior recommends it. If they find the 
 Secretary does not recommend it, there is nothing doing. 
 
 Secretary PAYNE. I am very much obliged to Congress. I do my 
 level best. [Laughter.] 
 
 Th.e CHAIRMAN. If there are no other questions- 
 Mr. MATHER (interposing). Before the Secretary leaves, Mr. Chair- 
 man, the specific form of an amendment in line with your suggestion 
 is in the hands of Mr. Pierce here. Would it not be well if he could 
 suggest that and then get the Secretary's viewpoint on it ? 
 Secretary PAYNE. I would rather that would come up later. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. \Vliich is the bill that you are urging, Mr. Secretary? 
 Secretary PAYNE. H. R. 14469. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Baker, we will be glad to hear you now. 
 Before you start, if there is no objection, I will designate the clerk 
 of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee to act as clerk 
 of the Committee on Water Power. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. NEWTON D. BAKER, SECRETARY OF 
 
 WAR. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. There are two bills here, Mr. Chairman three, 
 I think but two of them comprise the principal subjects of discus- 
 sion. The first one has been adequately covered, I think, by Secre- 
 tary Payne. I have nothing I can add to that, unless the committee 
 wants to ask some questions about it. That is in regard to the 
 national parks. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions with regard to H. R. 
 14469? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Mr. Secretary, the same question I asked Secretary 
 Payne in regard to the law, that is now in the act, relative to the 
 power of the commission, I would like to ask you. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. That is the second of the two bills, Judge. The 
 first has to do with water power. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The first one, 14469, which contains the provision 
 that no license or permission shall be granted unless it shall not 
 interfere with the park and shall be deemed adequate protection 
 and utilization of the reservation. Your view is that notwithstand- 
 ing that provision in the law, better results would be obtained if the 
 power was taken from the commission entirely and left up to each 
 individual case to be presented to Congress to determine whether 
 or not the park should be used for any of these purposes ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I think so, Judge. The only observation I 
 would have to make about that is not that the present members 
 of the water power commission distrust either themselves or their 
 successors, I have not that feeling about it, but it seems to me that 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 19 
 
 national parks do stand in a very particular case. They are a 
 permanent public reservation of incalculable value to posterity, and 
 the action which is recommended here would seem to me to serve 
 notice on all mankind that they stood in a different case, so far as 
 their development and exploitation is concerned, from any other 
 lands which the Government owns or any other rights which the 
 Government controls, and if this legislation were passed in this form, 
 persons who were seeking to exploit these powers would realize that 
 they had to make a case that satisfied the representatives of the 
 people of the whole country, and that it was a national interest that 
 was especially regarded as sacred and protected by this extraordinary 
 necessity. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, that the publicity given by the attempt 
 to get a bill through Congress would focus the public's attention on 
 it so that if there was any destruction of the park it would be found 
 out before the bill would be able to get through ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Exactly so, sir, and it seems to me I know 
 very little about the national parks; I never have had the privilege 
 of visiting them it seems to me that local interests might very well 
 see their local needs larger than the national interests and it might be 
 pressed upon a Commission with a large array of persons brought 
 from a particular locality to show the necessity. The unrepresented 
 persons in any such hearing as that would be the general public. 
 In Congress they would be represented by their Representatives. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Would you not have time to get out and visit them 
 before the 4th of March ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. My time is growing very short, unhappily too 
 short, for that great pleasure. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. We would be delighted to have you come because we 
 know your heart is in the right place. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I should be glad to come. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would give us your views, Mr. Secre- 
 tary, of H. R. 14469. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. I would like to ask you one question, Mr. Secretary. 
 Under the law, under the act that has been passed, does the com- 
 mission as now constituted under that law have the authority to 
 grant water-power sites in these national parks ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I think so, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. And you do not think that that power ought to be 
 retained by the commission ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I think not, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. Do you think we should require a special act of Congress 
 in each instance of that kind ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I think so. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. Well, it used to require a special act to authorize a dam 
 built on a navigable stream, and it does seem to me that the argument 
 is with you, that when it comes to despoiling or doing that which 
 might despoil a great national park or national monument, I do not 
 think your little commission of only three ought to have such vast 
 powers. I think it ought to be in Congress. It does take the consent 
 of Congress now to build a highway bridge across a navigable stream. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I am very sorry that the argument goes so far 
 with its complications. As a matter of fact I think the release of 
 
20 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 the dam building privilege from the necessity of congressional inter 
 yention in every case is the most hopeful thing I know I am sure the 
 judge does, too that has happened for a long time, and if the national 
 parks did not stand in a separate situation, if they were not a national 
 asset for all time which, when once destroyed, can never be replaced, 
 I should very much doubt the argument that I have made or Judge 
 Payne has made in behalf of this bill; but I think they do stand in 
 a different relation. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There is one question I would like to ask. The Lassen 
 Volcanic National Park is in my district, very close to Crater Lake 
 I am familiar with the others, and this question has been put to me 
 in the last four or five months, urgently put : Are there any applica- 
 tions now in addition to what Secretary Payne said whereby an 
 inchoate right might be in any of these applicants that they could 
 proceed to force a right, and should any legislation be enacted on this 
 bill to prevent that ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. There are no rights now in existence of any 
 sort. There are no equities in existence of any sort unless applica- 
 tions, should this bill be passed, applications made pursuant to it to 
 the Congress. Then Congress might see that it would be equitable 
 to recognize a certain priority in those who had previously filed appli- 
 cations with our commission, which have received no consideration 
 there. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. So far as your commission is concerned, there are no 
 applications pending now whereby the parties could claim an in- 
 choate right or priority by virtue of their filing, that would require 
 any legislation to wipe out ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. No, sir; there are none. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Secretary, is it not true that your com- 
 mission has absolutely refused to even receive, accept, or consider 
 any applications filed under this law, which has been on the statute 
 books three months, applicable to national parks. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Under what authority of law do you, an 
 executive officer, refuse to accept those applications, even to accept 
 them for filing ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. We have them up at the office but we have 
 declined to consider them. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. They have not been filed, I understand; they 
 have not been put on the docket. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. They have not been particularly filed and have 
 not been advertised. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Then, the law is not being enforced in that 
 regard ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I am afraid it is not. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I understand you were anticipating just what these 
 letters showed, that Congress would repeal this law so as to protect 
 the parks. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Judge Payne has had conference with Members 
 of the House and Senate available at the time, and their general dis- 
 position was that that was the wise course of action and we have 
 withheld the creation of any rights, equitable and legal, pending 
 Congressional consideration. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 21 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Technically, you held the law up a little ? I want to 
 commend you, so far as I am concerned. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. As a matter of fact it .has not been a very large 
 crime because the organization of the commission lias taken so much 
 time that nobody's rights have yet been considered, very much. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to express your view with reference 
 to 14760 as compared with 14469, the bill introduced by Mr. Rogers? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I do not know the difference between those 
 bills, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say with regard to one question 
 which was suggested here, that I think the bill ought not to have an 
 amendment limiting it to parks in their present limits. I think it 
 ought to apply to all national parks. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Secretary, are you aware of the bills that 
 are pending in Congress adding hundreds of thousands of acres to the 
 national parks already existent, in which there are dozens of power 
 sites ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Yes, but I think the way to deal with this is to 
 lay down the general policy in this bill, that all power sites erected 
 within the limits of national parks must be done by special Congres- 
 sional approval and then in these bills which are pending, to add if 
 you see fit in any one of those to exempt it from these provisions. I 
 think it ought to be positive exemption rather than by negative and 
 omission. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Now, do you 
 
 Secretary BAKER (interposing). The second bill 
 
 The CHAIRMAN (interposing). 15126? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Yes. Judge Raker read a portion of that on 
 page 2 and asked the Secretary of the Interior his judgment as to 
 whether that change of policy was right and wise, and with great def- 
 erence to my associate, Judge Payne, I think his answer was hardly 
 full enough. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is the change contemplated, Mr. Secretary ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I do not think it is a very substantial change, 
 Mr. Sinnott. This is what it says : 
 
 "In the performance of its work the commission shall utilize in so 
 far as practicable the field offices and field personnel of the Depart- 
 ments of War, Interior, and Agriculture, and that"- That I think is 
 what we are now obliged to do. The change there is that this says: 
 "in so far as practicable/' and the present law says we must do it 
 exclusively. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The law requires you to do it ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. The present law requires us and limits us to the 
 offices and field personnel of those three departments; this law says 
 that the commission is to use those as far as practicable, but author- 
 izes us to supplement them by agents employed directly by the com- 
 mission, and my judgment is that it is not a desire on the part of the 
 commission to secure an entirely independent personnel which leads 
 us to suggest this amendment, but it is the inadequacy of the facili- 
 ties available in those three departments' which makes us think we 
 must have the right to supplement them. 
 
 Now the situation is this on the larger aspects. There have been 
 filed under this bill, since the commission has been organized, appli- 
 cations for something over $1,000,000,000 worth of developments. 
 
22 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. Merrill is here and has all the figures, and the committee, I am 
 sure, will want to inquire of him about it. 
 
 That is five times as much prospective development as was consid- 
 ered by the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 
 Secretary of Agriculture under their separate powers prior to the 
 enactment of this bill dealing with water powers on navigable streams 
 in the public forests and on the public lands in the whole history of 
 their jurisdiction over that subject. In other words, since this bill 
 has been passed applications for five times as much development have 
 been filed with the commission as the three separate departments 
 previously considered in the entire history of their jurisdiction of 
 water-power development, and under the terms of the water-power 
 bill the things which it is now necessary to ascertain for the protec- 
 tion of the public interests and for the regulation of this great use ot 
 power are so very much more detailed, so much more specific and 
 intricate, that Mr. Merrill roughly estimates that with regard to any 
 application it is now necessary for us to know five times as much as 
 previously the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Interior, or the 
 Secretary of Agriculture would have been required to know before 
 acting ur.on a permit filed in his department. 
 
 The War Department, the Interior Department, and the Agri- 
 cultural Department all have a limited expert personnel. They 
 have all sought to be generous with the power commission in the 
 detailing of personnel to assist them in this work, but no one of them 
 nor all three of them have been able adequately to supply the com- 
 mission with export porsonno], and the feeling on the part of the com- 
 mission is that we ought to be permitted in cases where, for instance, 
 the War Department has no district engineer within accessible 
 distance, or the Interior or the Agricultural Department has no 
 expert investigator, that we ought not to hold up a project because 
 of the inability of those departments to detail a man, but that we 
 ought to be permitted to select a suitable expert and send him out to 
 make the survey necessary. It is a supplement rather than a sub- 
 stitute that we are seeking in this bill. 
 
 We went before the Appropriations Committee a branch of the 
 Appropriations Committee and asked them to make an appropriation 
 for the power commission of a larger sum than was ultimately recom- 
 mended by the committee, and suggested that they put in a with- 
 drawal of the limitation in the same act upon expenditure for the 
 employment of personnel. They said that would be legislation and 
 would be subject to a point of order, and they declined to do it but 
 told us to come here and lay the case before you and that if your 
 judgment ran with theirs, as they expressed it, and with ours and 
 you changed the law they would then supplement the appropriation 
 and make ad equatepro vision for that employment. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We would have to do that in a deficiency appro- 
 priation. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. It would have to be in a deficiency appropria- 
 tion, in all likelihood. 
 
 There is one other aspect of it that I would like to speak upon, and 
 then I will have covered all that seems to occur to me voluntarily. 
 The organization of the Federal Power Commission is attempting to 
 do in anticipation and therefore we think with very great economy 
 and great safety -what the Interstate Commerce Commission was 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 23 
 
 obliged to do in retrospect after things had gotten into a great tangle 
 If at the time the railroads were developing in this country anybody 
 could have foreseen the problems the Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion would have subsequently had to deal with, they could have pro- 
 vided systems of accounting, bookkeeping, statistical records, and all 
 that sort of thing, which would have obviated enormous expenditure 
 and no great bewilderment both on the part of the public and the 
 official minds in dealing with the railroad problem. 
 
 We are now just at the outset of the development of hydroelectric 
 power. The commission has felt that it ought, as far as human 
 foresight can go, to surround that development r ith all of the systems 
 of records and statistics and accumulations of information that will 
 make the continuous administration of that as a public function easy 
 and inexpensive. To that end, of course, it was necessary that we 
 should have a thoroughly scientific system of accounting from the 
 very inauguration of these enterprises. 
 
 Under the bill as it is now drawn there is no authority in the com- 
 mission to employ a public accountant to advise it how to set up its 
 accounts. We are authorized to have an engineer officer detailed 
 from the War Department and to employ an executive secretary, but 
 outside of that I think we are entitled to spend no money for employ- 
 ees of any sort. We do not have anything to spend on the details 
 there, so it has been necessary for the War Department to with 
 deference to Mr. Smith I do not say break the law, but, well, bend 
 it well, we did this: the office of the chief 'of engineers, by my direc- 
 tion, employed a public accountant and gave him a titular relation 
 to some sort of accounting problems in the office of the chief of en- 
 gineers, and then detailed him to the Federal Power Commission in 
 order that he might act there as an expert in setting up a system of 
 accounting for the control of these enterprises. 
 
 It will be necessary for us to have the advice of hydraulic engineers, 
 construction engineers, expert accountants and many different kinds 
 of persons in dealing with this new and vast problem, and the purpose 
 of this amendment is, within the limits of the appropriations made by 
 Congress, to free the hands of the commission to secure such assistance 
 as it may need to supplement that which it can procure from the three 
 great public departments. 
 
 That covers the whole subject as I care to discuss it, with the ex- 
 ception that I have personally and with the concurrence of my two 
 associates, recommended that there be included in the second of 
 these bills a provision that enlarges the maximum salary which can be 
 paid to the executive secretary. We put that in without consulting 
 Mr. Merrill. I do not know that he had any opinion about it one way 
 or the other, but we put it in because of Mr. Merrill's very long asso- 
 ciation with these problems and the practical impossibility of retain- 
 ing his services or securing an adequate substitute for the limited 
 amount which was previously put in for an executive secretary. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Is it your view that you can not go into either of these 
 departments and bring out any of these experts in the Department 
 of War, Interior, or Agriculture under this bill ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. You mean under existing law ? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. At the present time. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Under existing law we are permitted so far as 
 they can be spared, but you see it is made the duty, for instance, of 
 
24 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL, WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 the Secretary of War to detail such clerical people as he can afford to 
 get along without, and these are contracting days and it is very diffi- 
 cult the War Department has reduced its clerical personnel from 
 36,000 to something less than 10,000 now, and every department in the 
 War Department is crying for more clerks and getting less. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There has been so much said lately about there being 
 a surplus in all these departments, and I am pleased to have you 
 explain that as a matter of fact you have not so many that you can 
 get hold of. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. As a master of fact, sir, the comment on the War 
 Department I have not observed it as to others the comment on 
 the War Department in that regard has abated somewhat within the 
 last two or three months . I think those who have examined the matter 
 have found that the War Department has reduced its clerical per- 
 sonnel to almost a minus minimum. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, in view of the fact that the con- 
 struction of a water power project can not be undertaken until the 
 Power Commission makes a preliminary survey and makes even a 
 survey of the water power possibilities of a region, all work must be 
 delayed until you can get a sufficient personnel to make those pre- 
 liminary investigations. Is that right ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. So that this legislation is necessary if the act is to 
 function ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Surely. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Let me call your attention to a matter which 
 might give rise to trouble, the last part of page 3, line 19, which says: 
 "there is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as Con- 
 gress may hereafter determine." That is all right. That is the 
 authorization. This committee has jurisdiction as to authorizations, 
 but to go on and say: "and the sum of $100,000 is hereby appropri- 
 ated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated," 
 and so forth don't you think that ought to come out? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. That ought to be stricken out of the bill. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think so. Of course, you know the sundry 
 civil bill carries $100,000. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. The reason that is in here, Mr. Chairman, is 
 that Mr. Merrill in drawing it simply drew the original section and 
 stuck this in as an amendment. That was part of the original 
 section and it is not intended to appropriate an additional $100,000. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You can see that under the new rule of procedure 
 in the House that would be subject to criticism and objection. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. That ought to go out. 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. It is necessary to have an authorization of law. 
 The language could be made in the way of an authorization, but that 
 appropriation of $100,000 should be eliminated. If it failed in the 
 appropriation act, you would have an authorization for it at a later 
 time, so it might be well to carry the authorization. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Merrill probably can inform us on that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There is undoubtedly a lot of very valuable material 
 gathered in the War Department, the Department of the Interior, 
 and the Agricultural Department in regard to water power, in the 
 way of books, manuscripts, plats and so forth. Under the law can 
 you have that transferred to your department without any addi- 
 tional authorization ? 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 25 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Its transfer would be undesirable. It is insepar- 
 able, largely, from the other interests in those several departments 
 which led to its collection. In the War Department, for instance, 
 the question of navigation have led to the investigation of all these 
 rivers, but our practice and it will be the continuing practice 
 undoubtedly under any form of law is to have the applications 
 inspected in the several departments with a view to any information 
 they have there. For instance, any application for the flow of a 
 river would instantly send our Secretary over to the War Depart- 
 ment, to the chief engineer's office, to find out all they knew about 
 that river. That information is all available and can not be dupli- 
 cated. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And the same with regard to equipment, supplies and 
 law books and reference books, books of reference, periodicals, and so 
 forth, your view is that it would be necessary to accumulate those 
 that would be applicable to this branch, namely, water power in all 
 its phases, rather than to try and get those that the other departments 
 have? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I think the current literature on water power 
 development ought to be available in the office of the executive 
 secretary, and a very limited law library would be necessary for legal 
 advice. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There really would be no duplication, then ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I think not; no. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. Mr. Secretary, I happen to have the honor of being the 
 first chairman of the special Committee on Water Power, and I 
 suppose had something to do with and gave considerable attention 
 to the details of it. This question of the executive secretary and 
 salary of course was discussed and considered from every viewpoint. 
 There is no question in my mind that the executive secretary should 
 be a very competent man, and on the other hand there was the 
 suggestion that if he were too competent it might bring about a 
 disposition on the part of the three secretaries, having so much work 
 to do outside of the commission, to rel} r too much upon the one 
 very competent man. But I can see the trouble and it has come 
 up, no doubt, under your own observation, that we can not expect 
 an exceedingly competent man to work for the Government always 
 at starvation wages, when the very people who are directly to become 
 the beneficiaries of the service are willing to employ him, if he will 
 resign and take the employment, at a very large compensation 
 compared to that which he is receiving. 
 
 In discussing this matter there was no disposition at all to mini- 
 mize the services of the man who we then guessed would be or that 
 we supposed would be the executive secretary, which has turned 
 out to be a correct guess, but those questions arose, and it is a very 
 large question, because men are quitting the public service all the 
 time because they could get more money to serve a corporation or 
 individuals in private business who have the responsibilities of family 
 and all that sort of thing on them. Now I think that the secretary's 
 salary in this case, in view of the great responsibility that he has to 
 have, that he must have, that he ought to have, ought to be such 
 that he could afford to hold that office just as long as he served the 
 public; but I do not know how soon some private corporation who 
 
26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 needs that expert service will come in and outbid the Government. 
 I do not know what we are going to do in that kind of a situation. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I do not know the compromise, Judge, between 
 the retention and the loss of valued public officials. I do not know 
 how the Government is ever going to be able to keep men. That is 
 what is happening all the time; they become competent and are 
 drafted into outside employment where the compensation is greater, 
 and obviously there must be a limit beyond which the Government 
 can not go in that competition. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. But men are leaving the public service all the time. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Of course. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. To go out and do for a private employer that which 
 they were doing lor the whole people. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. But the whole people did not value the services suffi- 
 ciently to give a living wage, and in an instance of this sort, without 
 any regard whatever to the personality of the present executive sec- 
 retary, the man who is acquiring the knowledge which the executive 
 secretary of the power commission ought to have as to the location 
 and value of sites for hydraulic power development, will have in his 
 head an asset that is bankable at a very large figure if some private 
 company wants to get him. 
 
 Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. In the water-power act is this secretary called 
 the " executive secretary " ? 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I remember that matter was spoken of when 
 the bill was under consideration, and there was some objection to 
 the use of the word "executive." I did not recall whether it was 
 retained in the act or not. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. It was retained. He is officially " executive 
 secretary." 
 
 Mr. SIMS. Not speaking outside I mean not giving out secrets of 
 the committee I objected to it myself, but not particularly on ac- 
 count of this special employment. It looked to me that we might 
 begin the practice of having executive secretaries in every depart- 
 ment at a salary much above the ordinary secretary and that it 
 might possibly lead to the creation of such secretaryships in all of the 
 departments, and I did not think the word " executive" would add 
 anything to his qualifications to serve or be an inducement for him 
 to be a better officer, and it looked to me that it was an unnecessary 
 designation. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. I should think, Judge, that the reason for it 
 would be in this case that you have three members of the commission : 
 they commonly execute their functions through a common secre- 
 tary who is the executive secretary of the commission. Where you 
 have a single head of a department, to have an executive secretary 
 there would be a surplusage, because the head of the department is 
 himself the executive secretary. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. The committee took that view of it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think I was responsible for the amendment which 
 designated the secretary as the " executive secretary," for the reason 
 that Secretary Baker has just referred to, and with the hope that that 
 title might beget a larger salary. You think that the title might 
 well be amended, Mr. Secretary, by adding "and for other purposes" ? 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 27 
 
 That has been suggested. It is a common form of law and I think 
 probably ought to be put in this bill. 
 
 Secretary BAKER. Yes, I think it helps in the interpretation of the 
 act sometimes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? If not, we are 
 very much obliged to you, Mr. Secretary, for your views. 
 
 Secretary Meredith, we will be glad to hear you on either one or 
 all three of the bills. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. EDWIN T. MEREDITH, SECRETARY OF 
 
 AGRICULTURE. 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that I have anything 
 in particular to add. I wish, however, to indorse most heartily 
 what Secretary Baker has said regarding personnel and the ability 
 of the commission to conduct its work more efficiently and effectively 
 with a force of its own instead of having to depend upon employees 
 detailed from the three departments. The secretary of the commis- 
 sion recently asked us to assign an employee who, in his opinion, was 
 especially qualified for the work of the commission. After going 
 into the matter thoroughly, however, we found that we could not 
 spare him from the task upon which he was engaged without serious 
 detriment to the service. We tried in every way to meet the wishes 
 of the commission, and finally a satisfactory arrangement was made 
 after the lapse of several weeks. It does not seem to me that a 
 situation of this sort tends to give the commission the best personnel 
 or to enable it to measure up to the responsibilities imposed upon it 
 in such an important matter as the handling and development of 
 our water-power resources. So I merely wish to emphasize all that 
 Secretary Baker has said regarding personnel. 
 
 On the question of the national parks, I feel, as the other secreta- 
 ries have expressed themselves, that the parks belong to the public 
 as a whole, and that the public should have notice whenever there is 
 a proposal to utilize the parks, or any portion of them, for purposes 
 other than those for which they were originally created. It does 
 not seem to me that such a provision would necessarily, in all cases, 
 
 Erevent the utilization of some features where no harm would come 
 "om it. If a bill providing for a certain concession were introduced, 
 the committee to which it is referred could ask for a report, and 
 probably would ask for a report, from the water-power commission. 
 The commission would make a report for or against the proposal and 
 this report, together with the record of the hearings on the measure, 
 would enable the proper congressional committee to make a report to 
 Congress that, it seems to me, would be more or less conclusive and 
 certainly would have very great weight with the whole membership. 
 If it were concluded that the project would result in no particular harm 
 to the park, that it provided for developments which would probably 
 never be seen by visitors, that it would not spoil the waterfalls, etc., 
 Congress then would be in position to pass upon the matter and 
 the larger interest of the public in the parks would be fully conserved. 
 Personally, I do not feel that no use whatever can be made of a 
 
 Fark without ruining it for park purposes, but, on the other hand, 
 do feel that we should take no chance's and that the benefit of the 
 doubt should be on the side of preservation rather than on the side 
 
28 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 of utilization. So I concur in what the other secretaries have said 
 regarding that feature of the law. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What are your views as to the boundaries, the 
 operation of the bill as to the boundaries, the limits now existing ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. It seems to me that such matters could be 
 discussed when any proposal to enlarge the parks is under considera- 
 tion. That would be the time to present objections to any particular 
 boundary because of the fact that it comprises certain possibilities 
 for water power, irrigation development, etc. The questions involved 
 could be thrashed out at the time and Congress could take such action 
 as the facts in each case may warrant. In other words, it seems to 
 me that whole matter could be dealt with in a thorough-going 
 manner when the boundaries are being discussed and before a deter- 
 mination is reached as to whether this or that area should be in- 
 cluded. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there in the Departments of Agriculture, 
 Interior, and War experts along the line of accounting, experts along 
 the line of hydraulic engineering or hydroelectric power development 
 that you could put into the personnel under the power commission ? 
 Or should they have the means to develop a personnel distinctly 
 under the Federal power commission ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. That is, by taking them from the three 
 departments ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Can you do it or have you got to create a personnel 
 practically of outside talent ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. I think there might be some available. 
 Mr. Merrill has, no doubt, made a canvass of the different depart- 
 ments with a view to seeing who might be available for detail to the 
 commission, and I imagine there are some men who could drop their 
 work in a particular department. 
 
 One of our troubles is the lack of funds. If we employ men for 
 particular purposes in the Department of Agriculture, and then find 
 that we must detail them to the water-power commission, the work 
 upon which they have been engaged is curtailed and handicapped. 
 In other words, we are merely curtailing the work of the three de- 
 partments by these details, while, if the employees concerned were 
 transferred outright to the commission, we could then secure others 
 to take their places and both the commission and the department 
 would get along without handicap. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Mr. Secretary, I can not quite understand what you 
 mean about this personnel. If, as a matter of fact, the water-power 
 commission has the right to draft anyone hi your office 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH (interposing). I do not so understand. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now that is just what I wanted to know. Where do 
 you get that idea ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. The commission can ask us for a man and 
 if we can spare him we may do so; but if we say, "No, that man must 
 stay with us," the commission can not order his detail. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. So it is your view that the water-power commission 
 does not have the right to select anyone they want from either of these 
 three departments and put him to work in the water-power com- 
 mission ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH . Oh, no, unless we authorize his detail to the- 
 water-power commission. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 29 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Where did you get that idea? I don't find it in the 
 law, and when we put this in, we put it in with that very purpose in 
 view. I am asking you now because there has been a good deal said 
 about an overplus of personnel. Now if you have that personnel in 
 these departments, it is none of their business where they are trans- 
 ferred to. If they are competent and qualified men, this power com- 
 mission has the absolute power, as I thought the law provided, for 
 them to select any man in any of the three departments and put him 
 to work under the water-power commission. 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. I do not agree with that. That is not the 
 way we understand it. It certainly would be an ill-advised require- 
 ment, would it not, to let Mr. Merrill, for instance, as executive 
 secretary of the water-power commission, take any employee he 
 desires from any of the three departments, or to let two members of 
 the commission, for instance, outvote the third member and say to 
 him, ''We want to take your entire legal department and walk off 
 with it?" 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Mr. Merrill could not vote on that. 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. But the other two members could. Suppose 
 that Secretary Payne and I decided that we wanted to detail all the 
 employees of a particular branch of the War Department to the 
 water-power commission because we needed them. Secretary Baker's 
 hands would be tied under your interpretation of the provision, and 
 I do not believe Congress intended to create or make possible a situa- 
 tion of this sort. On the contrary, it seems to me that its purpose 
 was to authorize details to the commission with the approval of the 
 head of the department concerned. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Hasn't there been a sufficient number of personnel 
 in your office that you could pick out any of these men ? 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. Absolutely not. We haven't a sufficient force in 
 my office to do all the typewriting and clerical work that is required. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Where does all this talk come from then, that the de- 
 partments are honeycombed with extra men and women that are 
 doing no work and that you can get all you want for any other 
 purpose ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. You can judge for yourself where the talk 
 comes from, but I do not think there is any real basis for it so far as 
 the Department of Agriculture is concerned. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then there is nothing in it ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. There is nothing in it so far as I know. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you this question I don't say I agree 
 entirely with you; I don't know when this matter was discussed 
 before the committee in the hearing fully and we spent possibly six 
 weeks on it, the committee itself, I believe, thought that this pro- 
 vision in the bill gave this commission the power to go to either of 
 these departments and select a competent and qualified man that had 
 made good in that department and put him to work in this water- 
 power commission's work, and we thought we covered it, but even 
 if we have under the law, your theory is that the men are not there ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. They are not, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then under this bill, 12^51, these people would be 
 classified under this power without civil service. Isn't it your view 
 that the bill should be amended that all of these appointees should 
 be under civil service? 
 
30 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. I would imagine so, yes; the same as the 
 other departments. 
 
 Mr. KAKER. In other words, it would harmonize them, with the 
 rest/and the bill ought to be amended so as to require these appointees 
 to come under the civil service. 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. Secretary, even where you have men that you 
 may transfer to the water-power commission, that transfer may be 
 more or less temporary and in that way there is a lack of continuity 
 of personnel in the Federal Water Power Commission, is there not? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. We have not been in operation long enough 
 to know. I imagine that would be the result. In any event, there 
 is a lack of permanency; there is a lack of definiteness and responsi- 
 bility. An employee on detail may say, "I am employed in the 
 Department of War or Agriculture or Interior, and I am only detailed 
 over here." He doesn't know whether he is there permanently or 
 how long he will remain. I do not think any other institution would 
 have an arrangement whereby it is necessary to borrow employees 
 here and there in order to execute an immensely important task. 
 It seems to me that the commission shou.d have its own organization 
 that will be responsible to it and to it alone. That, in my opinion, 
 is the only business way to do. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. With reference to the amendment suggested by 
 Mr. Raker about the civil service, do you think the most competent 
 hydraulic engineers can be obtained by a competitive civil-service 
 examination > 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. I do not say that the most competent can be 
 obtained. I do not believe, however, that a competent engineer 
 would object particularly to taking the civil-service examination 
 and it would be no difficulty for him. I think there is an advantage 
 in the civil-service, but 1 do not profess to be an authority on such a 
 mutter. Mr. Merrill has had more experience along that line and is 
 better qualified to speak on the subject. 
 
 The CHAIRM. \x. There probably is no surplus of experts in any of 
 the departments. 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. There is not in the Department of Agri- 
 culture. 
 
 The CHAERM.AN. Nor in the others, perhaps. So this surplus is 
 probably more confined to the clerical branch than to the expert 
 branch. 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. I beg your pardon; I did not understand you. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I say this surplus that has been mentioned prob,- 
 ably has more reference to the clerical department than to the de- 
 partment of experts, and you want experts to develop this personnel 
 of the power commission. 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. Well, even in the matter of clerks we have 
 had occasion to write, say, 250 letters, similar letters to a list of 
 names, and we have been compelled to scatter the work among 
 several different bureaus in order to get it done within a reasonable 
 time. I have had a number of experiences of this sort experiences 
 which I would not permit in my own office; I would have enough 
 people there to do the work without waste. g$J| 
 
 Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. This contemplates a permanent personnel of 
 experts, I presume ? 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 31 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. And that is what the commission wishes ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. Yes; the commission ought to have a regular 
 force which would be responsible only to it and upon which it could 
 depend for the discharge of its duties. It will also need outside 
 advice from time to time. It may require the services of a particular 
 man for this purpose or that purpose, who will not need to be engaged 
 regularly, but there certainly should be a skeleton organization with 
 enough men to make the examinations and perform the functions 
 required by the law. But I really feel that Mr. Merrill, who has had 
 long experience in the Forest Service in connection with water-power 
 matters, can give you more concrete information regarding the 
 number of experts and other employees the commission needs. 
 
 Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I am not entirely familiar with the language 
 ordinarily used in a matter of this kind, but I had in mind just what 
 you, Mr. Secretary, have said, that you contemplate the employment 
 of a permanent force, and I was wondering if the language " is hereby 
 authorized to be appropriated such sums as Congress may hereafter 
 determine" did not imply a more or less temporary force to do on a 
 large scale what you say may be done, the employment of an expert 
 for the time being, and then the employment of somebody else. 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. I do not have the details in my mind, but I 
 see no necessity for using the word " permanent." Why not employ 
 a force that is necessary for the conduct of its business ; then it may 
 be temporary or it may be permanent, depending upon the work to 
 be done. 
 
 The Chairman. Would you have any objection, Mr. Secretary, to 
 putting in line 14 the words " under the civil-service law?" So that 
 it would read this is on page 2 " authorized to employ in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia and elsewhere such experts, technical, clerical, and 
 other personnel," then say, "to be selected under the civil-service 
 act, as may be necessary for the purpose of performing the duties 
 imposed by this act," and so forth. 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. Personally, I would have no objection to it. 
 I have not heard the question discussed, however, and there may be 
 some reason why it might be objectionable, although none occurs to 
 me at this time. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You would have no objection if it were applicable 
 to clerical and other personnel ? 
 
 Secretary MEREDITH. Not at all. It ought to be. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions ? If not, we are 
 much obliged to you, Mr. Secretary, for the expression of your views. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, I am obliged to leave Washington 
 on an early afternoon train, and I would greatly appreciate being 
 heard. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will hear you now, then. C ive your name 
 and address and whom you represent. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY J. PIERCE, SEATTLE, WASH., 
 PRESIDENT OF THE WASHINGTON IRRIGATION & DEVEL- 
 OPMENT CO. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. My name is Henry J. Pierce, of Seattle, Wash., presi- 
 dent of the Washington Irrigation & Development Co. I wish to 
 
32 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 address myself first to House bill 14469. I desire to suggest an 
 amendment to this bill which is now under consideration. 
 
 The bill as now before you would forbid the utilization of the water 
 resources contained not only within the present boundaries of the 
 national parks and national monuments but also within any enlarge- 
 ment of their boundaries. While there are some water resources 
 contained within the present boundaries of the parks which could 
 be used to advantage to supply the people of near-by localities with 
 power and with water for irrigation and domestic use, yet the greater 
 part of the water resources of the mountainous sections of the Pacific 
 coast are contained in areas outside the park boundaries. 
 
 The people of the Pacific Coast States, and especially of California, 
 view with apprehensio.n, however, allowing the terms of this bill to 
 apply to the great areas which are comprised in the proposed addi- 
 tions to the national parks. The proposed enlargement of the 
 Sequoia National Park, for instance, would take in the headwaters 
 of the Kings, Kern, Kaweah, and San Joaquin Rivers, comprising 
 water resources which will be absolutely necessary to the future 
 growth of central and southern California. This water will be needed 
 in the future by the people living on the plains below for irrigation, 
 agricultural and domestic purposes, and for the production of hydro- 
 electric power to furnish light, power, and heat, and there may be 
 still further and larger additions to be made to the national parks. in 
 the future which, with the use of the water resources which they 
 contain forbidden, would seriously handicap if not prevent future 
 growth. 
 
 We people of the Pacific Coast States, Mr. Chairman, love and 
 reverence the natural wonders contained within our national parks 
 and monuments, perhaps even more than those who dwell in other 
 parts of the conutry. We are pround that these great natural mu- 
 seums are located in our part of the country. We would take up 
 arms, if necessary, to prevent their desecration. We are in sym- 
 pathy with the splendid and unselfish work which is being performed 
 by Mr. Mather, director of parks, and by his bureau in protecting 
 these treasures from destruction. But we ask not to be denied the 
 right to use the water which may become necessary to the further 
 growth of population on the Pacific slope. I believe that the 
 water resources contained within the proposed enlargement of the 
 park boundaries may be utilized for the needs of mankind without 
 damaging the beauty of the surroundings. 
 
 I respectfully suggest, therefore, that the bill be amended so as to 
 restrict its operation to the present boundaries of the parks. This 
 can be done by inserting after the word "limits," in line 7 of page 1, 
 the words "as now constituted," and by inserting in line 4 of page 
 2, after the word "of," the word "existing." If this is done, I shall 
 be greatly in favor of the bill. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Where does the second amendment come in? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. The second amendment is in line 4 of page 2, after 
 the word "of," insert the word "existing." 
 
 I take it, Mr. Chairman, that from what Secretary Payne has said 
 he would not object to this amendment, and if I may I would like to 
 ask Mr. Mather if he understands it that way. 
 
 Mr. STEPHEN T. MATHER. That is my understanding of the Sec- 
 retary's attitude. We went over this suggested amendment in our 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 33 
 
 own office with two of our officials of the National Park Service, and 
 then took the matter up with Secretary Payne, and I think he has 
 already indicated to-day that an amendment of this kind would not 
 be objectionable to him. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. So it is agreeable to confine the limitation to the 
 present parks ? 
 
 Mr. MATHER. Yes, sir; letting the other matters come up in con- 
 nection with these specific bills for the creation of other parks or 
 forest additions to the present parks. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Well, I don't understand that. You mean to leave 
 the matter to Congress in additions to the parks, or leave the matter 
 to the commission ? 
 
 Mr. MATHER. Leave it to Congress, which could in its discretion 
 leave the matter of power in any future parks either to Congress 
 itself or to the power commission. That would be a matter to be 
 taken up as each specific bill came up. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, if they added a million acres to the 
 Mount Lassen Volcanic National Park, if the amendment suggested 
 by Mr. Pierce was adopted, Congress would determine in that addi- 
 tional legislation as to what its policy would be as to the development 
 of hydroelectric energy in that park ? 
 Mr. PIERCE. Exactly so. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. And in case Congress did not act on that matter, 
 the matter would be left in the power of the commission, under Mr. 
 Pierce's amendment. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. Now, I don't know whether it would or not. 
 Mr. MATHER. I did not get Mr. Sinnott's question. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. In case Congress did not prescribe terms for some 
 addition to the park, then the matter would be left to the commission, 
 under Mr. Pierce's amendment to 14469. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. If Congress was silent, I think your construction is 
 correct. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. If the amendment goes in, then that exempts national 
 parks as the boundaries are now declared and fixed ? 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes; Mr. Sims. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. That is, if there is any water-power development in a 
 national park as the boundaries now exist, it would take an act of 
 Congress to permit it, in addition to the powers of this bill ? 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. But on all other public lands, applications can be made 
 immediately under the act and the work started? 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. Now, then, if Congress afterwards shall determine to 
 extend the boundaries of a national park or create a new one, that 
 would contain these applications where this work was done, then 
 Congress would not have the power to stop that or prevent it, but 
 would have to let it go on, because it has become a vested right. 
 Mr. PIERCE. I should say so. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. That is something, it seems to me, that we ought to 
 think a little about before we decide it. It has been admitted here 
 that there are lands that ought to be in national parks that are not in, 
 and if you or anybody else should go there and make application and 
 
 2941421 3 
 
34 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 have license granted, then you would have a vested right and Con- 
 gress could not make a park of it without compensating you. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That will be provided for, that very contingency, in 
 this bill, in section 28. Until the man has actually acquired a 
 right, not an inchoate right, Congress can alter, repeal, or dispose of 
 it as it sees fit. 
 
 Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Are you quoting from the law, from the water- 
 power act ? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. From the water-power act, yes. It has the right to 
 alter, amend, or repeal this act. In other words, until the man has 
 got an absolute title Congress has got the right to dispose of it. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. When a permit issued to him he has a privilege under 
 the permit, and then if his license is approved he has a vested right. 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. Of course, that would mean that every area outside 
 of the boundaries of existing parks under that construction might be 
 considered as possible park area, and if that rule were invoked there 
 would be no area whatever that could be used for water-power sites 
 under the present bill, and of course that would defeat the very 
 purposes of the bill, if you regarded as possible park area any area 
 outside of an existing park. The amendment, of course, means that 
 later on, if Congress finds an area that is untouched by vested rights 
 granted under the water-power bill, and that area is favorable for 
 parks, then Congress can create it into a park and at that time it has 
 the right to say whether or not the water-power commission will have 
 any jurisdiction over it at all. It seems to me the amendment of Mr. 
 Pierce is not needed, because it is not assumed that will ever arise. 
 Of course it can arise by power of Congress setting aside lands in the 
 future, so why say anything about it ? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And the further condition would exist, would it not, 
 Mr. Pierce, that if additional territory was added to one of the parks , 
 in which a permit was granted and completed, and it was set aside 
 as a park, that one permit would stand in operation, but all the rest 
 of it, if Congress said no more would be granted, it would be a law 
 and therefore there would be only one permit in that park and na 
 further development would be made. Is that your view? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. Under the bill as it now reads, it would apply to 
 present parks and any additions or any new parks that might be 
 created ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. So that hereafter the whole parking system of the 
 United States would be subject to special consideration by Congress, 
 dealing ^ith any individual project that was under consideration, 
 but if your amendment is adopted you will have part of the national 
 park system that is subject to special action by Congress and another 
 part of the national park system which may be dealt with by the 
 commission. You might have one portion of a given park which 
 Congress could alone deal with and another portion of the same park 
 that the commission could deal with. Doesn't that give rise to 
 confusion and contradiction and duplication on the part of the com- 
 mission and Congress. Where is the objection to allowing this 
 general law to apply to all the parks, and then hereafter if the situa- 
 tion arises that needs special treatment allow Congress to do that, 
 rather than to exempt all future parks now, so that if Congress in 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 35 
 
 creating it wants to put it under the general law it must affirmatively 
 do so in order to bring it in ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I think that should he considered at the time the 
 parks are enlarged; that is, when the question comes up before 
 Congress as to the enlargement ,0! the parks, or the creation of new 
 ones. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. But your amendment will not prevent that special 
 consideration if Congress wants to exempt the addition or the new 
 park from the provisions of the general law. Congress can still deal 
 with it separately by taking it out from under the provisions of the 
 general law and allow the commission to deal with it separately, 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I suggest this amendment in the desire to secure 
 harmony in this matter. I am in favor of this bill, but I know that 
 unless its operation be restricted to the present park boundaries, the 
 present areas, it is going to meet with opposition on the part of some 
 Congressmen and Senators, because the proposed park 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY (interposing). That is a matter that may develop 
 during the consideration of the bill on the floor, but if there are 
 enough Members who want to put in an amendment of this sort, 
 then it will be put in. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. But I am sure that if the amendment which I suggest 
 were adopted there would be no opposition and that the bill would 
 be passed. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. The thing that appeals to me about it is not the 
 matter of expediency, whether it meets with opposition or not, but 
 whether it is right and wise as a policy. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Proposed enlargement of present park boundaries, as 
 I have said, contain water resources which are absolutely needed for 
 the future growth of California. I am sure I speak for most of the 
 people of the Pacific slope when I say that much as they desire the 
 passage of this bill which you have under consideration, they would 
 object to it unless it were restricted to the present park boundaries. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. Which do you mean, the general public or the men who 
 have interests there ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. The general public, because, Mr. Sims, we of the 
 Pacific coast are absolutely dependent upon the water of the Sierra 
 Nevada Mountains and the other mountain ranges of the Pacific 
 slope for our very life, our existence and our growth. Let us con- 
 fine the operation of this bill to the present boundaries of the parks. 
 That can be safely done, and then when the question of the enlarge- 
 ment of the park boundaries comes up, let Congress decide as to 
 whether they will put this same requirement upon the enlarged 
 boundaries. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. As an evidence of the fact that Congress is not 
 at all unmindful of that situation, two years ago it passed a bill 
 applying to the Hetch Hetchy project, which supplies water, I 
 believe, now to San Francisco. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. And it seems to me that it would be better to have 
 not only all the parks that now exist but all the future parks that 
 may be created under one general law, unless in the creation of some 
 particular park the situation is so exceptional that Congress would 
 take it without the jurisdiction of Congress and leave that power 
 in the hands of the commission. 
 
36 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I am sure the people of California feel that unless the 
 operation of this bill were restricted to the present park boundaries, 
 it would threaten the future growth of their State because the park 
 boundaries might be enlarged to take in water resources absolutely 
 necessary to the existence of increased population. So I suggest, in 
 the interest of harmony, and because I want to see this bill pass, that 
 we confine this question to the situation as it exists at the present 
 day and to the present park boundaries, and then I don't believe 
 there will be a member of Congress who will object to it. 
 
 Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. What difference does it make? You take some 
 of these areas that may later be put into the national parks; they 
 are open now, and those who wish to file on them can do so and gain 
 rights that can not be set aside by subsequent action of Congress. 
 Isn't that true ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes, it is true. 
 
 Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. What more do you want ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. The people of the Pacific coast, unless the operation 
 of this bill were restricted to the present boundaries, would feel 
 that they would have to oppose the bill. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. In other words, they do not believe that Congress 
 in the future in creating parks would take care of this situation? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. They might not. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Idaho. I think, Mr. Pierce, your idea is that it 
 would sort of serve notice on Congress that while we are satisfied 
 to have the water power law apply to the present parks, we would 
 t be willing to have it apply to parks that may be hereafter created, 
 unless there is a reservation that the water powers may be used. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I think so. I am sure, for instance, that the pro- 
 posed Roosevelt Park for the establishment of which there is a bill 
 now before Congress, contains water resources which are absolutely 
 necessary to the future growth of central and southern California, 
 and the application of this amendment to that area would be strenu- 
 ously opposed by the people of California. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. If this amendment that you suggested were not 
 adopted and the law applied to all parks, present and future, and 
 then at a later date Congress should establish the Roosevelt Park, 
 would it not be an easy matter, if it was demonstrated that there 
 were water powers within that proposed park necessary for the sus- 
 tenarce of life and agriculture in southern California, for Congress to 
 provide in the act creating the park that it should not be subject to 
 the general law, but should be subject to control by the water-power 
 commission ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. It would be possible, but the people of the Pacific 
 coast are willing that the water resources of these parks as at present 
 constituted should be withdrawn from use, but not those in the 
 enlarged boundaries. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. It is conceivable that there may be future parks 
 created that will have no water power in them. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes; or if they do have water power it will not be of 
 such exceptional value as to be treated. in that way. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. In that case Congress would have to affirmatively 
 say in the law that that park should be under the control of Congress 
 and not of the commission. Now wouldn't it be easier for Congress 
 to take a given park out of the jurisdiction of Congress where there 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 37 
 
 are exceptional circumstances than it would be to put affirmative 
 provisions in every park law providing that it should be within the 
 discretion of Congress ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I think that question should come up at the time the 
 boundaries of the park, are proposed to be enlarged or new ones 
 created. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. Suppose your amendment is not accepted and what I 
 will call the Payne amendment is adopted, then under the Payne 
 amendment no water power can be established in the parks as now 
 laid out ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. No. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. Without action of Congress ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. But they can establish on all the rest of the public lands 
 anywhere. Now why do you wish that right emphasized by your 
 amendment ? i 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I do not think the water resources contained within 
 the proposed enlargements of the parks are immediately necessary to 
 California, but they will be as the country grows. 
 
 Mr. SIMS. They are open right now if they are; now why do you 
 want to put an amendment in in addition to that when they are 
 already in the water-power bill ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Well, sir, I know I voice the sentiment of the people 
 of California in saying that they think this amendment should be 
 restricted to the present park boundaries. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. They are not very enthusiastic about it even as to 
 that, are they? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. We]l, they are willing the amendment should pass if 
 restricted to present park boundaries. The water, is necessary to 
 their very life, as you know, if you have traveled out there. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The people of California are very enthusiastic in re- 
 gard to maintaining the integrity of the Yosemite National Park as 
 it is. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And there is not 1 per cent of the people of California 
 who would in any way do away with it, with its beauty and the util- 
 ization of the park for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Absolutely not. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now for the benefit of creating additional territory in 
 the parks that might be necessary, and wouldn't your amendment 
 have this effect, namely, it would make the creation of the park easier, 
 because those territories wherein you could use it for water-power 
 purposes, the parties would have the opportunity to be heard ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And the matter could be fully explained to the Con- 
 gress, so that if it was necessary they could make the proper provision 
 in the bill, an affirmative provision, that no more development 
 should be made. 
 
 Second, while this is being done, while there is no park created and 
 none added, it will open a full development to that territory and allow 
 men to go in without the fear that they are going to be deprived of 
 their rights if they start in. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes, sir. 
 
38 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. KAKEK. So, as a matter of fact, if your amendment goes in it 
 is to define the rights ol water power development, but primarily if 
 we want to add any part, it gives all a full opportunity for a hearing. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. It does. 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Pierce, do you reside in California? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I reside in Seattle, Wash. 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. You are speaking very strongly of the sentiment in 
 California, as if you represented it, and I rather think that the people 
 are not as aroused over the question and have not expressed them- 
 selves so definitely as to warrant the statements you make. I have 
 lived there all my life I was born there and I am pretty well 
 acquainted with the sentiment, and I think the people are very 
 much against would be very much against the use, for instance, of 
 the floor of the King's Rivor Canyon for power purposes, for flooding 
 it as a reservoir. I think they would be very much against the use 
 of the floor of the Kern River Canyon. I tnink that on the whole 
 the sentiment would be in favor of the inclusion of those two great 
 canyons, which are comparable to the Yosemite, and in some aspects 
 grander than the Yosemite, in the national parks, but I do believe 
 they would be against any ring thrown about those two canyons 
 with the statement that the}' are hallowed ground and that hereafter 
 no use whatever could be made of the tremendous water powers 
 there, consistent with the use of those valleys for park areas. 
 
 In other words, there is nothing sacred and shall be nothing sacred 
 about those areas if later on when the great needs of California come 
 for water power and so on, some modified use, adjusted use could be 
 made of those great water powers consistent with park purposes, 
 modifying to some extent the full extreme of the use of those valleys 
 for park purposes,, not to the extreme, of course, of flooding those 
 two valleys. Now that accords with my opinion. As a park enthu- 
 siast I would hate to be drawn to the extreme of saying that Cali- 
 fornia eventually, when it has ten or fifteen million people, shall 
 never touch the great resources of those great rivers which comrrise 
 practically the only source of water power and irrigation for the whole 
 of the San Joaquin Valley and for Southern California. So I think 
 that when you state that the people of California are against any 
 inclusion of those areas in the parks, you are speaking a little strongly, 
 but I am speaking now of the use of those as a thing in the future; I 
 would hate to see that thing stamped now as hallowed ground which 
 nobody can touch for all time. 
 
 I think it would be a great mistake. To that extent I am rather 
 in favor of your suggestion for the reason that I think it would facili- 
 tate the passage of acts creating and enlarging I mean creating 
 new parks and enlarging present boundaries, because if the amend- 
 ment is not passed I think we will have rather difficult sledding in 
 getting new additions to any parks. I am the author of the Roosevelt 
 bill and I know. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Isn't it further demonstrated on the ground we 
 don't have to take any theory that many places, in particular one, 
 for example, Lake Washington, where there was a bare, deep, un- 
 usable canyon, where to-day we find a beautiful lake and quite a 
 little city, and we find hundreds of people building summer homes 
 around on this public reserve, and we are getting a large amount of 
 hydro-electric energy to supply those farmers below and those towns; 
 whereas, if it was tied up we would get no utilization at all. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 39 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. That is so. 
 Mr. RAKER. And that ought not to be done. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. May I take just a minute to clear the record on one 
 or two matters, Mr" Chairman ? 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN T. MATHER, DIRECTOR, 
 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. I think it would be well for the committee to know 
 that in the present Sequoia Park, which would become part of the 
 greater Roosevelt Park which has been referred to, there is already 
 a water power development. The Mount Whitney Power Co., which 
 is now a component part of the Southern California Edison Co., is 
 actually in the Sequoia Park, in the Sequoia National Park. It is 
 in the foothill region. It is a development which I think is a very 
 proper one. It does not interfere with the scenic area above, but 
 it was created under a special authorization from Congress. It en- 
 ables the orange lands in the Porterville section, the Exeter section, 
 and the Lindsay section to be properly taken care of, and in that 
 particular case it probably was a very necessary development. I 
 bring that up because in connection, say, with the present park it 
 still gives Congress an opportunity if some occasion like that arises, 
 to enable a hydroelectric development to go in, but by their own 
 action instead of by the action of the water power commission. 
 
 While I am thoroughly in favor of the amendment that Mr. Pierce 
 proposes, I think he is a little unduly alarmed in regard to the people 
 of California. Of course I think what he has in mind particularly is 
 the development of the Southern California Edison Co., who of course 
 are providing for the people of California, rather than the question 
 of the feelings of the people of California as a whole. Now the 
 development of the Southern California Edison Co., does not involve 
 in any way the area of the proposed Roosevelt Park, but that does 
 not mean that in some future time there may not be the need of 
 power in that particular area, but at the present time all of the develop- 
 ment of the Southern California Edison Co. and they have pro- 
 visions for some $200,000,000 of work to be carried on is all outside 
 of the area of this proposed extension. Of course, I did not come 
 here to talk about the extension of the parks, but I thought a little 
 statement to that effect would be advisable at this time, and also 
 the fact that we now have in the present Sequoia Park a power 
 company operating there. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. Does that power company operate through a special 
 act of the commission or of Congress ? 
 
 Mr. MATHER. Of Congress. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. That is exactly my viewpoint, that where hereafter 
 an accessible situation arises, either in the creation of a park or after 
 it is created, Congress can deal with it separately. Under the amend- 
 ment which is proposed, all parks hereafter would be exempt from 
 the jurisdiction of Congress unless Congress in the act specifically 
 provided that it should not be; whereas if the bill is left like it is, 
 all parks hereafter created will be under the jurisdiction of Congress, 
 unless Congress says by affirmative act that the commission shall have 
 power to determine the policy in that particular case. 
 
40 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. Mr. Merrill, bv the way, just called my attention to 
 the fact that the creation of the Mount Whitney Power Co. was not 
 due to specific acts of Congress covering that particular company, but 
 the act of 1901 which allowed the use of power in this particular park. 
 But at the same time I will say that I think the law at that time, 
 while somewhat broader in its nature, was the act which created this 
 situation in regard to the Mount Whitnev Power Co. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You stated, Mr. Mather, that this power plant 
 in the Sequoia National Park did not in anyway interfere with the 
 scenic attractions of the park or the purposes for which it was 
 intended. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. It is located in the foothill section of the park. 
 
 Mr. SMITH: of Idaho. I am curious to know why you would object, 
 then to, the creation of a reservoir which certainly is much more at- 
 tractive than a power plant within the boundaries of the Yellowstone 
 National Park in a remote section of it. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. Of course the power plants themselves are located 
 outside the park but the flumes and the water they obtain are in the 
 park itself. Then, too, in this proposed Roosevelt fark country there 
 is some storage in the high country far above the timber line. There 
 are half a dozen storage reservoirs up on the Franklin Lakes up on 
 Franklin Pass at an elevation of about 11,000 feet. I have been at 
 the Sequoia reservoirs and they do not in their location detract from 
 that scenic area, but if they were lower down in the timbered section 
 they would make considerable difference. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY J. PIERCE Resumed. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are you through, Mr. Pierce? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Just one moment , sir. I wish to say, in conclusion, that 
 I suggest this amendment because I am in favor of the bill. I want 
 to see it passed, and I a'm sure that if its operation can be restricted 
 to the present boundaries it will not have much, if any, opposition, 
 and that it can be passed. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I did wish to address myself to the other bill which 
 you have before you, and if I may I would like to say just a few words 
 regarding it and then file this paper with the committee. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Very well. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I am president of the Washington Irrigation & Devel- 
 opment Co., which has made application to the Federal Power Com- 
 mission for a permit to develop the water power now wasting in the 
 Pries Rapids of the Columbia River, located in the central part of 
 Washington, having a capacity of 400,000 primary and 300,000 sec- 
 ondary power, and which is, perhaps, the largest possible hydro- 
 electric power development in the United States, aside from those 
 contained in the St. Lawrence and Niagara Rivers. 
 
 I know that I voice the sentiment of all of the 127 applicants who 
 have thus far applied for permits to develop the water powers of the 
 country in earnestly favoring H. R. 15126, the bill now under con- 
 sideration by your committee. 
 
 The scope of the work that the power commission is called upon to 
 perform is very great, and the benefits which will accrue to the coun- 
 try through the development of its water powers will be enormous. 
 As has been said, the applications thus far filed, will, if taken advan- 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 41 
 
 tage of, mean the development of 12,000,000 horsepower, which will 
 cost to install over $1,; 00,000,000 and w^ould create taxable values of 
 that amount. The labor that would be employed would require 
 700,000 or 800,000 men for a number of years, would save the mining 
 of 70,000,000 tons of coal, would cheapen the cost of many of the 
 necessities of life, and would be of direct benefit to every inhabitant 
 of the 1 nited States. 
 
 The foreign nation? France, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, and other 
 countries immediately after the close of the war turned their atten- 
 tion to the development of their water powers. The shortage of coal 
 during the war had given them a tremendous object lesson as to the 
 value of power, and the very first constructive thing they did was to 
 begin the utilization of their wasting water powers. The foreign 
 countries have very cheap labor, which we have not, and the develop- 
 ment of their water powers is going to give them cheap power, and 
 with these two elements of cost upon a very low basis they will be 
 placed in a commanding position in bidding for the markets of the 
 world. We do not have cheap labor here, and if we are going to com- 
 pete with them in exports we must at least have cheap power for 
 industrial use. 
 
 We have in our western country over 10,000,000 acres of land which 
 can not be reached by gravity water and can only be reclaimed by 
 water pumped by the electric power now wasting in our rivers and 
 streams. It would require fully r, 000, 000 horsepower to operate 
 these pumping plants. An agricultural population of fully [,00,000 
 could be maintained on these acres and the products would materially 
 tend to reduce the cost of living. 
 
 The electrification of 1,000 miles of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. 
 Paul Railroad has shown such economies in transportation costs, and 
 which are something over 30 per cent, that all the railroads west of 
 the Rocky Mountains from Mexico to British Columbia now desire to 
 electrify their lines and they can not do so until the water power is 
 developed. One- third of the entire carrying capacity of a railroad is 
 required to carry coal for its own consumption. 
 
 The enactment of the Federal water-power law opens up an enor- 
 mous pioneer field for enterprise. Now that they are given the right 
 to work, the right to build and expend and develop, the right to help 
 create a great and more powerful industrial nation, those who would 
 develop our wasting water powers will reclaim deserts and make 
 farms, build factories and cities, open up new inland waterways, em- 
 ploy labor, reduce the cost of living, increase taxable values, and thus 
 promote the welfare and prosperity of the Nation. 
 
 There exists in every portion of the United States at the present 
 time an acute power famine. Seventy per cent of the water power 
 resources of the 1 nited States are located west of the Rocky Moun- 
 tains, while 80 per cent of the power used, whether produced from 
 coal, oil, or water power, is east of the Mississippi River, and yet the 
 shortage of power is relatively as great upon the Pacific coast as in 
 the large industrial and thickly populated sections of the East and 
 South. 
 
 The water-power law provides that licenses, under the act must 
 pay the cost of administration of the act, so that eventually, and I 
 should say beginning in 1922, the Federal Power Commission will,, 
 through the revenues derived from its licenses, be self-sustaining. 
 
42 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 The law provides that they must secure the funds necessary for ad- 
 ministration purposes from appropriations and the money derived 
 from licenses must be covered in the Treasury, but in this indirect 
 way the amount derived from licenses will before long amount to as 
 much as that required through appropriations. 
 
 The commission and its executive secretary, Mr. Merrill, have 
 done wonderfully well with the limited personnel and employees at 
 their disposal, but they are badly handicapped at the present time 
 by lack of funds. We, who wish to develop the water power of the 
 country, are anxious to go to work, and we can not begin until the 
 Federal Power Commission grants us licenses, and they can not do 
 that until funds are placed at their disposal sufficient to make neces- 
 sary investigations. The need for development of the water-power 
 of the Nation is very great, and I trust that your Committee will act 
 favorably and quickly upon this bill. 
 
 I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity which has been 
 accorded me to be heard by your committee upon this subject. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. Let me ask you a question. You probably repre- 
 sent commercial interests at this hearing ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I represent the Washington Irrigation & Develop- 
 ment Co., which has made application to the Federal Power Commis- 
 sion for a license. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. Have you anything to indicate the attitude of the 
 people at large on the Pacific coast, as distinct from those interested 
 in commercial development ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. You mean in what respect ? 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. In any respect. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I am a resident of the coast. I know how the people 
 out there feel. f 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. I am asking for the testimony of the people there 
 who have no particular and direct interest in the development of the 
 water power. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I know that all the people of the Pacific coast want 
 the water powers developed, because it is absolutely necessary to 
 their comfort and well-being and the future growth of the localities 
 in which they live. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. I understand that from your viewpoint, but have 
 you any testimony or credentials which would appear to warrant 
 you in representing the people on the Pacific coast ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I think that I could get a multitude of letters and 
 telegrams which would give me authority to represent organizations, 
 chambers of commerce, and so forth. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. Undoubtedly you may get them, but have you any 
 such? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I have not in my pocket at this time, no, sir. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. Are there any such expressions that you know of ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. How do you mean? 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. General expressions of the people at large in 
 respect to their interest in this proposition. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I am a member, for instance, of the Chamber of 
 Commerce of the City of Seattle, and am a member of its committees 
 and I know how they feel. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. I don't question your personal view, but I was 
 wondering if you had any expressions which you could offer and 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 43 
 
 put in the record as indicating the registered opinion of any consider- 
 able number of citizens out there ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I will undertake to secure them, if you would like, 
 and have them inserted in the record within two or three days. I 
 happened to be in the East and I appeared before this committee. 
 I think I know all the members of this committee. I have been here 
 for the past seven years during the sessions of Congress doing what 
 one man could to induce the passage of water power legislation so 
 that I could develop my water power, and so that incidentally the 
 other water powers of the country could be developed. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. The answer to my specific inquiry is that you 
 haven't the goods, isn't it ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I don't understand you, sir. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Probably you might secure the cooperation 
 of some of these experts who can manufacture sentiment on ex parte 
 statements, if you wish to enter into the plan suggested by Mr. 
 Winslow. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. I don't suggest it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Perhaps these propagandists 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW (interposing). I object to his putting words into my 
 mouth. I said nothing of the kind. I am asking him for general 
 expressions, not propaganda expressions. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Are you through, Mr. Pierce ? 
 
 Mr. PIEECE. I am, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Mr. Pierce, what is your view of why there are so 
 many applications filed all at once with the water power commission 
 under this bill ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Why? 
 
 Mr. RAKER, Yes.^ 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Because of the necessity for water power develop- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It must be very favorable to the water power people 
 or they would not be so active all of a sudden. Isn't that right? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I think that the water power act protects every public 
 interest. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now there ought to be time sufficient given or suf- 
 ficient time given to this commission to work over these matters in 
 a proper way without rushing in a new force of people to jam them 
 through without sufficient investigation, ought there not ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. I am informed that no permits or licenses have thus 
 far been granted by the commission, and I am sure. Judge Raker, 
 that Mr. Merrill, as the executive secretary of the power commission, 
 is not going to grant any permits or licenses until those investigations 
 have been made. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is true, but they have got the War Department, 
 they have got the Department of the Interior, they have got the 
 Department of Agriculture behind them, to select from those depart- 
 ments any men they want. Now what I am getting at is this so 
 we may be plain there isn't any desire on the part of the water 
 power people to get a corps of people in there, not under the civil 
 service, just so these things can be rushed through, is there ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. No, except that we would like to go to work with the 
 development of these water powers. The necessity is great. The 
 
44 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 people need the power, and we would like to see the water power 
 commission furnished with sufficient force to do their work. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And still with the good old staid and trusted and 
 true officials in all of these departments, where we can get them, we 
 ought to give them time enough to work out, to see whether or not 
 these applications should be granted ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Yes, if they can obtain them, but it would seem from 
 what the different secretaries have said that they are all pretty bus} 7 
 with the work of the departments and that their services can not 
 be obtained, except to a very limited extent. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I am not as thoroughly convinced that you can not 
 find the people in the department yet to assist in doing this work,, 
 and I am just wondering why the power people and I am putting 
 this in a kindly way are anxious themselves to force a larger corps 
 of new officers in a new branch, to open it up so that these permits 
 may be rushed through in a hurry. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. If the Power Commission are not furnished with suffi- 
 cient force to do their work I don't believe I will get my permit in 
 five years to enable me to go ahead with the development of the 
 water power I am interested in. I am anxious to get to work. I 
 have waited for seven yours while Congress has been considering 
 water-power legislation. I don't believe that the power commission 
 can make these investigations and do this work unless they have the 
 necessary funds placed at their disposal. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I am simply asking for information. Now, just one 
 other question and this is just for information under this appli- 
 cation of what is the company '( 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. The Washington Irrigation & Development Co. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The Washington Irrigation & Development Co. -their 
 application is for how much horsepower ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Well, for the development of the all possible horse- 
 power at Priest Rapids. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Approximately, in your estimate, what will it be ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. 400,000 primary power, and then during the summer,, 
 during the irrigation season, 300,000 extra horsepower. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Located where ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Located in the Priest Rapids of the Columbia River, 
 in the central part of the State of Washington. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. About how far east from the city of Portland ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. It is about 150 miles, as the crow flies, east of Port- 
 land and is about equally distant from Seattle and Spokane. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now what, under your application, if it is granted, 
 would you expect to pay does this company contemplate having to 
 pay the Government for this use ? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. We would have to pay our proportion of the costs of 
 administration of the act. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And that is all? 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. And for the use of certain Government lands which we 
 would have to use. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pierce, I suppose one reason why there has 
 been such a flood of applications coming upon the commission is the 
 fact that there have been no grants on navigable streams for 10 
 years. 
 
 Mr PIERCE. That is so, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers, we will hear you. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 45 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Mr. KOGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am so thoroughly in sympathy with 
 the so-called Esch bill (H. K. 14469) that it perhaps seems captious 
 even to suggest why I prefer the bill which I have introduced and 
 which is numbered 14760. 
 
 My bill in its terms simply excludes from the water-power act 
 national monuments and national parks of the United States. It 
 seeks, in other words, to leave the situation to-day and hereafter 
 .exactly as the situation would have been if the Federal water-power 
 act of 1920 had never included or referred to national parks and 
 national monuments. 
 
 The Esch bill in lines 3 to 8, page 1, it seems to me, points toward 
 isomething different. Whether it is intended to do anything beyond 
 what my proposal contemplates I am not quite sure; but it provides 
 that hereafter no permit, and so forth, within any national park or 
 monument shall be granted or made without specific authority of 
 Congress. I do not see wherein that adds to the legislative effect 
 of the remainder of the bill. Clearly that authority must inhere in 
 Congress, whether or not it is expressed in the bill as presented to 
 the committee, but my feeling concerning the inclusion of that lan- 
 guage is that it squints toward a policy of granting such permits or 
 licenses in national parks. That is what I think most people who 
 are interested in the general question are exceedingly anxious to 
 avoid. 
 
 It is for that reason and for that reason only that I should prefer 
 either my own bill or an amended Esch bill, so as to deal only with 
 the straight repeal of the portion of the water-power act which re- 
 lates to national parks and national monuments. 
 
 Just one word on the general question and I do not want to go 
 into details. There has been propoganda, no doubt, in support of 
 this measure, but the appeals that have come to me seem to be 
 appeals from men and women who are unselfishly anxious to protect 
 the integrity of our national parks. People have come to me and 
 have written to me who have never been in the national parks and 
 never expect to be able to afford to go to the national parks and 
 have asked that this protection be afforded for the future. I hope 
 that the committee, Mr. Chairman, may be able to report out and 
 to secure the passage promptly of legislation to preserve the integ- 
 rity of our national parks. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY J. PIERCE (Resumed). 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. There are quite a number of witnesses from out of 
 town who desire to be heard, and if agreeable we will recess until 2 
 o'clock this afternoon. I hope as many members of this committee 
 as possible will be present at that time. 
 
 Mr. PIERCE. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I would like 
 the privilege of inserting in the record, in answer to Mr. Winslow's 
 questions, a short statement as to how I came to be here to-day, and 
 whom I am in a way representing. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Very well. 
 
46 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. BARKLEY. That does not include any resolutions or telegrams 
 or letters in the future, does it ? 
 Mr. PIERCE. No; it does not. 
 The statement submitted by Mr. Pierce is as follows : 
 
 Answering Mr. Winslow's inquiry: I have made no claim before the committee or 
 elsewhere to speak in any representative capacity for the general public of the Pacific 
 Coast, though I believe I know pretty well how they feel regarding the matters which 
 have been under discussion this morning. As is well known to most of the members 
 of this committee, I am the president of a company intending to make a large water- 
 power development on the Columbia River. During the course of recent water- 
 power legislation I have been in close touch with, and frequently the spokesman for, 
 other persons and corporations similarly situated. In the present instance, being in 
 Washington in connection with my application for a permit for the power develop- 
 ment in which I am interested, I was requested by the officers of the Southern Cali- 
 fornia Edison Company of Los Angeles, which supplies a large part of southern Cali- 
 fornia with power, light, as well as water for irrigation purposes, and also by the Utah 
 Power and light Company and the Idaho Light and Power Company, both of which 
 companies have their headquarters in New York City, and also by the president of 
 the Pacific Power & Light Co. of Portland, Oreg., who is now in the East, to confer 
 with Secretary of the Interior Pavne and Director of Parks Mather, concerning a 
 proposed amendment of H. R. 14469, restricting its scope to park boundaries as now 
 constituted, and, if in agreement with them in regard to the amendment, to appear 
 before this committee and suggest the amendment. This I have done. 
 
 (Whereupon, at 12.20 o'clock p. m., the committee recessed until 
 2 o'clock p. m. this day.) 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 
 The committee reconvened at 2.30 o'clock p. m., Hon. John J. 
 Esch (chairman) presiding. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. HORACE McFARLAND, CHAIRMAN, 
 LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL PARKS COM- 
 MITTEE; PRESIDENT AMERICAN CIVIC ASSOCIATION, 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. I am here as chairman of the legislative com- 
 mittee of the National Parks Association, which has an office in 
 New York and there represents some 35 national organizations, the 
 names of which I shall be glad to submit for the record, that have 
 joined together in defense of the national parks. I am also president 
 of the American Civic Association, an organization with 2,500 
 members, country- wide in its extent, which has had much to do 
 with the formation of the National Park Service under which the 
 parks are now controlled. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I approach the matter from the standpoint of one 
 of the two or three bills before you proposing to correct the inadver- 
 tency, let us say, under which the Federal water power act, which 
 we all heartily favor, extended its provisions to the national parks and 
 monuments. 
 
 It happens that our organization and members of it had close con- 
 tact with Senator Jones and with Judge Payne during those days 
 following the adjournment of Congress in the early days of June, 1920, 
 before tne signing of the Federal water power bill because we seen a 
 very great danger to the national parks which we desired to see 
 averted. It did not seem to us a proper thing to ask the President 
 to veto the bill, because of the tremendous beneficences that were 
 involved in its proper application. I wish to place that phase of the 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 47 
 
 matter clearly before the committee, and, if I may, to establish the 
 standpoint of a common sense study of the situation. 
 
 Mr. RAKEK. So we do not get too far afield, and you do not appeal 
 to the hearts of the committee with those matters, have you ever 
 looked upon the question to determine in your own mind the asso- 
 ciation '? As a matter of fact, under the law, did the Secretary have 
 the power before the enactment of the water power bill to authorize 
 the construction of dams, ditches, and so forth, through the national 
 parks ? 
 
 Mr. McFARLAND. That varied in different parks. As you probably 
 will remember, each separate park had a different enactment. It 
 began with the Yellowstone in 1872, and the acts varied so it would 
 be hard to say generally just what the Secretary may have found 
 himself . either permitted to do. Generally speaking, when the Na- 
 tional Park Service was founded, it was assumed that the parks were 
 then in some such situation as the Forest Service. In fact, as one 
 who had to do with the writing of that act, although it was much 
 changed afterward, I know that what we were trying to do was to 
 establish a parallel service with the Forest Service on the one hand, 
 and, on the other hand, to have Congress declare the purpose of the 
 national parks, which was really a high and spiritual purpose ; a pur- 
 pose to constitute the need of the nation for recreation as a definite 
 need. 
 
 Fortunately the act itself does carry the phrase originally put into 
 it by Frederic Law Olmsted, unquestionably the ablest landscape 
 architect in the United States, declaring the purpose of the parks. 
 But in the present situation we see a danger to the parks. We have 
 asked, therefore, that it be removed by putting things back as nearly 
 as possible where they were before the Federal water power act was 
 signed and made law. 
 
 It has been said that a very vigorous propaganda has been con- 
 ducted in order to awaken the people to the situation. I think there 
 can not be any doubt of that. The propaganda, however, has been 
 very different from many similar efforts made in many cases. It was 
 a wholly unselfish propaganda, without any possibility of personal 
 
 ain to any of those engaged in it, to ask the people of the United 
 tates whom we were able to reach what they thought of the situation, 
 and if they did think the national parks should be preserved free 
 from commercialism for all the people, to say so to their delegated 
 representatives in Congress. They seem to have so pronounced 
 themselves rather freely all over the United States. Floods of letters 
 have reached us in the return way, very many times with misunder- 
 standings in them. The propaganda, as covered by the American 
 Civic Association leadership and by the committee which I represent, 
 included no inaccuracy in its statements all obtained from the 
 Federal park service. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, it does not seem to me that there need be 
 any argument about that broad question itself. You have all, without 
 exception, shown your devotion to the parks. You are now as v ked to 
 correct an error and the circumstances have been detailed to you. 
 No fault lies with Congress in this matter. The fault is that we who 
 are presumed to be active in the public interests did not wake up in 
 time to urge Members of Congress to avoid this error. 
 
48 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Of course, many of us are fortunate enough to get on 
 these committees that have been very active on the parks. My 
 associate, Mr. Taylor,* and myself have been on the Public Lands 
 Committee, and there have been more parks created since we have 
 been on that committee than during any space of time, but the bills 
 creating the national park service have been worked in the same way 
 and I have been following it for the last six years. So, you see, the 
 members of the committee are not adverse to legislation in regard 
 to the national parks. Then, to safeguard the matter, you say it is 
 an error to safeguard the matter. I just want to state that the com- 
 mittee ought to have the benefit of what they- did do. We so pro- 
 vided in the law that if the department desired it could prohibit 
 water power development in the parks. Is not that true ? 
 
 Mr. McFABLAND. Absolutely, yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then it is a question to just simply leave it or take 
 it from the Water Power Commission and put it into the hands of 
 Congress f 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Exactly. There could not have been a better 
 statement on the subject than that made this morning by Judge 
 Payne. 
 
 Sir. RAKER. I know you are interested in this matter, and still I 
 think the committee while I am not protecting the committee I 
 just wish to feel that the public ought to know that this committee 
 did not leave the national parks so that they could be devastated or 
 so that they could be used unless the throe Secretaries determined 
 that fact, which would be the same thing as if it was left up to Con- 
 gress. But we really did protect the parks in the bill. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. I think the intent to -protect the parks was there. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Not only the intent but they can be protected under 
 the law. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. They can be protected if the situation of juxta- 
 position of the three Secretaries happens to be such as we now have. 
 The incoming President can bettor tell you what might happen. 1 
 could not. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What I am getting at is that the law is on the statute 
 books now under which the parks can bo absolutely protected. 
 
 Mr. Me /FAULAND. If you will read that, you will discover that no 
 provision is made for hearings under this law; that these petitions 
 are made directly to the Water Power Commission. They can grant 
 them and the public does not get a chance to be heard. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I intended to ask that question this morning of the 
 two or three Secretaries. I wrote a letter to the executive secretary 
 for more definite information. I think he will tell this committee 
 that whenever an application is made that full opportunity will be 
 given with hearings set and both sides will be heard. Is that right, 
 Mr. Merrill ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. The only thing I am getting at is that for the public 
 I do not feel like sitting idly by and allowing myself to be put in an 
 attitude that I have deliberately abandoned the policy we created or 
 which was created by the committee of which we were members, and, 
 in addition to that, when we did in that bill absolutely protect the 
 parks. , Personally, I have no objection to the method of legislation 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 49 
 
 and I think it is all right, but you will have to admit, Mr. McFarland, 
 if you read the law, that we did protect the national parks. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. I have no doubt that such is the intent, and no 
 criticism has been made of this committee or of Congress for doing the 
 thing you speak of. The criticism is altogether of ourselves for not 
 having noticed the fact that the parks and monuments were in- 
 cluded. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. When we included them that was with eyes open and 
 then we protected them. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. We are asking you to make the situation better. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. We take it from the commission and put it into 
 Congress ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Congress created the parks. We ought, there- 
 fore, to have Congress continue to control them. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. For what reasons do you wish to have this bill passed 
 and this provision of the water-power law amended ? What is the 
 real reason for it ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. The reason is stated in the preamble of the bill. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Is it not because you distrust the judgment of three 
 cabinet officers ? Might it have been for that reason ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Most assuredly I would not answer that in any 
 such fashion. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Is it not true that the reason you want this bill passed 
 is because you are able to create by propaganda a public sentiment 
 which would prevent the impartial consideration of any bill by Con- 
 gress intended to utilize the water powers of the national parks ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. If I wanted to get a twisted angle to a statement 
 of a thing, I would ask you to frame it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. That is a flippant way to answer. You can answer the 
 question yes or no. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. I will not answer that yes or no, because I do not 
 want to be put in a false position. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You remember the hearing we had before the Com- 
 mittee on Rules last spring on the 25th of May ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. And you made the statement that you could reach 
 5,000,000 people. Allow me to congratulate you on your success. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Did I make good ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You certainly did. and probably reached more than 
 5,000,000 people, but it seems to me you reached them largely through 
 ex parte statements. Except one instance I think you have acted 
 very consistently and conservatively about your statements, but a 
 lot ~of people have made misstatements and to such an extent, as I 
 remarked this morning, that there has been a scare thrown into the 
 members of Congress and Senators. In one of your circulars you 
 make this statement, "The national parks are in imminent peril/' 
 That would naturally impress anyone who would see it, and thev 
 would be very much concerned about it and apprehensive that the 
 national parks were in immediate peril. Through such advertise- 
 ments as this of your association and numerous other organizations, 
 you have been able to influence members of Congress against a proposi- 
 tion concerning which they know nothing, except in a general way, so 
 
 2941421 4 
 
50 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 that now instead of listening to an impartial statement, simply say, 
 "we do not want to talk about the subject and will not have anything 
 to do with it." 
 
 The reason you and your associates are anxious to have this law 
 amended is to be able to -arouse the American people, and through 
 them influence their Representatives in Congress to refrain from doing 
 something which otherwise their judgment would dictate they should 
 do, if they were not influenced adversely by extravagant and erro- 
 neous statements. 
 
 Mr. McFARLAND. You do me entirely too much- credit, Mr. Smith. 
 I have more faith in the American people and in Congress to believe 
 that either of them can be stampeded. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You certainlv can not take that attitude after you have 
 seen what has transpired here since last May. In your resolutions 
 submitted to the Committee on Rules we find several whereases, one 
 of which whereas is as follows : ' ' Whereas Stephen T. Mather, Director 
 of the National Park Service, has stated that raising these lakes will 
 kill millions of feet of timber, wipe out millions of trails, and create a 
 scene of choas and destruction that would be an eyesore for a thou- 
 sand years," etc. 
 
 That resolution was presented by you in opposition to bill 12466 
 which does not provide for the draining of lakes, but for the construc- 
 tion of reservoirs in an obscure section of the park where there are 
 no roads or trails and scarcely any timber. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. I think Mr. Mather is here and he can take care 
 of that. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You can not get out of it that way. These resolutions 
 are signed by you. You are the mover in the opposition in regard to 
 the Fall River Basin and other projects in the Yellowstone Park. 
 This statement has no reference to my bill, but to another project. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Mr. Gregg, who follows me, will take care of that 
 by direct testimony. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. If you want to repudiate your own statement, and Mr. 
 Gregg can help you do that, let the record show. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Our statements are all based on those of a man 
 who knows the facts. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Would you attempt to confuse the Yellowstone with 
 the Falls River Basin ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. No, sir; I admit nothing and deny nothing to you. 
 I will not answer questions framed as you Frame them. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. If you are able to make a favorable impression on the 
 committee with that kind of an answer, I shall be very much sur- 
 prised. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. I wish to discuss the matter from the standpoint 
 of public spirit, and I expect to do it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. And you tried to deceive the Committee on Rules when 
 you presented that resolution. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. There was no attempt to deceive, and there was 
 no deception. May I bring my remarks to a close and say that the 
 American Civic Association and other organizations associated to- 
 gether for public purposes, are purely philanthropic organizations. 
 They ardently hope that the committee will make a favorable report 
 on one of the several bills which would place the determination of any 
 alterations or changes in the national parks in the hands of Congress 
 
PKOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 51 
 
 itself, and remove that jurisdiction from the Water Power Commis- 
 sion, all members of which, at the hearing this morning, desired such 
 action. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Was your organization interested when we had up 
 the Hetch-Hetchy bill, so called ? 
 
 Mr. McF'ARLAXD. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Did your organization oppose that ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Have you examined into the matter since ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. I have not been in the Hetch-Hetchy since. 
 I was there before the legislation prevailed. Afterwards I . shook 
 hands with the city engineer of San Francisco, admitted that I was 
 licked, and we have been good friends ever since. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Do you, or does your organization, still oppose that, 
 or have you approved it since ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAXD. Having had no personal contact with it I would 
 not be in shape to say anything because I have not heard from it. 
 I do not know whether the result has been satisfactory or not. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I just wanted to know the attitude of your organiza- 
 tion toward that, whether you still thought it was a mistake to have 
 granted that franchise. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. I cheerfully answer that: Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Without even looking into it ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. I was there before the franchise was granted. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You have not been there since ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I have been there and it has made a beauty spot 
 where it was not before. It put money into that park where tHey did 
 not have it before and where we could not get an appropriation of 
 a cent from eastern Congressmen to help us develop parks, and it 
 has made that more beautiful. I do not want you to hit at the Hetch- 
 Hetchy when it is a success. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. You will admit I am not anxious to. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I do not want to go too far. I will put this question 
 and then I am through. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Before you do, may I make a statement ? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Sure. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. In the matter of the Hetch-Hetchy you asked 
 a question which requires a direct answer, and I answered according 
 to my own convictions. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Under . section 4, that the commission is hereby 
 authorized and empowered to do certain things, issue licenses, and 
 so forth, provided that licenses shall be issued within any reservation 
 only after a finding by the commission that the license will not inter- 
 fere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation 
 was created or acquired and shall be subject to and contain such 
 conditions as the secretary of the department under whose super- 
 vision such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate 
 protection and utilization of such reservation. 
 
 Now, you have. been advised that the department has been so 
 careful, that is, this Water Power Commission that they have not 
 even excepted anything further. Is that right ? 
 
52 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes, sir; they held up all applications awaiting 
 action of Congress, as you know. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Did not your organization have sufficient confidence 
 in the commission and its secretary to believe that they would under 
 this positive declaration of the law protect the public interests ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. The answer to that, Judge Raker, is that I wish 
 I could make it in words one-tenth as adequate to the subject as those 
 you heard this morning from Judge Payne. His attitude was that 
 the fundamental reason for constituting the parks was at stake and 
 that ought not to be taken before any commission or secretaries. 
 I could not hope to state it better than Judge Payne stated it or 
 one-tenth as well as he stated it. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM C. GREGG, HACKENSACK, N. J. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Technically I represent the National Art Club of New 
 York City. I also represent that body of the American people who 
 love to go to the parks in the summer time and enjoy them. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You represent us all, then. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. All right. I take the responsibility, Mr. Chairman, 
 to say that I represent the whole people. I have very little with 
 which to take up your time unless Mr. Smith wants to go into thor- 
 oughly before this committee the question of the so-called Falls 
 River Basin in the southwestern corner of the park. I was up there 
 for three weeks and camped in there, and the conclusion of our party 
 of six was unanimous that it was not a swamp. I took a number of 
 photographs and have a lot of data, and I found what I consider to 
 be a large amount of water storage available just outside of the park. 
 I had an aneroid barometer and took notes and photographs. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What time of the year were you in there ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Just after Mr. Smith, this summer. I was in there in 
 August and stayed there until the first few days of September. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is that the dry season in there or the wet season ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. That is the dry season in the parks. I am ready to 
 go into it in all of its phases. I have a lot of data here if I am to 
 make answer to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was in there, as he admits, 
 for one day, or a portion of one "day, and I stayed there for three 
 weeks. We camped in several places right in the swamps. We did 
 not know any better than to camp right in the swamp. If you would 
 like I will show some of these photographs. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Let me ask a question. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Wait just a moment. Mr. Chairman, I do not know 
 how far you want to go into this. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is not a direct matter. It is another col- 
 lateral matter. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. That is just the point. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I feel some discretion ought to be allowed Mr. 
 Smith in cross-examination on the matter because he is the one who 
 introduced the original bill. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Let me make two points, then. Here is a picture of 
 our camp where we stayed several nights in the swamp. 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. If Mr. Gregg is to confine himself to the general 
 features of the matter, take this bill without reference to disturbing 
 the Yellowstone, I think he had better do it now before we get into 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 53 
 
 the intricacies of the other matter. Then we can decide on the other 
 phases of it. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. If Mr. Smith will let me finish that part before we get 
 into this thing haphazard ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Very well. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I can liot add anything to the excellent presentation 
 that Mr. McFarland has made. I have this suggestion, however, 
 that I lived as a young man for a great many years in the West, the 
 first half of my active life was in the West, and for the last 20 years 
 I have been in New Jersey. As I go out and look over the western 
 problems, as I have studied the reclamation department, and its 
 activities, I feel that the West and East are not quite close enough 
 together on this problem of working out irrigation and power in the 
 West, West of the Mississippi there is two-thirds of the area of the 
 United States and only 30 per cent of its population. 
 
 It has a great many problems and the population is necessarily in 
 the minority. We can get together on a great many things if we can 
 understand each other and if concessions can be made. I believe 
 thoroughly in my investigation of all these problems that the West 
 wants to make more money, to be more prosperous, to build themselves 
 up. Nobody can object to that. Irrigation will do that and power 
 will do it. We only draw the line at the boundaries of the national 
 parks. That is a clear-cut issue which all the people of the United 
 States can understand. The rest of the program is more complicated. 
 I am prepared to come to Washington, and to go out West to help 
 work out the question of how this water is to be stored outside the 
 parks, and where appropriations may be advisable by Congress to 
 work out the whole development of the National Parks and the 
 territory immediately around there. Individually I see no objection 
 to the clause that was discussed this morning. I speak of Mr. Pierce's 
 suggestion. That brings the two sections of the country a little 
 closer together. I do not know that I voice the sentiment of any of 
 the other 20 odd organizations, but there is no reason why we should 
 shy off from one another. I know the men from out West feel that 
 they are not understood. I want to say this, however, that many 
 loose statements are made from the western advocates of their particu- 
 lar interests. If you want to bear with me I could cite a number of 
 those. I deprecate loose statements, East or West; they are not by 
 any means confined to the East. I do not think I have anything 
 else to add to this except the feeling that we should get together and 
 work these things out, and that the parks should and must be main- 
 tained in their integrity. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You are aware of this fact, that at least 10 of the last 
 parks created have been created by the activity and constant work, 
 battling against the East to create them, and the objections come 
 from eastern men, eastern representatives. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I have no sympathy, Judge, whatever, with men who 
 sit down and take an arbitrary stand. These are great questions. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then we hate to be criticised when we try to preserve 
 the parks and when we protect the parks and they come out and use 
 them, and we find our eastern representatives battling against us to 
 get any care and attention to these parks when they ought to help 
 us appropriate money to put them in shape. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I agree with you entirely and I am ready. 
 
54 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Why does not your organization get behind proper, 
 legitimate, and reasonable appropriations to put these parks in 
 proper use ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. You give us a lead and I think we can give you quite 
 a following. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. The lead is to go and get your members of Congress 
 to help us out. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. What is the proposition ? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Get them to vote for our appropriations instead of 
 fighting against them so we may get something for the West. We 
 want playgrounds in the first place and we don t want you when we 
 have made them and taken care of them and you folks use them and 
 do not want to pay any of the cost of maintenance, to criticise us 
 for maintaining our own property and providing for the future when 
 we have been more active than you fellows in the East. It does not 
 strike us as just right. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. In investigating the reclamation reports I find that 
 12 or 15 years ago, 1902, I believe, the proceeds of the sale of public 
 lands were turned into the United States Treasury to be expended in 
 reclamation propositions for the West. That took out of the United 
 States Treasury something over $100,000,000 of money that belonged 
 to the people of the United States. No interest has been paid on 
 any of it and no interest is expected and I have never heard of people 
 in the East or any part of the United States object to it. That was a 
 big proposition. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It has been a battle royal for 10 years to my personal 
 knowledge, to hold the reclamation projects on. They are always 
 criticising us in regard to irrigation and we are paying every dollar 
 back but what we want is to develop the country and pay back every 
 dollar of it. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. But the paying back is not always done without 
 objection. There have been two cases of litigation where the west- 
 erners have refused to pay back, although they have got large benefits. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Those are men that came out from the East. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. That is the Yuma and the Boise project. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. Are those appropriations made from money that 
 comes into the Treasury as taxes ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. It is the money paid into the United States Treasury 
 from the sale of public lands. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. The original appropriations necessary to start the 
 projects. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. You mean irrigation projects? 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. No; the parks. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. For the parks, naturally, it comes out of the United 
 States Treasury along with other appropriations. The Yellowstone 
 Park has $140,000 to $150,000 annually. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. The tax money of the people is what is voted to 
 purchase these parks. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Not that I know of. I am not dwelling on that line. 
 I have studied the reclamation department of the Government. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. Originally? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. They were public lands. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. Does it not come out of the Treasury of the United 
 States ? 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 55 
 
 Mr. SMITH. They belong to all the people. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. That is what I want light on. The people of the 
 East are the people that pay the taxes and people east of the Missis- 
 sippi pay two- thirds of the taxes of the country. Don't you think 
 it has come to a point for the people of the East to think these 
 things over? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. They get our money. We do not object to it. This 
 is our land; it belongs to the States and to the country, and it is taking 
 our taxes, too. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. The eastern people are not getting along on this 
 proposition when they pay the bill. It all comes from the tax 
 money, whatever it is they do to raise it. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I was just making the point to the California Con- 
 gressman that we have made some concessions. I never heard of 
 active criticism which turned on the point of the proceeds of public 
 land sales going into the Treasury for the benefit exclusively of 
 Reclamation Service, although the work of the Reclamation Service 
 is entirely in Western States. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. We only got that six years ago by simply scaring up 
 every man we could from the South and West. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. 1902. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Six years ago when we amended it. We have had a 
 struggle every time. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I want to say this about the parks. Yellowstone 
 Park is one of the reasons why we are so apprehensive. One invasion 
 begets another. Mr. Smith was successful in getting his bill through 
 the Senate or a bill similar to his, and right now there is before Con- 
 gress a bill to turn over the Yellowstone Lake with its area of 136 
 square miles to the control of the State of Montana. The bill says so. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Whose bill is. that? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Senator Walsh's bill. They raise the dam 6 feet. 
 You understand what that does. That affects the water for the 
 entire area of the lake which is 136 square miles. To do that the 
 State of Montana assumes control of it and it raises and lowers the 
 gates as they think best. They regulate the rise and fall on the 
 shores, and as to their employees, I do not believe that the United 
 States Government can hold jurisdiction over them. So you see we 
 inject an entirely different proposition, perhaps, because Mr. Smith 
 was so successful in getting his bill through the Senate. 
 
 Recently I have read in a magazine published in Salt Lake City 
 an article in which a man advocates the immediate use of the Sho- 
 shone and Lewis Lakes as a reservoir, in which he admits that it 
 will flood a great number of thousands of acres of land in the Yellow- 
 stone Park and that it will flood the public roads for at least three 
 miles, but other arrangements can be made, etc. 
 
 Now, I was in the Yellowstone Park and vicinity seven weeks in 
 1920 and seven weeks the year before with a pack horse train, going 
 around in unusual places as well as usual places and I have person- 
 ally seen and know of about 10 large reservoir sites right in there 
 and if the people can get one, why not two, and why not three, and 
 so on. It only takes three or four to absolutely destroy the park. 
 I think anybody will admit that. 
 
 In the Lamar valley, where the buffalo herd is kept confined to 
 the valley, there is a wonderful storage possibility. Mr. Smith, I 
 
56 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 suppose you were over there to see that. It has a wonderful storage 
 which would make your mouth water to see. The canyon's walls 
 are close together, and you can put in a dam of 150 to 200 feet by 
 which you can back water up 4 or 5 miles oil comparatively level 
 ground. There is another one, in the Pelican Creek Valley, and there 
 are several others. 
 
 Speaking about the geysers located in this wonderland, we do not 
 know just how they operate. Mr. Haynes, photographer at the park, 
 made an artificial geyser by experimentation by putting in pipes and 
 having a certain height and column of water by which he made a 
 reproduction of a geyser. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is that the one we had in the Interior Department ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Yes, sir. He found that by varying the height or 
 size of the column or the outlet and inlet it stopped flowing. Now, 
 the geysers are surely dependent upon the nice balances of water 
 pressures and openings, etc., and when you store water in there you 
 do not know what you are doing. We think we are all right, like 
 a boy who cuts into his drum one-eighth or one-tenth of an inch, 
 but we do not realize our loss until after the damage is done, when it 
 is too late and we can not restore it. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You are opposed to establishing any precedent of 
 encroachment in the national parks * 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Once a park always a park ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. And for that reason I think the creation of a park 
 should be very carefully studied from the standpoint of the interests 
 of the whole United States, and no territory should be lightly put 
 into the parks. 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. You do not mean, Mr. Gregg, that the condition of 
 this country might not reach such a state 100 or 200 years hence 
 when a modified use might not be made of particular places in the 
 park that would not destroy the scenic value or modify it to a little 
 extent, so that relative use could be made of the water where it 
 might be done safely ( 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Most certainly I agree with you. 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. Don't you think that something of that kind might 
 occur in the future ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. You must realize that in the big parks, and I am a 
 great park enthusiast myself, I feel that sometime a juncture such 
 as this might happen. The parks themselves are making this modi- 
 fied use right now. In the Yosemite they are scarring the cliffs by 
 roads, scarring the cliffs even by pipe lines, putting in power plants 
 of their own all through, and I know right now of one where one of 
 the high chiefs, a late president of one of our associations, is proposing 
 to put an elevator up there on the cliffs of Glacier Point. In theory, 
 at least, it mars the thought of solidity in that great cliff, to that 
 extent invading your ideas. That is proposed by one of the high 
 chiefs of your group. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. That is for service to the tourists. 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. For service, but at the same time he recognizes even 
 the right of invasion of a utility into the parks for the benefit of those 
 who go into the parks, which practically modifies to some degree the 
 extreme that some of the park men are urging. I want to agree with 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 57 
 
 you, and I am classified as a person who is highly in favor of the 
 parks, but I. might save that one clause for possible emergency uses 
 in the way distant future. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak broadly on this subject 
 and not try to haggle over small details. This is a big question. It 
 is a question that Congress in its wisdom can handle and should 
 handle when such an emergency comes up. 
 
 I think I have covered that point. If Mr. Smith wants to bring out 
 some facts, I will be glad to proceed. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. It is very evident that the reason Mr. Gregg and Mr. 
 McFarland and his associates are anxious to have this bill passed and 
 the Federal water-power law amended is because of the fact that: they 
 do not want to rely upon the judgment of the members of the water- 
 power commission and the expert advice which will be furnished to it 
 regarding any of these projects. It is much easier to influence Con- 
 gress adversely on legislation that might be proposed. I do not 
 think that any one will deny that that is the real reason for the 
 introduction of this bill and its advocacy here before the committee. 
 
 Now a dispute has arisen as to the character of the lands in the 
 southwestern corner of the Yellowstone Park wherein it was pro- 
 posed to 'construct a reservoir to store 200,000 acre feet of water to 
 afford supplemental water supply to 200,000 acres of land, a good 
 portion of which is now under cultivation. Because of the short- 
 age of water many of the farmers frequently lose a portion of their 
 crops and some of them all of their crops. My information with ref- 
 erence to the character of that land was based upon the official maps 
 of the Government such as we have here of Yellowstone Park, com- 
 piled by the United States Geological Survey, and it is supposed to be 
 authentic. It was based upon the report of Mr. Henry Gannett, of 
 the Geological Survey, who in 1878 went into this particular section 
 of the country and made a report from which I wish to quote a sen- 
 tence : 
 
 Falls River Basin into which this stream debouches abruptly, the plateau ending 
 suddenly in a line of cliffs facing to the westward is a large valley, part of which is 
 open, while a part is covered with a dense growth of large coniferae and the ground is 
 cumbered with fallen timber to such an extent that added to the swampy, springy 
 nature of the soil, the basin is well-nigh impassable. 
 
 I also formed my conclusion in the matter by advice from the 
 Director of the Reclamation Service, who in a letter addressed to me 
 on the 18th of last March confirmed the statement of Mr. Gannett, 
 argd also the official map and also based on his own observations 
 because he went in there as the representative of the Interior Depart- 
 ment to survey the possible sites for reservoirs in which water could 
 be stored. I am rather surprised that we have here before us a 
 gentleman who wishes to repudiate all of these official statements 
 and asks this committee to agree with him that this particular section 
 of the park is not as represented by the official reports, as I have 
 said many times before to the representatives of these organizations 
 and others interested in the national parks, that I would not advocate 
 the construction of any project in any national park which would 
 in any way destroy any of the scenic attractions of the park. I want 
 to make it clear that I do not wish to encourage the construction 
 of any project which would detract from the beauties of the park, but 
 this reservoir site is located in the extreme southwestern corner of 
 
58 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 the park, very remote from roads or trails, and I contend, and the 
 official reports bear me out in my statement, that that section of 
 the park has no scenic attractions. 
 
 There is another feature which it seems to me we should take into 
 consideration, and that is that the property losses in eastern Idaho 
 among those farmers, where they put in their seed and cultivated 
 their crops up until the late summer days of July and August, are 
 entitled to some consideration, and that we should not disregard 
 their rights in the matter. They are out there on the desert attempt- 
 ing to build homes and develop the agricultural resources of the 
 country and should be encouraged in their efforts. It is very evident 
 that at the suggestion of these organizations Senators and Representa- 
 tives in Congress have been deluged with telegrams and resolutions 
 based upon the erroneous statements made by such gentlemen as 
 Mr. Gregg, and I mis;ht name others. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. You think that is quite fair to say that my statements 
 are erroneous? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I do. I do not mean willfully erroneous. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. We are discussing this on a broad basis. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I do not mean that you willfully misrepresent the facts. 
 
 Mr. GREEG. That I was mistaken in what I saw? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I have here an article appearing in the Saturday 
 Evening Post of November 20, 1920, written by William C. Gregg. 
 At the time I read that I did not recall that I had ever heard of the 
 gentleman, but upon reflection I remembered that he was before the 
 Committee on Rules when the Fall River Basin matter was under 
 consideration last May. He has published here [holding up paper] 
 some wonderfully attractive photographs of some very beautiful 
 waterfalls, and no doubt intended to leave the impression upon the 
 readers that if this reservoir was constructed these beautiful water- 
 falls would be destroyed. 
 
 Mr. GREEG. But the statement is not made that they would be 
 destroyed. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Xo. You are shrewd enough not to make that state- 
 ment, but you make the inference there by using a deceptive caption, 
 and the photographs show that is the intent. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Go ahead. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Here are some similar photographs which appeared 
 in the illustrated section of the metropolitan papers of the country. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. That is not signed by me and I have not had anything 
 to do with the caption. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. They are your photographs. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I admit the photographs. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I have another print here by T. Gilbert Pearson, 
 president of the National Association of Audubon Societies of New 
 York. At the top of this circular is a photograph of Colonnade 
 Falls, Yellowstone Park, with the following caption: 
 
 National parks to be destroyed unless quick action is taken Colonnade Falls, 
 Belcher River. Yellowstone Park One of the 40 or more waterfalls, cascades, and hot 
 springs, beautifying the territory, designed to be used by an unsightly reservoir for 
 commercial purposes. 
 
 According to the United States Geological map Colonnade Falls is 
 500 feet higher in altitude than the Falls River Basin. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. That is your only basis for making that statement? 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 59 
 
 Mr. SMITH. What better basis than that can be had than the 
 official map ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. When we point out errors on the map it ought to be 
 a basis. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. That is what they are claiming, Mr. Chairman; what 
 assumption to claim that the official records are not correct. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I am not assuming; these are facts. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Colonnade Basin is at least 5 miles up the river 
 from Falls River Basin, according to the official maps, and it is 500 
 feet higher in altitude. 
 
 There are no waterfalls that could possibly be destroyed by the 
 construction of that reservoir, and no hot springs, nor cascades. In 
 this circular prepared by Mr. Pearson he is also appealing to people 
 to whom he sends it, asking them to contribute money to a fund, the 
 minimum of which must be $5,000 in order that he may print more 
 of these false statements and circulate them throughout the country, 
 and send them to Members of Congress and Senators. I am told 
 that the present Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Payne, at two or three 
 social functions in Washington in discussing this proposition based 
 his assertion that the waterfalls would be destroyed on the erroneous 
 information which has been furnished to him by such circulars and 
 literature. 
 
 The point I make is this, that it is absolutely impossible for the 
 Congress of the United States to consider a matter of this kind im- 
 partially and unprejudiced when the people who are interested in the 
 policy that nothing at all shall be touched in the national parks are 
 able to get these false and erroneous statements before the Congress. 
 If this bill is passed it simply means this, that instead of having three 
 Cabinet officers appointed by the President of the United States as 
 part of his official family, determining whether or not the construc- 
 tion of a water-power plant or a reservoir within the boundaries of a 
 national park, we are going to fall back on to Congress to determine 
 the matter; when because of these false representations which are 
 being made in the public press, it is impossible to induce Congress 
 to even consider the proposition. I understand that there was an 
 understanding entered into with Secretary Payne that when the 
 water bill was signed the pending bill to amend the law would be 
 introduced, otherwise I would certainly oppose it. Under the cir- 
 cumstances I feel that as our chairman and Senator Jones and other 
 Senators have given their promise I should not do so. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The matter was never referred to me and I never 
 made any promise. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. It seems to me that the Congress, instead of having 
 these matters imposed upon the Representatives, and it is largely a 
 technical matter, should insist that the three Cabinet officers com- 
 posing the Water 'Power Commission should carry out the provisions 
 of the law. If we permit all of this misrepresentation to poison the 
 minds of the Members, we never will have any legislation that will 
 afford relief to the farmers such as I represent in eastern Idaho. 1 
 think it will be very disastrous to the agricultural interests of the 
 country, and to the people living in villages and towns who may be 
 benefited by water power development in national parks, if we have 
 to depend on Congress, when we would be confronted with this kind 
 of propaganda, which is nation-wide, and which makes it impossible 
 
60 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 to secure the consideration of a bill for the utilization of water in 
 national parks. That is the reason they favor the enactment of this 
 legislation. Prejudice, not reason, should be the deciding factor. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I do not know that there is any question asked. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I simply want to make this statement. I think it is 
 assumptions for a private citizen to come into the committee and in- 
 sist on our repudiating the official records compiled by the officers of 
 the Government, who are unprejudiced and supposed to do their duty, 
 and accept his opinion instead as to the character of the country 
 involved. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. The last general proposition, I understand, is that 
 you are blaming us for wanting to trust Congress with handling the 
 national parks and that you are afraid to have Congress handle it 
 and prefer to have the commissioners handle it, although the commis- 
 sion itself, in the interest of the parks, does not wish to handle it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. It is a matter that Congress can not take time to con- 
 sider in its details. They do not have the opportunity to see these 
 parks, especially the remote sections, but these three Cabinet officers, 
 sworn officers of the Government, who are unprejudiced, will take ac- 
 tion upon information furnished by private citizens and the Govern- 
 ment surveyors, and decide whether or not the utilization of water in 
 the parks will be to the best interests of the people of the country. 
 
 The parks are the playgrounds of the United States, but there were 
 only about 80,000 people who went into the Yellowstone Nati6nal 
 Park this year and the people whom I represent in eastern Idaho who 
 would be benefited by this aggregate nearly 30,000, and if they could 
 get this water to irrigate their lands and build up the country there 
 would be several times that number. I saw in the paper recently that 
 a woman's club over in Far Rockaway, N. Y., passed resolutions con- 
 demning the Falls River Basin project and at the same time raised 
 $1,000 to send to the suffering Armenian children in Europe. If we 
 wore permitted to utilize this water to carry it to the farmers in east- 
 ern Idaho we would have a great deal less suffering among the children 
 of parents out thoro. whose crops have dried up because they can not 
 use the water to mature them. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Are they suffering? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Absolutely suffering. I can show you photographs 
 of the homes of people on these lands in which you would not even 
 put a garage, patiently waiting in the hopes that they may get the 
 water to put on their lands. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I have a little evidence that I hope I will be permitted 
 to give in on that. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Very well. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. To answer the question of the Congressman from 
 Idaho, first, there is the data we have before the Public Lands Com- 
 mittee, where he made this statement which is in the record : 
 
 There is absolutely nothing in the way of unusual scenery or other interesting 
 features in this part of the park 
 
 The southwest corner 
 but the entire area 
 
 Mark the words, because it is important to get those words 
 
 but the entire area contains only the ordinary western mountain landscape scenery, 
 such as may be seen along the lines of travel for many miles by any tourist approaching 
 the park from any direction. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 61 
 
 I hope I have made that clear. That was the testimony of Con- 
 gressman Smith before the Public Lands Committee or in the report 
 he wrote. You wrote that? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. That only had reference to the basin, not to those 
 waterfalls and cascades. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. You used the expression. I have read the emphasis 
 there. The entire area, is what you said. Had you been in that 
 district when you wrote or spoke those words ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. No; I said that is based on information and official 
 reports furnished to me. But I have been in there since. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I protest, Mr. Chairman, that was a very strong 
 statement to make when he had no information of his own. It 
 seems to me to be his own information. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I had it from the officers of the Government. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. It looks like your own testimony. I was astonished 
 to have you admit to me afterwards that you had not been in there 
 before this summer and admit then that you were only in there part 
 of one day. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I was in there one day and had opportunity to drive 
 over the basin for four hours. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. You had a team of horses ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. If you can get over there with a team of horses in four 
 hours, you must have had solid ground under you. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. This basin only covers 8,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. That is quite a lot of territory. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You can get around 8,000 acres in less than 4 hours. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Mr. Chairman, what we have found in that 8,000- 
 acre basin was, roughly speaking, about 4,000 acres of meadowland 
 and 4,000 acres of timber. The meadows are separated and bor- 
 dered by timber; one meadow contained 1,000 to 1,20.0 acres. 
 All meadows are hay meadpws. I used to be in the timber and saw- 
 mill business in northern Minnesota. I have cruised a. great deal of 
 timberland. I have bought and paid for it on the basis of stumpage 
 standing and you will permit me to say that I made an estimate very 
 roughly of over 40,000,000 feet of standing timber on this 4,000 
 acres. It is not large timber; it is young, thrifty growing pine timber. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. What could you do with that timber ? It is all small. 
 It is not over a foot in diameter. 
 
 Mr. C REGG. I am giving you my observation against the state- 
 ments that have been made that there is no timber in there. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What kind of pine is it? 
 
 Mr. (." REGG. Lodgepole pine. I have got some statistics on that, 
 but I will not take up your time. Now, about those people who are 
 suffering up there. We found outside storage, and it is my judg- 
 ment, and I had an aneroid barometer and took the levels, that there 
 is a great deal of storage outside that would equal the inside storage 
 that they are after. I have the photographs, and if the committee 
 wants to investigate that, I have a lot of information. 
 
 The statement that I want to follow up is the suffering of these 
 people in Idaho. Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hands a magazine 
 called the New West, published in Salt Lake City. This is the 
 December, 1920, issue. They had a man up on the Snake River 
 writing up this country. There are a number of irrigation articles 
 
62 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 in here which appeal for an increase of irrigation, the building 
 of dams, etc., and along here are a number of sidelights that 
 show that it is a thrifty, prosperous community. I was down there 
 also, and these statements agree with my own judgment. Near 
 Ash ton, which is 25 miles from the park, dry farming is used, where 
 they can not irrigate. One of the erroneous statements here made 
 was that there were 200,000 acres that can be added. That is an 
 inference. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. No; a supplemental supply of 200,000. 
 
 Mr. f REGG. The 200,000 acres there can not all be irrigated, be- 
 cause it is rolling ground. You must conduct your water on a' level 
 that is physically and financially possible. All land lying above that 
 level is dry farming, or nothing. Is not that so ? There is no way 
 to get the water up unless you pump it up, and as that is rolling ground 
 they can not or will not pump until the products of these farms will 
 justify it, or some aqueduct construction by which they can get the 
 water to the top of the higher points of the farms. 
 
 Here is a report of J. E. Bates, instructor in vocational agriculture 
 at Ashton, which is in Fremont County. He spoke about some of 
 the high-school boys, and said: 
 
 During the last year these Smith-Hughes boys have produced 42 bushels per acre 
 dry land oats 
 
 This is this year, 1920, that they produced 42 bushels per acre 
 dry land oats. 
 
 and 65 bushels per acre of oats on irrigated land ; dry land Marquis wheat, that made 
 24 bushels per acre; potatoes making from 225 to 400 bushels per acre. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. That is in a different section of the country. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. This is in your county, Fremont County, where your 
 farmers are located ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. The counties up there are about the size of the State 
 of Connecticut. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Here is a report from Drummond, Idaho. This man 
 has been sent up there to write this up for this paper. Drummond 
 is 9 miles from Ashton; that whole area is in your " suffering" dis- 
 trict. It is all in Idaho and it is all in the Snake River drainage 
 territory. What this man says of Drummond, Idaho, 9 miles from 
 Ashton, is pretty close to the argument. He says: 
 
 Dry farm wheat is a feature of the countryside, and many farmers have raised from 
 30 to 60 bushels per acre in prosperous years, with only one failure in 20 years. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. It shows your ignorance of dry farming in that coun- 
 try. Dry farming is successful up in the hills and not down in the 
 valley where it is proposed to put this water. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I am just calling attention to these reports which are 
 not written for any other purpose, as far as I understand it, than to 
 tell the truth about those districts. It was not expected to be 
 brought into this hearing at all. The West has complained that we 
 do not understand the West, that the West itself understands its own 
 problems, and I think there is a great deal of force in that. For that 
 reason I should be more inclined to take the testimony of the West 
 as to some of these things and I protest that many of the statements 
 that the Congressman has made or inferred are not borne out by the 
 facts. Take those meadows in the Falls River Basin, I can show you 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 63 
 
 the grass. If you saw that picture of our camp on that slough swamp 
 where I was, expecting to find nothing but cat-tails and such things, 
 the picture is evidence of just what is on those 8,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Will this area of 8,000 acres be flooded by the 
 reservoirs ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. It is intended to be. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How deep will it be flooded ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. A 50-foot dam is to be put in, as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Would any of these falls that you have referred to 
 be in this area of 8,000 acres ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Only one. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How does the flooding of this area affect the falls ? 
 Does that drown them out in any way ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. The Great Belcher River Valley is a wide, splendid 
 valley and on the north and west is the Madison Plateau, which rises 
 1,000 or 1,500 leet above that Belcher River bottom, while on the 
 other side is the Pitchstone Plateau lying on the east. In between 
 is the Belcher River canyon. Over the face of these plateaus and in 
 the Belcher River canyon are a number of falls and cascades. One, 
 " Colonnade Falls," is right down near the mouth, as I remember it; 
 we camped two nights at the mouth of the canyon right in the swamp, 
 if you please. It was good dry grass ground. We went from there 
 up to Colonnade Falls one day and my remembrance is there was a 
 rise of not over 30 to 50 feet. I can not say positively, but there was 
 no appreciable rise to us as we rode through there on horseback. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. My question is whether the reservoirs would drown 
 out or flood out any of those falls ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. The height of the dam would determine, in my judg- 
 ment, as to whether the water would go to the foot of the Colonnade 
 Falls or whether it would fall short a few hundred feet or half a mile. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Then you do not know whether any of these falls 
 would be wiped out ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. No, I did not say that they would be destroyed, but 
 the whole scenic area would be destroyed because you would cut 
 off these various falls from access. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How many of these falls are there ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. From these plateaus falls a number of streams, quite 
 beautiful falls and cascades. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. About how many of them are there? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. In that immediate circle? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Yes. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Including two in the canyon there are five capital 
 pieces of scenery. I say capital. They are worth a whole lot to any 
 community that has them. As I have said, if they were in the State 
 of Illinois or Indiana they would be advertised. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. They would not be affected by the water and would 
 not be drowned out ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I do not say so and have not claimed so and it is not 
 so. But the access to them from the ordinary approach through 
 this valley would be destroyed. There is one more point. This valley 
 is the finest valley of the Yellowstone National rark. It was not 
 known before particularly. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You do not claim to have discovered this valley? 
 
64 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. No, sir; I did not say so. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You said it was not known before. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. You were in there this summer before I was. But 
 the question is as to the swampy character of these bottoms. You 
 can not get away from that grass. That grass has been there a long 
 time and is what we call "red top" and there are broad stretches of 
 it. I will admit that meadows in the spring are sometimes soft. 
 You can go out in any of our States and the farmers will tell you in 
 the springtime not to go on the meadows because you will mire 
 down. But during the summer season, July and August, and the 
 first half of September, I firmly believe that those bottoms are quite 
 perfect for campers or tourists' purposes. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. As I recall it, there was the same talk before the 
 Public Lands Committee and the Rules Committee about the possi- 
 bility of cutting out a portion of this park for this purpose. Are 
 your associations just as much opposed to it as you would be to 
 having Mr. Smith's bill passed infringing upon the park as it is ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Yes; for various reasons. First, because we have got 
 outside storage. That would dispose of the \vhole question. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. You do not think this land could be taken out of the 
 park without serious injury to the park? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Take the most beautiful valley in the park and the 
 most attractive because it is surrounded by canyons and streams and 
 falls and patches of timber, making an ideal camping place. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. There are thousands of places like that. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Ten thousand. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Throughout the west that could be put into a park 
 just as nice as that. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Next to the reservoir site on the east are also several 
 falls and cascades. If you put in a dam and flood the whole bottom, 
 you back up the water to most of these features, cutting them off 
 from access. It seems to me it would spoil the use of that part of the 
 park. There would be only one access from the rear. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think we have devoted enough time to this fea- 
 ture of it. There are so many witnesses here from out of town. 
 There will be no other chance for a hearing as the Interstate Commit- 
 tee will meet to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I want to say that we found that one of the streams, 
 was entirely wrong on the topographied map and it does not show 
 the Bechler River where it is supposed to join it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think this map on the Government publication 
 is not absolutely correct because it was surveyed in 1883 or 1885 and 
 there is a marginal reference of a partial revision in 1910 by A. T. 
 Davis. It is possible that might be of such size as that there would 
 be topographical errors in it. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. We found it so. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt about that. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You spoke about this beautiful valley as very attrac- 
 tive and a place in which to camp. Do you think the tourist would 
 leave the shaded portions of the park and come down into this mos- 
 quito infested section which up to the 1st of July or August is a 
 swamp ? Did the mosquitoes bother you any on the 9th of August 1 
 
 Mr. GREGG. The mosquitoes are bad in the park at times every- 
 where. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 65 
 
 Mr. SMITH. They were not bad in the park proper on the 9th of 
 August because we went into the park and after we left the Falls 
 River Basin, found no mosquitoes; but in the Falls River Basin on 
 the 7th of August the mosquitoes bit me so badly that the lumps on 
 my neck as a result did not disappear for several weeks after the trip. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. I am sorry. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. The same was true of the other men. I suppose you 
 think that it is a delightful place in which to camp ? 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. Do you know whether the plans for the benefit of 
 the park include this rather remote section which you say is scenic 
 and is one of the major attractions which would be taken in in view- 
 ing the park or is it an isolated place which will never be in current 
 travel ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. There are one-way rules on the roads of the park 
 because of travel congestion. They have not anywhere near ade- 
 quate roads enough and they have not enough camp places. This is 
 only 20 miles right into the heart of it only 20 miles from the Old 
 Faithful ( eyser. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Would you and your associates be interested in a prop- 
 osition for these farmers who are anxious to get this water to build 
 this dam wide enough, covering a distance of 2 miles, so that you 
 could connect up with a road system leading up to the Old Faithful 
 Geyser ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Outside of the park ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. No. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. We would be interested in anything outside of the 
 park. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. To build a dam wide enough, like Lake Roosevelt Dam, 
 and make it part of a national road system to get into the Yellow- 
 stone National Park ? 
 
 Mr. ( REGG. I think I have made myself clear when I say we stand 
 for no invasion of the parks. I do not speak for the policy outside 
 of the parks. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Did you say the place where you camped was within 
 20 miles of Old Faithful ? 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is that the Falls River Basin ? 
 
 Mr. 'REGG. It should be called the Bechler River Basin. The 
 Falls River is really entirely out of it. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. The pictures show where you camped. 
 
 Mr. GREGG. Yes, within 20 miles of Old Faithful. Roughly speak- 
 ing, that is the distance of it; yes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES W. KELLOGG, BOSTON, MASS. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kellogg, will you please state your full name, 
 whom you represent, and your occupation? 
 
 Mr. KELLOG. I represent Stone & Webster (Inc.), of Boston, Mass. 
 I am here, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, only on 
 bill 15126, on the question of additional personnel for the Water 
 Power Commission. The matter came to our attention in connection 
 with a small project on the Hudson River at Troy, N. Y., for which 
 
 2941421 5 
 
66 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 we are asking a permit from the Water Power Commission, and in 
 response to which application we learned it was likely there would 
 be a considerable delay in the issuance of a permit, and subsequently 
 a license, on account of the difficulty of getting the right men to pass 
 on so many applications as were pending before the commission at 
 the present time. It was for that reason I thought it wise to come 
 down here and present our views to your committee on the subject. 
 Like the preceding witness, there is very little that I can add so far 
 as information goes to what the three secretaries said this morning, 
 but I thought, perhaps, I could. add just a word from the point of 
 view of a member of an engineering and constructing organization. 
 
 Our organization has been constructing water powers for some- 
 thing over 20 years in various parts of the country. We have con- 
 structed something over half a million horsepower in various parts of 
 the United States. .1 know our feeling would be, if we had charge of 
 of any such proposition as the Water Power Commission has, with 
 12,000,000 horsepower applied for in the first few months of the com- 
 mission's operation, that a very large and competent force would be 
 necessar} 7 to handle that work expeditiously; a work so large that it 
 would be probably almost impossible to secure sufficient men in num- 
 bers and in technical knowledge from the other departments. We 
 therefore think that such a measure as is proposed in this bill in 
 order to obtain the necessary force is a proper one. 
 
 There is only one other point I think it proper to make in that 
 connection, raised by the chairman this morning, and that is the 
 question of haste, or, rather, of rushing these applications through as 
 speedily as possible. I am sure that so far as I am concerned, or 
 anyone else interested in water-power development, there is no desire 
 to have such haste on the part of the Government that the work 
 might be done carelessly or that the public interest might not be 
 wholly conserved. I think you gentlemen all realize, and everyone 
 in the country perhaps also realizes at least everyone who has 
 tnought about water-power development what it means to the 
 country to have our latent water power developed with such expedi- 
 tion as a thoroughly competent and adequate force may bring about. 
 And I think, considering the enormous amount of detail involved and 
 the importance of the projects in conserving fuel^ it is real economy 
 in the end to expedite matters and begin getting results. 
 
 In other words, if an appropriation at this time could cut down to 
 0:13 or one and a half years the work that otherwise might require 
 five years, the increase in conservation of coal which would result 
 from that more rapid development of water power would be very 
 considerable. Of course, it is a purely business proposition. My 
 only purpose in appearing here to-day is to say that it seems to us as 
 a purely practical matter that this commission ought to have an 
 appropriation for quite a considerable staff of its own, to be furnished 
 in the immediate future, to handle this important branch of the public 
 business. Iliat is all. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You are familiar, of course, with this water-power bill ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. I have read it several times. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You are familiar with this provision that practically 
 all the men shall be furnished by three of the present Government 
 departments, War, Interior, and Agriculture, and that the work shall 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 67 
 
 be performed by their engineering, technical, clerical, and other per- 
 sonnel, except as may be otherwise provided by law ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There are three full departments turned over to the 
 use of the commission. There is no limit as to how they may draw 
 on these several departments ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. Without knowing anything about the business of 
 those departments, which I do not pretend to know, might it not be 
 a fact that those departments are engaged in various branches of 
 Government activities requiring the services of the men they now 
 havo? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Very true; but all three of these departments have 
 engineers, technical experts, and other personnel who have been en- 
 gaged in water power work; the Agriculture Department, the Depart- 
 ment of the Interior, and the War Department. They have been in- 
 vestigating and handling this subject. What I can not understand is, 
 why you, representing Stone & Webster, are urging a new organiza- 
 tion, instead of taking men from the departments you now have. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. Do not misunderstand me 
 
 Mr. RAKER (interposing) . I do not get your viewpoint at all. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. I want to try to make that clear. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I wish you would. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. So far as Stone & Webster are concerned, I started 
 out by explaining that the only water power we are interested in in 
 connection with this bill at the present time is a very small one for 
 one of our clients. It is not a matter of great importance to us just 
 when that application is granted. But as I recall Secretary Baker's 
 statement this morning to your committee, it was that the volume 
 of applications which have come in already to the Water Power 
 Commission represent about 12,000,000 horsepower, or about six 
 times the volume that had come in to all of the three department in- 
 volved in their entire history. As I understand the situation it is 
 brand new and a very large development of activities of the Federal 
 Government 
 
 Mr. RAKER (interposing). Well, but I do not understand 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG (continuing). Just to continue the thought, if you 
 please: I should imagine that unless the existing departments are 
 very much overmanned and very inefficiently managed and I think 
 it improper to assume that they are overmanned it would be impos- 
 sible for them to spare a sufficiently large number of men from their 
 present orgainzations to handle this work. And I understand that 
 Secretary Baker so stated to your committee this morning. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The Department of Agriculture has been doing that 
 work for the last 16 years. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. Not, however, on any such scope, have they? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. To a general extent. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. It is a matter of the scope of the work now that we 
 ought to consider. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. When have power plants scattered all over the coun- 
 try that they have handled, developments that they have investigated, 
 and from my viewpoint the Department of the Interior, and the De- 
 partment of Agriculture, and the Department of War have been han- 
 dling the matter. What have become of those people that they have 
 
68 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 been using in this work? And if there is such an urgent demand 
 why hasn't this commission taken those men out of those depart- 
 ments and then put the matter up to the Committee on Appropria- 
 tions to supply the men that might be needed in addition ? And why 
 have not those three departments put up to the Committee on Appro- 
 priations the matter of supplying men in place of those that have 
 been drawn from their departments ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. As to that particular question, of course, I can not 
 answer. I am simply thinking of the general condition which now 
 presents itself to the Water Power Commission and trying to make 
 clear how large a proposition it is. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is true. But you have come before the com- 
 mittee asking an amendment of the law to make an entirely new 
 organization ; to take" from the bill provisions which the committee, 
 after long and mature consideration, put in in the hope of getting 
 results in an economical way and utilize the ability and experience 
 we had in these branches of the public service. Now, after all the 
 consideration this committee has given the matter and the effort it 
 has made, all of a sudden there seems to be a change of sentiment 
 to put aside all those men of experience and to get a new organiza- 
 tion, and just for what purpose I can not understand. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. Will you pardon an interruption for a moment, 
 Juds;e Raker? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I will. 
 
 Mr. \VINSLOW. Mr. Kellogg, I would like to ask on that point is it 
 your purpose to call the attention of the committee to the fact that 
 if we are to have any such organization as the one proposed it is 
 your advice and suggestion that we look at the necessities' of the 
 situation, look the situation squarely in the face, and make an 
 adequate appropriation for them to do the work ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. That is exactly my idea. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. And I think that is perfectly clear. Judge Raker, 
 I think the witness is giving the benefit of his judgment in an attempt 
 to warn us of conditions. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I know, but I want to call the committee's attention 
 and the gentleman's attention to the fact that we have already done 
 all that, and have been doing that for 15 years or longer. I saw 
 enormous electric plants this summer, and saw one opened up by the 
 Forestry Service of the Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. Judge Raker, it looks to me a good deal like the 
 war measures that we had up at one time 
 
 Mr. RAKER (interposing). Why can not we get the services of the 
 men already there ? 
 
 Mr. ELSTON. It is merely a supplemental proposition, as I under- 
 stand. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I know. I am reading the statutes. I do not want 
 to take the time of the committee but want to get fully before the 
 committee that it is an entire change in principle. Here we started 
 in hoping to get the benefit of the three departments mentioned, with 
 their technical men and with their experience, and now we want to 
 cast them all aside and create a new personnel on this water-power 
 development, on which some or all of these departments have been 
 engaged for the last 15 years, and made a success of it as far as we 
 have gone. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 69 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think we would have to get that from some 
 other witness, perhaps. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Perhaps so. But I wanted to know what prompted, 
 the witness to be here urging such an amendment. 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. I will try to make that plain. It seems to me this 
 is a good deal like the war emergency. This water-power develop- 
 ment has been hanging fire for a decade in order to have the right 
 bill agreed upon. During all that time the development of water 
 power on public lands and on navigable streams controlled by the 
 Federal Government has been almost nil, and my judgment would 
 be, or my personal opinion is, that the reason for this great rush of 
 applications at the very beginning under the new legislation is because 
 there has been a tremendous lack of development for a decade past. 
 And, furthermore, that this legislation furnished a method of getting 
 rid of the existing power shortage, so that various people interested 
 rushed in to act under the law. 
 
 It seems to me to be simply a practical business proposition, that 
 it has created an emergency in the way of Federal service required 
 which the existing departments (unless, as I said before, they are 
 very much overmanned, which all deny) are incapable of handling, 
 or at least are not manned to handle in an expeditious way. And 
 this matter must be handled expeditiously unless a great deal of loss 
 n waste of resources is to continue. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Anything more ? 
 
 Mr. KELLOGG. I believe not. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear Mr. Walter L. Scott for a few 
 moments. [After a pause.] He seems to he absent. We will next 
 hear Mr. E. Elmer Smith. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. E. ELMER SMITH, PRESIDENT OF THE 
 S. MORGAN SMITH CO., YORK, PA. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Please give to the reporter your name, business, 
 and residence. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. My name is E. Elmer Smith, president of the S. Mor- 
 gan Smith Co., York, Pa., and I am a member of a number of water- 
 power organizations throughout the country. 
 
 I just wanted to speak a few words in reference to bill 15126, prac- 
 tically covering the same ground that Mr. Kellogg went over. We, 
 as manufacturers of turbine water wheels and hydraulic machinery, 
 have been doing practically nothing in the way of building water 
 wheels for development purposes on the public domain, and simply 
 for the reason that there has been nothing of that kind going on for 
 the last 10 years. When the water-power bill was passed, I think in 
 1910, we all expected great development, but everything was stopped 
 on account of certain conditions that developed in the bill. When 
 this new bill was presented we, of course, looked for a very active line 
 of work. And now, as I understand and as it appears to me, the 
 applications for power are so numerous, covering su</h a tremendous 
 ground of development, in all parts of the country" and especially in 
 the west, that the progress of the work is going to be held up unless 
 some adequate provision is made for a suitable engineering staff of 
 men competent to assist the commission in expediting this work. 
 
70 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 I was very much impressed with, what the three Secretaries said 
 this morning in reference to this matter; and it seems to me; in fact I 
 am convinced more than ever, that this bill ought to receive very 
 favorable consideration at the hands of this committee. I say that 
 because of the fact that in my opinion, from information I have re- 
 ceived, pretty generally the men employed in these departments are 
 hardly competent to handle this broad proposition. This develop- 
 ment of hydraulic power is something more or less unusual, and I 
 might say that it is a business in itself. Men have to be educated in 
 this particular line of work, and they are not very numerous. Good 
 men are hard to get ; and I understand, from the salaries that men are 
 being paid in the different departments, you can not get the neces- 
 sary talent as you have not there the talent. That is a pretty broad 
 statement to make, I admit, but I think there is a good deal of truth 
 in it, and I believe that you will find it pretty generally true if you 
 will investigate the situation. 
 
 I know that I have employed engineers, paying them anywhere 
 from $10,000 to $15,000 a year, in order to get the kind of service 
 necessary to make reports on such development. It takes time to 
 make them, and they must be very accurately made to be of any 
 benefit, in order to take no chances on them. Development of water 
 power is a business that involves many millions of dollars, at least in 
 a development of an} r magnitude. And the work calls, in my opinion, 
 for men of the highest talent. I am pretty sure that you have not 
 got that talent in the different departments now. Therefore I feel 
 that this bill ought to receive very favorable consideration. I think 
 the business warrants a competent engineering department of its own, 
 men that you can draw from at all times, when you want them. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Any questions ? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What about the engineers in the Reclamation Service ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. You have got good engineers in the Reclamation 
 Service, but I understand they are not numerous enough to handle 
 this proposition on the basis that is being presented to this commission. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What is the matter with the engineers who have 
 been handling this subject for the last 15 years in the Department of 
 Agriculture, and who have demonstrated their work? There are 
 to-day going plants based upon permits which were obtained under 
 the Forestry Service ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Outside of the Reclamation Service I question whether 
 there are many men available for this particular line of work. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then really, as a matter of fact, your theory is that 
 you want to get new men in this commission ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I think it will be a profitable investment to put com- 
 petent men, and plenty of them, in back of this thing, in order to get 
 it moving in a business-like way. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What would be a fair salary to pay such a man as 
 you have in mind ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I know that you will have to pay as much as well^ 
 for a good man you will have to pay as much as $10,000. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How many $10,000 men will be needed? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. That depends upon the projects presented. I under- 
 stand that there are 100 or more of them before the commission. 
 Of course they are not all active. I judge, from the applications 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 71 
 
 that have been made, there will be a good many of them that will 
 require men of extraordinary talent. Of course, you do not have to 
 have every man of $10,000 or $15,000 capacity. You can have 
 subordinates and they can report to him and can act under his 
 direction; but when it comes to the vital point of making decisions 
 and making investigations, then you must have a man who has had 
 experience and possesses the talent and who can give you the informa- 
 tion that you can rely on. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What would be the scope of this man's duties that 
 you have in mind; what would he have to do? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. He would go out and look over these propositions and 
 pass upon the plans, and the general project as it may be presented 
 to him. No ordinary man can do that. He must be a man not only 
 of pretty high ability, but of experience. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. To get back to the first proposition, you said that 
 up to 1912, when that other bill was passed, or, rather, after that 
 time 3 7 ou thought development was going to be had and would have 
 been had except for one provision; what was that provision? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. The provision that the financial people objected to. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What was it ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Giving the Government the right to confiscate property 
 without paying the value thereof. 
 
 Mr: RAKER. It was a revocable permit. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think so, but I can not recall it right now. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That was it, the revocable feature of the permit, by 
 which the Secretary could withdraw the permit if he saw nt so to dp. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that was the principal objection to the bill 
 I think. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Was there anything outside of that? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I think, not, particularly. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What was that ? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
 the Interior ha,d the right to revoke permits, and that was one of the 
 things they wanted to get rid of. They wanted an everlasting con- 
 cession and did not get it, and then some people went ahead and 
 some did not. 
 
 Mr. Smith, just where in California are plants held up by this 
 situation to which you refer? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I do not know of any in California. I think in Cali- 
 fornia a good many developments are not on navigable streams. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I am talking about on public lands. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. The work is going along very speedily out there, but 
 there are a lot in the East on different rivers which are not going 
 ahead. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You folks would not rely on the report of an engineer 
 of the Government anyhow. You make your application to the 
 Water Power Commission, and the matter goes over to the Secretary 
 and he passes upon it, and then you, through your engineers, would 
 determine whether or not you could do the work ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Irrespective of what the Government's engineer said, 
 your organization would rely upon your own high-class, highly paid 
 engineers ? 
 
72 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Yes ; that is right. 
 
 Mr. RAKER*. So I do not get the point that you want to get a new 
 commission and take these men who have had experience in the 
 Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior 
 away from the work, cast them out, and put new men in their places. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. If you have men in those departments who are com- 
 petent to pass on these different propositions speedily, that is all 
 right. But, as I understand the situation, these different departments 
 have not got the men; in fact, good men are very hard to get. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. If those departments now can not get them, how is 
 the Water Power Commission going to get them ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I do not know. Probably they do not pay money 
 enough. They are obtained in this line of work by engineering cor- 
 porations engaged in water power development. The companies 
 who are engaged in building this kind of work employ highly com- 
 petent men. They can not afford, to employ any other kind. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. For instance, the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
 Secretary of the Interior have high-class engineers engaged in the 
 same line of work, and they are among the highest class of men in 
 the United States. You would not pay a man a higher salary be- 
 cause he was working for the Water Power Commission, would you ? 
 If these departments can not get the men, now how are you going 
 to get them under the Water Power Commission ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. It is a question of whether you can get such men in 
 the departments at the salaries you are paying, I mean men necessary 
 for this class of work. It is a very valuable work, and a work from 
 which the Government expects to realize very largely, and a work 
 absolutely essential to- the country. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The Government is not going to realize from it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. The Government is going to get a rental for the power 
 developed. It is to the Government's interest that developments 
 should be successful. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you this question, and I will not take up 
 much more of your time. If a man has been competent and capable 
 to pass upon this water power development on the great public 
 domain, that within the natural forests, and has made a success, 
 what difference is there in his passing upon these applications and 
 bringing to fruition the powers that have been granted in the past, 
 how would there be any difference under the proposed law ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. If you have men who are competent, if you have men 
 who have passed on these different propositions, and they have been 
 successful, doubtless so far as they could fill the need they would be 
 all right to do this work. But you haven't such men in sufficient 
 numbers to meet the demands that are suddenly put upon the Water 
 Power Commission. As long as you have competency that is all 
 you need. But as I gathered this morning from the statements of 
 the three Secretaries, these men are not available. The three Sec- 
 retaries sat right at this table and stated that men are not available, 
 that they do not have them. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And they put that on the ground that they did not 
 have the money. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I rather inferred that there were other reasons. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. If a man was competent to do the work under the 
 law as it stood before, which I take it is a fact, the law relative to 
 
PKOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 73 
 
 hydroelectric development on the public domain, or in the natural 
 forests, is there anything peculiar or different in this bill than existed 
 before that would take care of this situation in a better way ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I do not recall but one or two developments that the 
 Government has made of any particular magnitude; and even then 
 there was just one going on at a time, not requiring very many 
 men. There are applications before the Water Power Commission 
 that aggregate hundreds of millions of dollars; how are you going to 
 pass on them with any ordinary force with the speed that they require ? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Anything more? [After a pause.] Then we will 
 hear the next witness. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I would like to ask a question of Mr. Mather. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN T. MATHER, DIRECTOR, NA- 
 TIONAL PARK SERVICE Resumed, 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mather, Mr. Sinnott, of the committee, 
 wishes to ask you a question or two. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. In view of Mr. Rogers's bill, No. 14.760, are there 
 any pending homestead or land applications in any of the national 
 parks ? 
 
 Mr. MATHER. No; they would not be considered, no new applica- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. All right. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. Do you mean, are there any pending that were 
 started previously to the creation of the park? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Yes. The reason I asked that question is that Mr. 
 Rogers in his bill takes out from under the operation of the bill the 
 natural parks, and as I recall the latter part of the water-power bill 
 it preserves a certain right in homestead entries on water-power 
 sites. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. I do not think that would be involved in this propo- 
 sition, but I would not like to answer positively without consulting 
 my legal assistant on that. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I wondered whether in any newly-created parks 
 there are any uncompleted homestead operations. If so they would 
 be excluded by Mr. Rogers's bill. 
 
 Mr. MATHER. The only thing I can think of is in the Rocky Moun- 
 tain Park, where some applications are being completed under the 
 timber and stone act. In that case decision has been made in favor 
 of the entryman, and the case will be complete in a very few weeks. 
 Outside N of that I think there is no property in addition. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. All right. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. 0. C. MERRILL, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 
 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Merrill, please give your name, state your 
 position and residence, and so on to the reporter. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. O. C. Merrill, executive secretary Federal Power 
 Commission, Washington, D. C. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You may make your statement. 
 
74 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Mr Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 judge, largely from conversation that I have had with various Mem- 
 bers of the Congress, that there is still considerable misunderstanding 
 concerning the situation that exists with respect to the Federal Power 
 Commission. The three departments, Agriculture, Interior, and War, 
 handled water powers on the national forests, on the public lands, 
 and on the navigable rivers for the 20 years preceding the passage of 
 the Federal water power act. In that time they had applications 
 before them for approximately 2,500,000 horsepower. In six months 
 the Federal Power Commission has received applications for 12,500,- 
 000 horsepower, or five times as much as the three departments 
 received in the previous 20 years. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Do you mean applications ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes. As measured by the amount of horsepower 
 represented by the applications before them. If we were to proceed 
 in the future at the same rate of progress as in the past, and with no 
 more personnel than was had in the past, we would have 100 years' 
 work ahead of us, even if we had nothing more to do with respect to 
 each application than the departments have had to do in the past. 
 
 Let me speak for a moment on what 12,500,000 horsepower means: 
 It means from 40 to 50 per cent more than the total water horse- 
 power which we have developed in the United States up to date. 
 It means an amount equal to the aggregate water power, steam power, 
 and gas power installed in central electric stations both municipal 
 and private in the United States up to the time of the census report 
 of 1917. It means 75 per cent of the developed water power of the 
 world. It is greater in amount than the potential resources of any 
 European nation. Not only do we have before us this great volume 
 of work, but the new law puts duties on the commission that were 
 never placed upon the individual departments. 
 
 The Department of Agriculture received applications under the 
 act of 1901. They examined them and checked them up to see that 
 they contained proper descriptions of the public lands. Provisions 
 were made concerning the time in which the work was to be com- 
 menced and completed, an annual rental charge was prescribed, and 
 then a permit was issued. The Interior Department did likewise. 
 The War Department has had practically no business before it for 10 
 years, because, since the passage of the act of 1910, less than 50,000 
 horsepower has been developed on the navigable rivers of the United 
 States. 
 
 Under the new act we have not only to do what the several depart- 
 ments have hitherto done, but we are required, among other things, 
 to determine that every project which comes before us is so located 
 and designed as to be consistent with a comprehensive scheme of 
 development of the water resources of the stream which shall take 
 into account not only water power, but navigation, irrigation, and 
 all other beneficial uses. The departments never had to do that 
 before, and never did it. We are required to pass in detail upon the 
 plans presented structural details, mechanical details, electrical 
 details. This has never been done before except in rare instances. 
 We are required to establish a system of public utility accounting for 
 all licenses under the provisions of the act. It has never been at- 
 tempted before. We are required to value properties licensed under 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 75 
 
 previous laws which may come under the new law. This has never 
 been done by any of the departments before. 
 
 We are required to exercise sufficient supervision over project 
 works to assure their adequate maintenance and efficient operation 
 and to prescribe the amounts which shall be set aside into depreciation 
 reserves to take care of deferred maintenance and of replacement of 
 structures or equipment worn out in service. This has never been 
 done before. We are required to regulate rates, service, and securities 
 in intrastate business wherever the several States have not provided 
 agencies for performing such duties themselves and in' interstate 
 business whenever the individual States have not the power to act or 
 can not agree. This has never been.done by the Federal Government 
 before. Whenever a licensee makes use of a headwater improvement 
 of another licensee or of the United States we are required to determine 
 the proper share of the annual costs of such improvements which shall 
 be paid by the licensee benefited. This has never been done before. 
 
 Particular emphasis should be placed upon the duties of the com- 
 mission with respect to passing upon the design and cost of project 
 works, upon property valuation, and upon the formulation and ad- 
 ministration of the accounting system. Certain of the projects 
 applied for exceed in magnitude anything yet attempted in the world 
 in connection with power development. Their cost w r ill run into 
 hundreds of millions of dollars. The design of the structures deter- 
 mines not only the extent and the efficiency of the utilization of the 
 resources but the cost of the project as well. Every dollar of such 
 cost, which the commission allows to be entered upon the property 
 investment account of these licensees, is a potential liability of the 
 United States, for it determines the price at which the United States 
 may take over the properties at the termination of the license period. 
 An intelligent, expert supervision over the design and construction 
 of project works is, therefore, essential. A similar attitude must be 
 taken toward additions and betterments of project works, arid 
 toward maintenance and replacement. 
 
 The accounting system will determine how the various items of 
 expense shall be charged upon the books of the licensee, how depre- 
 ciation reserves shall be maintained and disposed of, and how and 
 when the amortization reserves required under section 10 (d) of the 
 act shall be created and applied. Both reserves affect the price 
 which must be paid for the properties. The accounting system will 
 also determine currently the property investment, the revenues and 
 expenses and the classification of each, the rate of return which is 
 being earned, and all the other data which will be necessary not only 
 for fixing the price to be paid for the properites if taken over by the 
 United States or by any other agency, public or private, but also for 
 fixing the amount upon which service charges may be based during 
 the period of the license. Finally, the valuations which must be made 
 under the provisions of section 23 of the act will determine the "fair 
 value" of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of existing property 
 which will be allowed to go upon the books of licensees as their 
 "'net investment" when licenses for such projects are issued. 
 
 The determination of values and the creation and administration 
 of the accounting system on correct principles is of more importance 
 in connection with power projects under the Federal water power 
 act than the similar functions exercised by the Interstate Commerce 
 
76 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Commission with respect to railroads; for while the findings of the 
 Interstate Commerce Commission are evidence of the facts, to be 
 taken into consideration in rate making proceedings, the findings of 
 the Federal Power Commission under the provisions of its law are the 
 facts themselves upon which not only may rates be regulated but also 
 purchase effected. The difference between an administration of the 
 act through a personnel trained and experienced in the duties to be 
 performed and a personnel neither trained nor experienced ma>' well 
 mean a difference of hundreds of millions of dollai^s in the potential 
 liabilities assumed by the United States in connection with the pro- 
 jects already before the commission. 
 
 There are many other new duties or requirements of lesser im- 
 portance, but I think it may fairly be said that the extent of the 
 responsibility and the amount of work which the commission has 
 with respect to every application brought before it, is at 1'east five 
 times greater than xvas ever exercised by the other departments in 
 the business which they have handled in the past. I will attach a 
 statement setting forth these duties in detail. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is your present force ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. The present force that the commission has ? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Yes. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Myself and an engineer officer from the Department 
 of War. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. An engineer officer from where? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. From the War Department. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. An Army officer. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You have a stenographer, probably ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; we have no authority under this act to 
 employ a clerk or a messenger or a single individual other than 
 myself. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But haven't you brought in some other departments, 
 other personnel ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; I understood the question to be what per- 
 sonnel have we authority to employ. The act provided that the work 
 of the commission should be done through the Departments of Agri- 
 culture, Interior, and War, and their engineering, technical and other 
 personnel. We have drawn personnel from the three departments in 
 the District of Columbia. We are also utilizing the field forces of the 
 three departments, and they are the only field forces we have. We 
 have drafted from the Department of Agriculture three times the per- 
 sonnel that they used on that work before the passage of this act. 
 The Washington office of that department had formerly a salary 
 liability of $5,500 a year. It is carrying now a salary liability of 
 $18,830 and it is a charge against the Secretary's Office, the Forest 
 Service, the Bureau of Markets, the Bureau of Entomology, the 
 States Relations Service, and the Bureau of Public Roads. We nave a 
 personnel carried against the Interior Department involving $19,700. 
 We have drawn from the War Department a personnel involving a 
 liability against that department of $34,240. So that the total per- 
 sonnel we have drawn from the three departments represent 31 indi- 
 viduals, with a total liability against the three departments of $72,770,, 
 which is considerably in excess of the similar liabilities in the past. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Have you the names and amounts ? 
 
PKOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 77 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Will you insert them in the records ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Does that bring forward all the high-class men ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. It brings in all they had available for the work; 
 from the Department of Agriculture not only all they had but even 
 more, and similarly from the Department of Interior and the Depart- 
 ment of War. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. All right, put them in. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I will be glad to do so. 
 
 (The statement, afterwards furnished by the witness, is here printed 
 in full in the record, as follows:) 
 
 Personnel detailed or assigned to Federal Power Commission by Departments of War- 
 
 Interior, and Agriculture. 
 
 Position in commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Department. 
 
 Bureau. 
 
 Incumbent. 
 
 Base 
 
 compen- 
 sation. 
 
 Date of 
 assign- 
 ment or 
 detail. 
 
 ENGINEERING. 
 
 Chief engineer 
 
 War . 
 
 Engineers . 
 
 Lieut. Col. Wm.Kelly . 
 
 1 $6 120 
 
 1920. 
 Sept 1 
 
 Assistant engineer 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Maj. H. Bennion 
 
 i 5 300 
 
 Oct 21 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Capt. M. J. Noyes 
 
 1 3, 200 
 
 Nov. 24 
 
 Do 
 
 Interior 
 
 Geological Survey 
 
 R. W. Davenport. . 
 
 3 240 
 
 Oct. 1 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 Reclamation Service 
 
 E. C. Bebb 
 
 3 000 
 
 Nov 1 
 
 Do 
 
 
 Forest Service 
 
 R R Randell 
 
 3 000 
 
 Aug 16 
 
 Junior engineer 
 
 Interior 
 
 Geological Survey 
 
 David J. Guy ... . 
 
 2 100 
 
 Nov. 3 
 
 Draftsman 
 
 War 
 
 Air Service 
 
 F. D. Bradford 
 
 1 800 
 
 Nov 1 
 
 Do 
 
 Agriculture 
 
 Public Roads 
 
 L. H. Schlegel 
 
 1,620 
 
 Oct. 27 
 
 LAW. 
 
 Chief counsel 
 
 War 
 
 Judge Advocate Gen- 
 
 Maj. Lewis Call 
 
 i 5 000 
 
 Aug 6 
 
 Attorney 
 
 Agriculture 
 
 eral. 
 Forest Service 
 
 J. F. Lawson 
 
 3 250 
 
 Nov. 24 
 
 Assistant attorney 
 
 Interior 
 
 Solicitor's office 
 
 J. W. Mitchell 
 
 2 000 
 
 Oct 19 
 
 ACCOUNTS. 
 
 Chief accountant 
 Assistant accountant 
 
 War 
 
 Agriculture 
 
 Engineers 
 
 Forest Service 
 
 Wm. V.King 
 Chas. W. Friede 
 
 7.500 
 3 600 
 
 Oct. 27 
 Nov. 11 
 
 OPERATION. 
 
 Chief clerk 
 
 Interior 
 
 Reclamation Service 
 
 F W Griffith 
 
 2 400 
 
 \ug 21 
 
 Clerk-stenographer 
 
 do 
 
 Geological Survev 
 
 Miss M. Thorwarth 
 
 620 
 
 Oct 25 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 Indian Office 
 
 Lee Morris 
 
 600 
 
 Nov 1 
 
 Do.. 
 
 . . do.. 
 
 Reclamation Service 
 
 MissM. Napier 
 
 440 
 
 Aug 18 
 
 Do 
 
 Agriculture . 
 
 Forest Service 
 
 Miss M. Waters 
 
 .400 
 
 Aug. 1 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 
 Miss S Kent 
 
 400 
 
 Oct 22 
 
 Librarian . 
 
 War 
 
 Quartermaster 
 
 Miss M Rippier 
 
 200 
 
 Oct 21 
 
 Clerk-stenographer. . 
 
 ... do.. .. 
 
 Engineers 
 
 Miss N. Gibson 
 
 200 
 
 Sept 2 
 
 Do. . 
 
 Agriculture 
 
 Forest Service 
 
 Mrs M. Ward 
 
 200 
 
 Oct 18 
 
 Do. 
 
 do 
 
 Entomology 
 
 Miss A M Winning- 
 
 200 
 
 Oct 25 
 
 Do. 
 
 War 
 
 Air Service 
 
 ham. 
 Miss D Dryer 
 
 200 
 
 Nov 1 
 
 Do 
 
 \griculture 
 
 States Relations 
 
 Miss M Simpson 
 
 200 
 
 Nov 4 
 
 Do.. 
 
 Interior 
 
 General Land Office 
 
 Mrs L Groat 
 
 '200 
 
 Nov 15 
 
 Do 
 
 War 
 
 Engineers 
 
 Mrs M Sexton 
 
 200 
 
 Sept 8 
 
 Do 
 
 Interior 
 
 Reclamation Service 
 
 Mrs A L. Gudyer 
 
 '100 
 
 Dec. 2 
 
 Messenger boy 
 
 Agriculture 
 
 Secretary's Office 
 
 Edward Krause 
 
 4SO 
 
 Sept 14 
 
 Do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 
 480 
 
 Nov *>$ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Approximate value of salary and all allowances. 
 
 Carried by Department of Agriculture, 11 employees aggregating. 
 
 Carried by Department of Interior, 10 employees aggregating 
 
 Carried by Department of Warj 10 employees aggregating 
 
 .118,830 
 
 19, 700 
 
 34, 240 
 
 Total * 31 employees 72, 770 
 
78 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Why do not they have civil-service examinations and 
 bring more men and women in? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. They would have to pay for such personnel out oi 
 appropriations granted by you gentlemen for entirely different pur- 
 poses. Congress has made no appropriations to these department? 
 to increase their personnel employed on water-power work. Such 
 increase would, therefore, mean dropping other work which Congress 
 has authorized and directed to be done. An examination of the 
 table I have inserted will show the degree to which the departments 
 have already drawn upon such appropriations to meet the emergence 
 which has faced the commission. In several instances these posi- 
 tions are being financed only from month to month in the expectation 
 that the commission will be given authority to use its own appro- 
 priations for the employment of its own personnel. If this is not 
 done, we have no assurance that these assignments will be continued. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. If you put on a hundred men at $10,000 for these 
 hundred projects, and put them into this commission, they would be 
 there for life, and we would never on earth be able to get rid of them. 
 That is the trouble with all these bureaus, that whenever you create 
 one they grow like mushrooms, they are there forever, no matter if 
 the work has disappeared. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I have never been sanguine enough to believe I could 
 get even one at $10,000. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I have never heard of a Government official being 
 dismissed or being gotten off the pay roll once he got on there, and 
 they stay there forever. I was wondering if we could not provide 
 some limitation on the demands on the Federal Treasury. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. There must be justification for keeping them, if they 
 stay. If there was only temporary work to do of course they would 
 have to go when it is done. But you might just as well expect the 
 Interstate Commerce Commission to go out among the departments 
 and borrow men temporarily to do their work as to expect us to be 
 able to do it for our work. I am afraid, however, that you are not 
 familiar with the extent to which the technical men are leaving the 
 Government service. They are not staying. They are leaving by 
 the hundreds. At no time during the eleven years I have been in the 
 Government service has it been so difficult to get or to hold competent, 
 technical men as in the last three years. The technical services of the 
 Government are breaking down because of the impossibility of secur 
 ing or keeping a competent personnel at the salaries these services 
 are permitted to pay. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Do you mean to say that you will have to have 100 
 men or more at $10,000 a year to continue on after this work has been 
 closed up ? 
 
 Mr. MJERRILL. No, sir; not after it is closed up, or at any other 
 time. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Suppose it is closed up in the next two years, would 
 you still have to have them on? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I do not consider that this work will be closed up in 
 the next two years, but whether it is or not, so long as I am responsi- 
 ble for the work I shall not retain any man at any salary whose 
 services are not needed. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. At the same time they will be passed on ? 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 79 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Certainly; but new applications are coming in now 
 at the rate of one a day, and have been for months. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Do you apprehend that there will be this numerous 
 flood of applications all along? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Not the number that we are receiving now, but 
 under any personnel I would hope to be able to get there are years of 
 work ahead. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I assume that no one would object or could object as 
 a business proposition to furnishing an ample supply of skilled em- 
 ployees for actual and necessary work. But I have a kind of dread 
 of a cart blanche authority granted by the Congress to put on an un- 
 limited personnel and pay unlimited prices, and I see no limitation in 
 this proposed bill. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We have not put any limitation here, Mr. Taylor, 
 simply because this is a general authorization that we have to have 
 before we can appear before the Committee on Appropriations. 
 When we go to the Committee on Appropriations then we will have 
 to set up our personnel proposals. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Why wouldn't it be well to show some kind of limita- 
 tion on yourself here ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. It is all in the Book of Estimates. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I know, but in this proposed law that you are applying 
 for now ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I don't care whether you put on a limitation or not, 
 if you put on a reasonable limit under which we may get men compe- 
 tent to do the work. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Have you had any trouble in the Department of Agri- 
 culture or in the Department of the Interior under civil-service exami- 
 nations in getting this class of men ? Do you get them into those de- 
 partments now ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. The Department of Agriculture, if it had the funds 
 for that purpose, I assume could call for an electrical engineer, or a 
 mechanical engineer, and put him on the pay roll, even though they 
 never used him after he got there, but assigned him to the work of the 
 commission, provided the department on work of its own required 
 men of the same character. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I want to assume for the purposes of my question that 
 they have a sufficient amount of money. Let us make that assump- 
 tion. Is there any question as to calling enough of these men and 
 women into those two departments over there to work as well as they 
 would work for the Federal Power Commission ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. There is in the Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Why not? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. First, because the Comptroller of the Treasury has 
 ruled that while any department, if it has no men in any grade or 
 class which it can spare for the work of the commission, may employ 
 additional persons in such grade or class and then assign them to the 
 performance of such work as the commission may specifically request 
 such department to do, it may not employ in any grade or class not 
 required in its own work any person for purposes of assignment to the 
 work of the commission. And second, because the Department of 
 Agriculture has a salary limit of $4,500, and there are certain posi- 
 tions to be filled that can not be filled at any such a figure. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. On the Federal Power Commission ? 
 
80 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; on the staff of the commission. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What do you mean ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. One of the jobs at the present time is that of valuing 
 $150,000,000 worth of property. The Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion pays salaries ranging from $6,500 to $10,000 for positions of 
 similar character. We can not hope to get competent men at $4,500. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. One of the things you are trying to do is to get outside 
 men in and pay higher prices ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. No, sir. Only to the extent that we can not get 
 them inside. We have already taken such men as the three depart- 
 ments had and could spare and the departments in addition have 
 gone out and gotten other men and assigned them to the Federal 
 Power Commission in order to give us even the personnel we now 
 have. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What particular work is there that you can not have 
 done at that price ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. You can not get a valuation engineer at $4,500 who 
 could do valuation work on these projects. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Which project do you speak of? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We already have pending some 14 cases requiring 
 valuations, involving 738,000 horsepower and probably not less than 
 $150,000,000. Among these are the properties of the hydroelectric 
 developments on the American side at Niagara Falls. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Did not the War Department have that under its 
 supervision before ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Whatever supervision was exercised was exercised 
 by the War Department. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Didn't it have under it personnel of the highest ability, 
 men rated at the highest ability as engineers anywhere in the world, 
 and aren't they there yet? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. It has not done any work of that character. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. They could be transferred from that department to 
 this department. Lots of those men have been turned loose, dis- 
 charged, and they can recall them. They are engineers of the highest 
 ability of any in the world; you can not beat them, and they can cer- 
 tainly do that work. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. They have never done any work of that kind in the 
 Department of War. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. There is no law requiring the Department of War 
 to do that, is there? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. What do you pay by way of per diem and allow- 
 ance? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We have a statutory limit of $4 a day. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Have you granted any permits? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We have not. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Or any licenses ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. No, sir. 
 . Mr. SINNOTT. Can not all this force do anything? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. They have done work right along, on time and over- 
 time. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. And you have not given out one permit with all this 
 force that you have on hand? 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 81 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We have to do many things before we can grant a 
 permit. We have to draft regulations. We have to advertise, 
 under the provisions of the law, eight weeks in the public press. We 
 have to call for field reports, and we have had no one to call on except 
 the men in the department. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. When was this law enacted ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. June 10. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. You have been six months on this work and have 
 done nothing ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We have done many things, notwithstanding the 
 long delay in securing assignments of personnel. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. At that rate it seems to me it would take 100 years 
 if we gave you 100 men. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. While we have a personnel oi 31 at the present time 
 they have not been available for the full period of six months. In 
 fact, the average period of assignment has been only 59 working days. 
 When the commission organized early in July it had no force and no 
 quaiters. The first work started was the drafting oi" regulations 
 covering applications for permits and licenses and related matters. 
 This was done through an interdepartmental committee. Extended 
 public hearings were held and the regulations were adopted on Sep- 
 tember 3. The Engineer officer was unable to report until September 
 1. The Committee on Buildings and Grounds did not make space 
 available for the offices of the commission until the middle of October. 
 In order to ascertain its authority to employ certain personnel it was 
 necessary for the commission to await the interpretation of the law 
 by the Comptroller of the Treasury. It has been necessary also to 
 return to the applicants more than 80 per cent of the applications 
 submitted in order that additional data might be supplied. . Only 44 
 of the 146 projects applied for are complete at the present time. 
 
 For the examination of all these applications, for the preparation 
 of the engineering section of the regulations, and for many the other 
 administrative matters which involve engineering questions, there 
 have been only seven engineers available, and these have been on duty 
 an average period of only 60 working days. The act requires every 
 application to be advertised for a period of eight weeks before any action 
 can be taken, and after the advertising period has expired public 
 hearings are to be held when requested. Projects are not advertised 
 unless the applications are sufficiently complete to indicate the 
 character and extent of development proposed. Forty-seven projeccs 
 have been advertised to date, and on only four of these has the period 
 of advertising expired, the earliest on December 7, the latest on 
 December 18. On none of these four projects have field reports yet 
 been received. On two, the applicants have not yet filed the neces- 
 sary plans, and on the fourth a public hearing has been requested. 
 Action upon applications under the new law is far from being the 
 simple matter it was under previous laws. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The only point in my question is, I have heard a 
 great deal of talk about economy but have not seen any evidence of 
 it anywhere. I was just in hopes there might be some disposition 
 here to economize somewhere. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think this is a poor place to try to economize, 
 perhaps. It is a growing department, one which, is just being 
 2941421 6 
 
82 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL, WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 organized, and which has a tremendous field of work before it, and 
 which has not yet a trained personnel, and can not secure a personnel 
 at the present rates of salaries. It is a law which will become self- 
 sustaining, which is a thing you can not say about most other laws 
 the Congress enacts; and the sooner these permits are granted, and 
 works are put into operation the sooner a rental will come in to the 
 Government to reimburse the Government for its outlay. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I think it is fair to say this in addition to what the 
 Chairman has said, that while it may be self-sustaining, nevertheless 
 the people who get these contracts get very extended tracts of land, 
 
 Eublic land, and take it from taxation, and we do not even get taxes 
 *om it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. They have to pay the Government a rental for the 
 use of the public lands. The bill so provides, and that produces 
 another source of revenue. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Of course we all want to make the law effective. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and as early as possible. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; but we don't want to throw the doors wide open 
 for these departments to grow abnormally on what they feed upon, 
 you might say, and then for them to go to the blue-sky limit with 
 new employees, and pa.y salaries without any check on them. It 
 would bankrupt seventeen Governments. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Our action is visaed by the Committee on Ap- 
 propriations. We have no final say on that matter. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I am very familiar with the Forestrv Service, and we 
 started in a few years ago by Mr. Pinchot saying it would be self- 
 supporting, and that he only wanted a few thousands of dollars, and 
 they got a couple of hundred thousand dollars, and then it got up to 
 half a million dollars, and then on to a million dollars, and now they 
 have to have $7,500,000 a year appropriated by the Congress to keep 
 it going. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. How much comes back to the Treasury? 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. About $3,000,000. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I want to say that in my judgment to proceed to 
 operate a law of this character under personnel scattered around 
 through the various departments and bureaus in the city of Wash- 
 ington would bo about as economical and about as practical as to at- 
 temr>t to run the hotel down here on the Plaza if its kitchen was in 
 Anacostia, its dining room in Georgetown, and its office in Che^y 
 Chase. In such a condition there would be no way of getting any 
 supervision over the work. We have taken into the commission, 
 into its offices and under my direction, such personnel as the depart- 
 ments were willing to give us; and they have, as I said, gone to a 
 considerable degree beyond any liability they had previously as- 
 sumed in connection with water-power administration. We have 
 before us now a job such as never confronted in the slightest degree 
 any of the departments hitherto. 
 
 We have to do one of two things: (1) We must either have a suffi- 
 cient personnel to operate this law; or (2) allow the situation to con- 
 tinue in the future as it has in the past, with our water powers tied up. 
 Everything was stopped for 10 years because we had no legislation. 
 I do not believe it will be your judgment, having enacted legislation, 
 that we should stop for another 10 years just because we can not have 
 the means to put the law into effect. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 83 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Before the Water Power Committee, in that elab- 
 orate hearing, there was a very strong effort to consolidate this com- 
 mission into one department, wasn't there? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. There was, to a certain extent. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Then there was an effort to put it all under an execu- 
 tive of some kind, but the sentiment of the country was that the 
 water powers of the country, of the United States, were so valuable, 
 and the responsibility so far-reaching, and it was such a tremen- 
 dously important matter that it was not really safe to allow it all to go 
 into the hands of one individual, and we thought we ought to hold 
 these three Secretaries responsible for this great work. Wasn't that 
 the theory, and wasn't that what the committee finally decided upon ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. That is what was done. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Aren't you trying to get away from that? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Isn't that the ultimate object or tendency or inevi- 
 table result of this movement now on ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Not at all. The three members of that commission 
 are just as much responsible for the work of their employees, of the 
 men who are directly under 'them, as they are of the work in their 
 own departments. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Who gets all these employees ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Through the commission. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I know, but who gets them ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Do you mean, who is the individual who does it ? 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I am the responsible officer of the commission. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Are you the one to employ engineers ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I am. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Are you opposed to having them classified under the 
 civil service ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Not at all. I assume that under the language in 
 the bill before you, all personnel will be put under civil service. 
 The Civil Service Commission ruled that I. whose appointment is 
 provided for under this act, am under civil service rules, and that 
 the appointment must be made a civil service appointment. That 
 was done although the position was specifically named in the act. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I think the employees would fall into the classified 
 service, and from that fact they are subject to the civil service rules. 
 But that may not cover the experts that you wish to get. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I think that they are right on there for life whenever 
 you employ one. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I certainly do not object to your enacting a provi- 
 sion that they shall be under the civil service. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Do you think that you can get as competent engineers 
 under civil service rules as by securing men from business corpora- 
 tions who employ them ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. No. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. Then why do you say you are willing ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I say I have no objection, because that is the way 
 it is usually done. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. This bill 15126 is reenacting section 2 of the Water 
 Power Act. What is new in the way of language there ? 
 
84 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. There is certain new language placed in the first 
 paragraph by the order of the commission. That was discussed this 
 morning by the Secretary of War. Beginning at line 9, it says, 
 "in the performance of its work the commission shall utilize "- 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT (interposing). What page are you reading from? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. The second page. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. Here I find in the copy I have it begins at line 1 1 . 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. On the copy I have here of that bill it begins at 
 line 9. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. There was a new print. I offered it on the floor 
 December 30 myself. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I have not the other print. But beginning at line 9, 
 it says 
 
 In the performance of its work the commission shall utilize in so far as practicable 
 the field offices and field personnel of the Departments of War. Interior, and Agricul- 
 ture, and it is authorized to employ in the District of Columbia and elsewhere such 
 expert. technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose 
 of performing the duties imposed by this act, and as may be from time to time appro- 
 priated for by Congress. 
 
 That is for the reason that we believed the Washington personnel 
 should be directly under the control of the commission, so as to 
 handle the work efficiently and economically. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. Field offices and field men is language that is in the 
 old bill. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We use now and purpose to continue to use the field 
 offices and personnel of the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and 
 Wnr. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. The only new language is "so far as practicable " ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. And the word "field. And there is new language 
 beginning on line 12 of this print 
 
 And it is authorm>d to employ in the District of Columbia and elsewhere such 
 cxpcri, ;<'chnical. clerical, uiid other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose 
 i >rinii)u r the duties imposed by this act, and as may be from time to time appro- 
 priated for by Congress. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. That is all new language ? 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. What follows is new ? 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; it is 
 
 The detail of persons for such purpose from the Departments of War, Interior, and 
 Agriculture, or the transfer from such departments of any persons engaged in duties 
 which by this act are conferred upon the commission is hereby authorized. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. That is new ? 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. You did not read the word "Agriculture" as I heard. 
 Did you omit it inadvertently ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. And it goes on 
 
 And the restrictions on transfers from one executive department or independent 
 establishment to another imposed by the acts of Congress approved June 22, 1906, and 
 October 6, 1917, shall not apply to such transfers so made. 
 
 That I would like to explain. 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. That is new language ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. We have now assigned to the commission 
 certain individuals who have been employed by the departments 
 
PEOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 85 
 
 specifically for the purpose of assigning them to the commission. 
 We believe, as I stated, that the only economical and efficient way to 
 operate the office of the commission in the District of Columbia is to 
 have its personnel directly under the commission. Those individuals 
 are carried now on the rolls of the several departments. 
 
 Under existing law they could not be transferred for three years, 
 because they either have been employed or transferred from some 
 other department at a recent date. If the commission is given 
 authority to employ personnel and to transfer individuals from 
 other organizations and if the restrictions' named are not removed, 
 either one or the other of two things will happen: (1) the commis- 
 sion will have to drop the men it now has and start over and get 
 new men; or (2) the departments must carry them on their rolls 
 for three years. One of two men, in whom I am particularly inter- 
 ested, is carried on the rolls of the Department of Agriculture and 
 the other on the rolls of the War Department. The Department 
 of Agriculture is financing the assignment from month to month in 
 the hope that some means will be. adopted by which the commission 
 itself can take over the charge. Unless, therefore, we have this 
 legislation we stand to lose these men who have been working with 
 us for months, and they are the chief accountant and the assistant 
 accountant, without whose work we would be completely at a stand- 
 still. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Why do you say you stand to lose them? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. The departments will be unwilling to carry them 
 indefinitely on their rolls if they are not working in the department, 
 and must be paid out of appropriations authorized by the Congress 
 for other purposes and which the departments need for such purposes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I can not yet get it through my head what difference 
 it makes if a man is employed in the Department of Agriculture for 
 a certain purpose, especially inasmuch as this commission is allowed 
 to call on the Department of Agriculture for that man, or any other 
 man in the Department of Agriculture; and if the man is thus em- 
 ployed I can not understand how he can do different work or better 
 work or would be able to do more work if he were employed under 
 this act if it became a law. I frankly state I am seeking information. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. This is the situation, Judge, the secretaries of the 
 Departments of War, Interior, and Agriculture form this commission. 
 It is the duty of those department heads, both as department 
 heads and as members of this commission, to decide whether they 
 will give preference to the work of the commission or to the work of 
 their departments, both of which they are required to do by Con- 
 gress, but both of which they can not, in fact, do. Now, they have 
 decided, up to the extent of the personnel now assigned and for the 
 period necessary for the commission to receive authorization from 
 Congress to use its own appropriation, that they will let their depart- 
 mental work go, and will do the work of the commission. As I said 
 awhile ago, the Department of Agriculture is carrying for the com- 
 mission in the District of Columbia a salary liability of over $18,000 
 for men who are doing no work for the department. This is $13,000 
 more than the department spent on similar activities, and by so 
 much must they curtail their own work which they have been author- 
 ized and directed by Congress to perform. 
 
86 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL, WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Mr. RAKEK. What difference does it make? It is to coordinate, 
 harmonize, and keep these departments all together, and keep plenty 
 of work for the men so they will have plenty of work to do, so that 
 when the work lags in one they can he put to the other WOTV as it 
 increases, and so on. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. There is no lack of work to be done. In so far as 
 they supply personnel to the commission, they must drop work of 
 their own. Furthermore, it is not a mere question of assigning indi- 
 viduals already in the departments. Certain of the duties of the 
 commission require individuals of a character that the departments 
 do not have. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I just want to know what particular class of man or 
 woman that is needed in this great Federal Power Commission that 
 isn't found or can't he found in one of the departments. I would 
 like to have you describe him or her. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Very well, I will give you an example now. We 
 are required under the provisions of this act to establish a system of 
 public utility accounting for all licenses. A system similar to that 
 prescribed by the railroad commission in your State, the State of 
 California, and in other States. That system has to be established 
 in conformity, as far as practicable, with the existing state systems. 
 Nobody has ever boon employed in the Department of War, Interior, 
 or Agriculture who has ever had any experience in such work. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But bless your life, don't they have a system of 
 accounting in the great Department of War that equals any State ? 
 Then if they haven't oughtn't they go to a State and find out and 
 have men that are competent for public accounting ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Certainly not, Judge Raker. It is absolutely a 
 different type of accounting. They only account for receipts and 
 expenditures in the Government departments. They never keep 
 cost accounting, or if they do, it is of a different character. They 
 do not have to account for operating revenue or operating expenses, 
 for depreciation, for sinking funds, or for the many other items that 
 are involved in public utility accounting practice. It is absolutely 
 a different kind of work and the only place in the Government of the 
 United States where you could get a man of that kind is the Inter- 
 state Commerce Commission. I went to them and asked them if they 
 would not under the provisions of this act, which permits temporary 
 detail, detail us a man that would help establish an accounting system 
 and they said they were utterly unable to do so on account of the 
 volume of the new work placed upon them by the recent transporta- 
 tion act; but that if we could get the money to pay the man when 
 taken over so that they could use his salary to employ another, they 
 would do it. We finally got the assistant director of their bureau 
 of finance transferred to the War Department for this work and he 
 is paid from the appropriations for the rivers and harbors. To 
 accomplish this transfer took nearly two months of time, and re- 
 quired two decisions from the Comptroller of the Treasury. That 
 is a sample of the handicaps under which the commission has been 
 trying to get enough personnel to begin its work. No business 
 organization would attempt to proceed on such basis for an hour. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else you desire to say ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I wish to speak about a matter you were questioning 
 this morning. This appropriation of $100,000 on page 3. That 
 
PEOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 87 
 
 is the appropriation carried in the existing law an 1 it is the only 
 appropriation the commission has for the fiscal year. If you strike 
 that out it closes the doors of the commission the moment the bill 
 is signed, because there will not be a cent to operate on. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The sundry civil bill carries $100,000 for the 
 next fiscal year, but this is for the present year. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. For the present fiscal year. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The question I had in mind is under the new rule, 
 our authority to appropriate. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. This is the existing law. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You copied the existing law '. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. There are one or two points upon which 
 I would like to touch briefly. In the paragraph on page 3 we have 
 amplified somewhat the provisions concerning the character of ex- 
 penses that are covered under the appropriation. We have added 
 in the second line "personal services in the District of Columbia and 
 elsewhere," as we felt such language would be needed if we employed 
 personnel. We have also added ' 'reimbursement of other ' overn- 
 ment departments or agencies for expenses incurred in the per- 
 formance of work for the commission." We are at the present time 
 paying travel and field expenses of the men in the three departments 
 who are engaged in field investigations. We are not certain whether 
 we have the authority to do it under the existing laws or not, but if 
 the auditor rules otherwise, the departments themselves will have 
 to pay it. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. This bill was intended to be worked through the three 
 departments with the commissioners as the head and not to create a 
 separate, indepen lent outside commission, and I wonder if that is 
 really the intent of this Federal water power bill. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Let me say this. We are not preparing to create 
 any independent outside water-power commission. It will consist, 
 as at present, of the heads of the three departments. We are merely 
 creating a staff for performing the work of the commission. I pre- 
 sume it was the thought of Congress that since this work had formerly 
 been done by the three departments, they could still continue to do 
 it. But as I said awhile ago, the situation has completely changed. 
 There is enough before the commission at the present time, if they 
 work no faster than the departments worked in the past, to keep it 
 busy for a hundred years. We not only have five times as much 
 work right now, measured by horsepower alone as the three depart- 
 ments had in twenty years,* but we also have many more duties to 
 perform in connection with each application, and duties of a 
 character never hitherto attempted by the departments. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What is there in this statement, and I think it is 
 applicable right here, that the three departments are honeycombed 
 with idle people struggling to exist on doing nothing. Is there any- 
 thing in that ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. My experience and observation is limited to the 
 Forest Service and, recently, to the Geological Survey. I know it is 
 not true in the Forest Service and never has been true in that service. 
 I have seen no evidence yet in the Geological Survey. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. There were 10,000 statements made in this recent 
 campaign that there were 20, 30, and 40 thousand, and as high as 
 
88 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 80,000 surplus clerks here in the service, and members of the Repub- 
 lican campaign committee boldly told the country they were going 
 to cut off 40,000 Government clerks here in Washington absolutely 
 idle and useless and incumbering the rolls and doing nothing. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I am not responsible for statements made in a 
 political campaign. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. But if there is such a number of useless and idle 
 employees here 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I would like to get hold of some of them. I under- 
 stand there were also statements made in the campaign that by the 
 dismissal of useless employees they could save a sum of money which 
 was greater, by a hundred million dollars, than the entire pay roll 
 of all the civil employees in the city of Washington. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That was all denied in the Democratic platform. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything more ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We have an item in here for printing, etc. We 
 have had to print letterheads and forms for advertising required 
 under the act, voucher forms, etc. I do not know whether we can 
 print anything more since we have submitted our estimates to the 
 Appropriations Committee. It is certain that we can't print a sheet 
 of paper after the 1st of July without this authorization, so that what 
 we suggest in here is a general authorization with the details to be 
 settled oy the Committee on Appropriations. 
 
 Mr. WIN SLOW. Suppose there were 13,000 surplus dorks on the 
 rolls in Washington, now many would you want? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Seventy-five. I haven't any trouble in getting 
 clerical assistance. What I want is experts. 
 
 Mr. WINSLOW. You can't make a hydraulic engineer out of a 
 typewriter ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. It hasn't been done so far. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Assuming that you had all the assistance needed at 
 this time, how long would it take you to grant a permit on the Deschute 
 Reservation ( 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. It depends on the order in which we take up the 
 applications that are before us. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Assuming you take up all' of those before you get 
 to the Deschute Reservation proposition how long would it take you 
 to get to it ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. If we had all the assistance we could properly use 
 and we were not delayed by request for hearings, it should not take 
 longer than two or three weeks to act upon licenses in the Washington 
 office after the advertisements have been completed and the field 
 reports submitted. We would not be justified in employing a per- 
 sonnel sufficient to have 100 or more field examinations made simul- 
 taneously. It would take at least a year and probably more to 
 handle the applications now before the commission with the personnel 
 for which we presented estimates for the fiscal year 1922. Under 
 present conditions our efforts must primarily be directed toward 
 completing the regulations and preparing forms for applications for 
 permits and licenses. While we are having field examinations made 
 as rapidly as it can be done, we must depend entirely upon such field 
 personnel as the departments have available for assignment to this 
 work over and above their own demands upon the same personnel. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 89 
 
 We have, for example, sent out to the district engineer of the Forest 
 Service in San Francisco 35 applications for examination and report. 
 If he can complete them inside of a year he is doing well. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Supplementing the remarks of the gentleman from 
 Oregon, suppose there is an objection filed to the granting of a permit. 
 In addition to the field survey your commission has ample power now 
 under fhe law to set a time for hearing and hear all interested parties 
 on the question of whether or not the permit should be granted and 
 finally whether the license should be granted. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We are doing it right now. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. So there is no question about that? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. There is no question. We advertise in a newspaper, 
 the newspaper with the largest circulation in every county affected 
 by the project. We notify by letter the governor of the State and 
 the head of every State department that is interested in watei- 
 power development. We notify county authorities and the mayor 
 of any municipality in reach of the project. 
 
 Mi\ RAKER. Do you give those parties an opportunity to be heard 
 within a reasonable distance of the project ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. No, we have nobody other than in the city of Wash- 
 ington to hold the hearings. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Have to bring them here to Washington? Doesn't 
 that amount almost to a denial of justice? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; but it can't be helped now. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There are a lot of people who would like to have a 
 chance to be heard and are entitled to it. To come to Washington 
 is a denial of justice to those people. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes ; we have a request for a hearing in Kennowick, 
 Wash. We can't grant it. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What would be your suggestion about that ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. If we get this provision here, our purpose is to 
 organize our work in field divisions, using the existing personnel in 
 the three departments and supplementing them by employees of the 
 commission where necessary. In my opinion we should allow these 
 field officers to do the advertising required by the act, to give the 
 public notice, to examine the applications, and to hold the public 
 hearing and to submit the evidence and their conclusions to the 
 commission for review and action. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Just one other question remains in line with that 
 suggestion. You feel as though there is power enough in the com- 
 mission to do that ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. There is without doubt. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There is power enough under the law for the com- 
 mission to do that now? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But what you lack is 
 
 Mr. MERRILL (interposing). Anybody to do it. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. What would be the situation providing the bill 
 before this committee failed of passage and providing applications 
 for power privileges in a national park should be filed ? What would 
 be the situation with respect to hearings on those applications ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. You mean if this bill were to pass ? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes. 
 
90 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 . 
 
 tne 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. They would have to come to Washington to be 
 heard, but they would be heard. If you or any representative of the 
 public, or public agency, asked to be heard, you would have the 
 privilege. 
 
 Mr. McFARLAND. How would you know? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We advertise that project. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Where ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. In the localities. We publish these notices also in 
 the technical press and we supply them to the newspaper press. 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Then you see some of us who have been on this 
 firing line for 25 years would have to take the local papers in the 
 West where these places, all these national parks are, in order to have 
 notice. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Don't you keep a scout on the ground all the time? 
 
 Mr. MCFARLAND. Sure. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Mr. McFarland is under a misapprehension. We 
 keep a mailing list in the department to mail notices to anybody who 
 requests it. If he files a request for notice he would get a notice. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What disposition are you making of the pending 
 applications for homestead entries on power sites ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Within power reserves? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. The commission is doing this, is making examinations 
 to determine whether they should be opened to entry. When an 
 application comes in for an entry in a power site reserve, we ask the 
 Forest Service, Geological Survey, or General Land Office, whichever 
 is better fitted to furnish the information, to examine the application 
 and it makes its report. If the commission finds that the land can be 
 opened to settlement without injury to the power site it is opened. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. There were some suspended entries covered by the 
 act itself, weren't there ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. That is handled by the Department of the Interior. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. One further question, saves the record and puts the 
 matter in the record so it relieves the public. I have received a 
 good many letters from individuals, from chambers of commerce, 
 county organizations, State organizations, fish and game commis- 
 sions, relative to placing certain dams in the Klamath River. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Before the commission agrees upon that they will 
 make a thorough examination under their powers to see whether it 
 is practicable, etc.? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And these parties and all will be given an opportu- 
 nity to be heard before the commission, to present their case ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes. We have notified the Fish and Game Com- 
 mission of California of the fact that these applications were filed, 
 and if they wanted a hearing they can have a hearing. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In addition to that, when these three departments 
 transfer that power over to the Water Power Commission you will 
 be able, if it becomes necessary, to take the testimony if the testi- 
 mony is desired near the location. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I hope we will be able to put into the field every- 
 thing that is possible to do in the field. There is the place where it 
 should be done. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 91 
 
 Mr. RAKER. One other question, and then I am through. The 
 same way with the irrigation system, you will take up the question 
 of whether or not in granting the permit to one of the water power 
 companies for hydroelectric development that you will not allow 
 the water to be used in such a way that it can not be used for irri- 
 gation, if by proper turning it from the wheel it can be utilized as it 
 goes through the dam for irrigation purposes ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We will not do that if we have somebody to send 
 out there and make an examination. I say, if we have anybody to 
 do it we will do it. We are faced with either one of three alterna- 
 tives. We must have additional personnel to operate this act, or 
 we must ignore the provisions of the act in order to issue licenses, 
 or we must stop development. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There are people on both sides, contesting parties, 
 those in the lower part of our State and those in the upper part, 
 particularly in the lower part, figuring on going in there to develop, 
 particularly in the San Joaquin Valley. When that comes up for 
 development those parties will be given full, free opportunity to 
 present the facts in regard to it ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We advertise it. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Do you go into the matter of water rights ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. A man has to establish his water rights, 
 and we refer that back to the authority which is in charge. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. But you don't claim to have jurisdiction over water 
 rights ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. And if there is a controversy between the relative 
 merits and desirability of irrigation water for power purposes, you 
 don't adjudicate that ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. We will probably take that up, as we will a lot of 
 other matters, with the State authorities for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is so vital, I wish you would, in making your 
 answer, just look to the provisions of the bill. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I know what the provision of the bill is, Judge, 
 that all matters shall be taken into consideration, including water 
 power, navigation, and other beneficial public uses, which includes 
 irrigation, domestic water supplies, and every other use. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Can you estimate the cost that would result if 
 15126 becomes a law? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I would put in for that, Mr. Chairman, the estimate 
 we presented to the Appropriations Committee. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Very well. I think it would be advantageous to 
 have access to those estimates. 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. And may I add one thing more. We have, as 1 
 have said, no authority at the present time to purchase law books, 
 books of reference, or periodicals. I have personally turned over to 
 the commission my own library, consisting of two or three thousand 
 dollars' worth of books. 1 am personally purchasing technical mag- 
 azines necessary for the work. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Don't the appropriation for the next fiscal year 
 take care of that ? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. For the next fiscal year they have covered that. 
 What I would like for you to do is to put in following the figures 
 
92 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 "$100,000", in line 21, these words u of which amount not exceeding 
 $ - may be expended for necessary printing and binding, and not 
 exceeding $ - for law books, books of reference, periodicals, and 
 directories." I mean make an amendment that will authorize the 
 use of part of that $100,000 for the balance of the fiscal year. We 
 can not do it as it now stands. 
 
 Tile CHAIRMAN. Will you submit that amendment? 
 
 Mr. MERRILL. I will submit it. 
 
 I would like also to submit certain exhibits I have here. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You have that privilege. 
 
 (The data submitted by Mr. Merrill is as follows:) 
 
 IHTIES AND FIXCTIOXS OF THE COMMISSION. 
 
 The commission has general administrative control over Mil power sites on the navi- 
 gable waters and on the public lands and reservations of the United States, and over 
 the location, design, construction, maintenance, and op.. >:>! ion of power projects upon 
 
 such sites. It has the p->wer and duty, under certain conditions, of regulating the 
 financial operations, fixing {he Q <!!. -nuining the character of service and of 
 
 making phvsical valuations of ihe properties of licensees who uti'i/e surh sites. It 
 horized to mak" general in ve^'i rations of broad scope and is required to make 
 corcii'i special i PHIS and report thereon to Congress. It is further authorized 
 
 to cooperate with Shit" .;nd X oients in its investigations, and to pub- 
 
 lish the result^ of ils work ii> id annual reports. 
 
 The various dutie^ and fuiicii-i. <>i the e<i<;miissi'.>n are segregated into groups, and 
 ihe menus by whidi they may be I arc discussed, in the following pages. 
 
 References are to seel ion, ! line, of the pamphlet print of the act. 
 
 I. ( water />o/<vr.s-. In ih<- general administration of water 
 
 places the following duties upon the commission: 
 
 '") To give i or municipal!! ii! ci. 10 be interested" of the 
 
 f ; ling of any application for a license, and to publish noiic;. of such application for 
 eight weel -!<!. p. II. line 7: sec. !e. p. i!. line 15. )i 
 
 'In To file \vi:h ! offices notice of any application for a license together 
 
 with a description of ihe lands of the I'nited States affected thereby. (Sec. 24, p. 46, 
 line 14.) 
 
 i constructed on any stream over which 
 
 Cong 1 but whieh is not defined as "luaigable waters," whenever 
 
 declaration of int< 
 2:;. p. 46, line 2.) 
 
 declaration of intention to construct such project is iiled with the commission. (Sec. 
 
 16, line 2.) 
 [a] To hold heniinvs when desirable or necessary in connection with any applica- 
 
 tion for a permit or license. p. 12. line 2 
 
 i< ) To issue prelim i or power projects. (Sec. 4e, p. 11, line 12.) 
 
 ./ To issue license for po\\ ' projects and Iran [mission lines on navigable waters, 
 public hinds. ,- -.lions of the I'nifed Mules. iSec. 4d, p. 9, line 11.) 
 
 (g) To investigate and approve all voluntary transfers of licenses. (Sec. 8, p. 18 r 
 line 17.) 
 
 (h'i r !'o investigate and approve all contracts for power made by a licensee w r hich 
 will extend beyond the termination of the license. (Sec. 22, p. 43, line 2.) 
 
 (?') To provide for the proportionate distribution of annual costs of headwater 
 improvements between owner and licensees benefited thereby. (See lOf, p. 25, 
 line 4.) 
 
 (./) To assess against all licensees benefited the annual cost of any headwater 
 improvement constructed by the United States. (See lOf, p. 25, line 8.) 
 
 (k) To prescribe rules for "and to fix annual license charges, and to determine the 
 relation of such charges to prices to consumers. (See IGe, p. 23, line 6.) 
 
 To put the above provisions into effect the commission is authorized: 
 
 (/) To make rules and regulations for administration of the act. (See 46, p. 13 r 
 line 24.) 
 and is required : 
 
 (m) To submit annually to Congress on or before the first Monday in December a. 
 classified report showing permits and licenses issued, the parties thereto, the term 
 thereof and the moneys received. (See 4c, p. 9, line 5.) 
 
 1 References are to section, page, and line, respectively, of the pamphlet print of the act. 
 
PKOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 93 
 
 Of the 13 items above listed, five, namely, (b), (e), (f), (k), and (1), have up to the 
 present been performed by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior in connection 
 with their administration of water powers upon public lands and reservations, Au- 
 thorization for power developments upon navigable rivers has heretofore been granted 
 only by specific act of Congress; and since none has been so granted in recent years, 
 none of the items listed has been performed, by the "War Department. The eight re- 
 maining items comprise administrative duties in addition to anything required by 
 previously existing law or hitherto performed by any one of three departments. Of these 
 eight items, (a) notification and publication of applications and (c) field investigations 
 can be performed through the field personnel and field offices of the individual depart- 
 ments. Items (g), (h), (i), and (j) will require action by the commission. Hence, 
 of the 13 items above listed all but the first three must be performed by the commis- 
 sion itself if duplication of work is to be avoided and if the provisions of the act are 
 to be effectively carried out. 
 
 2. Design, construction, and operation of project works. The commission has authority 
 to pass upon the general scheme of development of power sites, upon the plans and 
 specifications of the works, and upon certain features of maintenance and operation 
 of project works; and it its is duty: 
 
 (a) To require that "the project adopted ' shall be such as in the judg- 
 ment of the commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive scheme of improve- 
 ment and utilization," and that plans be modified when necessary to secure such 
 scheme. (See lOa, p. 20, line 10.) 
 
 (b) To approve maps, plans and specifications of project works. (Sec. 9, p. 19, 
 line 19.) 
 
 (c) To pass upon and approve prior to construction any substantial alteration in 
 project plans. (Sec. lOb, p. 20, line 19.) 
 
 (d) To require that project works be properly maintained and kept in efficient 
 operating conditions. (Sec. ICc, p. 21, line 3.) 
 
 (e) To prescribe the time within which projects shall be begun and completed. 
 (Sec. 13, p. 29, line 11.) 
 
 (/) To keep in touch with conditions of the power market tributary to every de- 
 velopment in order to require extensions as rapidly as conditions warrant. (Sec. 13, 
 p. 29, line 17.) 
 
 (g) To prescribe rules and regulations for the protection of life, health, and prop- 
 erty in connection with the construction or operation of project works by licensees. 
 (Sec. lOc, p. 21, line 10.) 
 
 Of the seven items under the above heading one only, item (e), has hitherto been 
 performed by any of the three departments to the degree contemplated by the act. 
 Six of the seven items, therefore, involve essentially new duties of which all but 
 item (d), and possibly to some extent item (), will require action by the commission 
 itself. Item )d) could be handled by the field forces of the several departments 
 after general regulations concerning this item have been prepared by the commission. 
 The same would bp true, within limits, of item (c). 
 
 The most important item under this heading is (a), the preparation of a compre- 
 hensive plan of development in connection with each power project, one which, as 
 required by the act, shall take into account full utilization of the stream for "purposes 
 of navigation, water-power development, and of other beneficial public uses." The 
 investigations necessary for the preparation of such plan could not be made by the 
 three departments without substantial increase in their present force. The commis- 
 sion can not do it without adequate personnel of its own; hence until provision is 
 made for such personnel the commission must either suspend action indefinitely 
 upon the greater part of the applications before it or ignore the plain requirements of 
 the law. 
 
 It will also be necessary to make a detailed examination of the maps and plans 
 submitted. This will require the service of experts in construction and in mechanical 
 and electrical engineering. The design proposed may effect in material degree the cost 
 of the project. The same is true of the methods of construction. Unless, therefore, 
 wholly uncontrolled prospective liabilities are to be set up against the United States 
 on account of these projects, it will be necessary not only to give the most complete 
 review of the project plans but also to inspect the work while under construction. 
 
 3. Regulation of financial operations. Under the provisions of the act the commis- 
 sion has authority 'and it is its duty: 
 
 (a) To prescribe a svstem of accounting for licenses. (See 4f, p. 11, line 24.) 
 (&) To require the submission of financial statements and reports. (See 4f, p. 12, 
 Iine2.) 
 
 (c) To prescribe rules for the establishment and maintenance of depreciation re- 
 serves by licenses. (Sea lOc, p. 21, line. 7.) 
 
94 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT, 
 
 (d) To devise principles for the proper apportionment of surplus earnings to amorti- 
 zation reserves. (Fee lOb, p. 21, line 19.) 
 
 (e) To regulate, under certain conditions, the amount and character of securities 
 which mav be issued for the financing of power proiects; (See 19, f. 29, line 14; See 
 20, p. 40, line 19), and to hold hearings in connection therewith. (See 4g, p 13 
 line!.) , 
 
 All of the items under the above heading arc new legislation, involve a performance 
 of duties not hitherto undertaken by any of the three departments, and require 
 action bv the commission itself. 
 
 Item (a] the formulation of a system of accounting, is a duty that can be performed 
 only by technical experts. It will require detailed study of such accounting systems 
 of the several States as have been provided bv statute or by action of public-service 
 commissions, before any accounting system to be made generally applicable can prop- 
 erly be devised. The accounting system and its administration are fundamental in the 
 operation of the act. K very dollar charged to the investment account of the licensee is a 
 potential liability of the United States; for the United States may take over the proper- 
 ties at the license termination and if it does so, the price is determined by the amount 
 which the commission has permitled to !<> entered upon tho books of 'the licensee. 
 Tliis amount can be controlled onlv bv requiring periodical reports and by making 
 necessary inspection and audit. The ncc'Hintin-j: svsf"in can not be prepared or 
 admi:iist-"d bv th > individual departments, but it involves work of a character \vhich 
 must b > d-ui" bv the commission itself, if done at all. 
 
 I !!! (e\ the n -.MI l.i' ion of th" Issuance of securities, will be undertaken onlv in (hose 
 i ierne ! Iris provided i! iih authoritv to act. If 
 
 and when t'i" co i) oission d i ial > ihnical i'-.v^iiuMlions \vill b-> required 
 
 and h"a--in'_'s nin^t I. li '!. Tiiis can u >: be <1 me by th" individual d"parhi:ents, 
 first, becau I mid have no authoritv and second, because th >y have not the 
 
 qualified person r id. I'ntil, therefore. autho v it\ is iriveu to employ the nec< 
 experts, report "rs. etc., 1hi< provision of the act must remain inoperative. 
 
 4. Regulation of rates a/i/l Hcrricr. Jurisdiction over the regulation of rates and 
 service is conferred upon the commission: 
 
 (a) In iutrasfate business whenever tin- State has not provided an agency with 
 power of regulation. (Sec. li). p. 39. line 14.) 
 
 (6) In interstate lmsin-.s win-never the States concerned have not the power to 
 act individually or can n.t reach mutual agreement. (Sec. L'O. p. 40, line 19.) 
 
 The above item- contemplate entirely new activities never heretofore exercised 
 by the Federal (io\ eminent . However, afl in Hie case of Item 4 (e) the commission 
 will be required to act only when the State* concerned are unable to exercise the pro- 
 posed powers thcnis"lves. 
 
 5. Valuation fl'ri><r! ..s-e. Itis a fundamental principle of the act that 
 valuations for the purpose of rate making, or of purchase at the termination of the 
 license period, shall be based upon the net investment in the property and that this 
 amount shall he determined currently either through the system of accounting or 
 through physical valuation. For this purpose it is the duty of the commission: 
 
 (a) To require the riling of statements showing the cost of construction of project 
 works and the price paid tor water rights, rights of way. lauds, and interests in lands. 
 (Sec. 4a. p. 8, line ). 
 
 (6) To make valuation of all projects brought under license which have been 
 constructed in whole or in part prior to application for license. (Sec. 23, p. 44, line 6.) 
 
 (c) To maice valuation in case of condemnation of the properties of a licensee by 
 the United States. (Sec. 14, p. 32. line 8.) 
 
 (d) To determine the net investment and severance damages in the event that 
 properties of a licensee are taken over by the United States at the termination of n 
 license period. (Sec. 14. p. 31, line 17.) 
 
 All of the above items are new legislation and all will require the personal attention 
 and action of the commission or its staff. 
 
 The valuation of public utility properties is a highly technical procedure from the 
 standpoint of the legal, accounting, financial, and engineering problems involoved. 
 None of the three departments have ever undertaken work of this character or have 
 a personnel with training or experience along this line. 
 
 The act requires (sec. 25, p 45, line 23) ''that when application is made for license 
 for a project or projects already constructed, the fair value of such project 
 or projects " shall be determined, and that such fair value shall thereupon be taken as 
 the ''net investment" of the license as of the date of determination. There are scores 
 of large operating projects with aggregate values of hundreds of millions of dollars for 
 which application for license will soon be filed. The valuation of these projects will 
 require a considerable force and will be a matter of several years work even if started 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 95 
 
 at once. The three departments could not do this work and perform their other func- 
 tions even if they contained a personnel qualified to conduct proceedings of this nature. 
 Unless and until the commission has authority to employ a personnel for this work it 
 must remain undone and licenses must be denied to all such applicants, although 
 they are entitled under the act to receive them. 
 
 6. General investigations. In addition to gts duties of general administration and 
 regulation of water-power developments the commission is authorized, or the perform- 
 ance of certain of its duties will require it, to undertake general investigations and to 
 collect and record data concerning: 
 
 (a) The utilization of the water resources of any region to be develop" ed. (Sec. 4a, 
 p. 7, line 16.) 
 
 (6) The water-power industry and its relation to other industries and to interstate 
 or foreign commerce. (Sec. 4a, p. 7, line 17.) 
 
 (c) The location, capacity, development costs, and relation to market of power 
 sites. (Sec. 4a, p. 7, line 19.) 
 
 (d} Whether the power from Government dams can be advantageously used by the 
 United States for its public purposes and what is the fair value of such 'power. "(See. 
 4a, p. 7, line 21.) 
 
 (e) Lands of the United States reserved as power sites to determine whether they 
 may be opened to entry subject to a reservation of the power rights of the United 
 States. (Sec. 24, p. 46,'line l9.) 
 
 (/) Deterioration of structures and equipment for the purpose of establishing rates 
 of depreciation and amount of annual depreciation reserves. (Sec. lOc, p. 21, line 7.) 
 
 In connection with such investigation the commission is authorized: 
 
 (gr) To hold hearings and to require the attendance of witnesses and the production 
 of evidence. (Sec. 4g, p. 13, line 2.) 
 
 (h) To make public from time to time the information secured and to provide for 
 the publication of its reports and investigations. (Sec. 4c, p. 9, line 1.) 
 
 (i) To cooperate with State and National Governments in its general power investi- 
 gations. (Sec. 4b. p. 8, line 16.) 
 
 Of the nine items under the above heading only one, itenr(e), has hitherto been 
 undertaken by either of the three departments to the extent contemplated by the 
 act, and even investigations covered by item (e) have been conducted only occasion- 
 ally. 
 
 For the investigations comprised under items (a), (6), (c), and (c?), authority is given 
 in section 4 (6) to request temporary detail of experts or other officers from the various 
 Executive Departments and agencies of the Government. It is manifest, however, 
 that investigations can be conducted by this means only if the several departments 
 and agencies have a personnel qualified to do the work and to the extent that such 
 personnel can be detached from their other duties for this purpose. At the best this 
 procedure would involve a constantly shifting personnel an unsatisfactory, uneco- 
 nomic and inefficient method of doing business. These investigstions can never be 
 properly conducted until the commission has a force itself or there are in one or more 
 of the three departments a force permanently assigned to the work who can be either 
 detailed to the commission or retained in the department under the supervision of 
 the commission. 
 
 The adequate determination of depreciation and the establishment of depreciation 
 reserves is a far more important matter in connection with the Federal control of water 
 powers under the act than in connection with similar control under State legislation. 
 While State and Federal control will deal equally with these matters as regards ade- 
 quate maintenance and operating efficiency of" power projects, only the Federal 
 Government is concerned in the relation of depreciation reserves to the purchase price 
 of the property, for under the act all such accumulated reserves are to be deducted 
 from original cost of the properties are taken over at the license termination. It is of 
 great importance, therefore, that the question of depreciation, or deterioration, of 
 structures and equipment be thoroughly investigated and that a thoroughly considered 
 scheme of establishing and maintaining reserves be adopted. 
 
 The extent to which the commission can cooperate withthe State of National Govern- 
 ments as contemplated by item (i) will depend entirely upon the means at its disposal 
 for such purpose. 
 
 7. Special investigations. In addition to the general investigations which the com- 
 mission is authorized to undertake it is required to make special investigation and to 
 submit to Congress: 
 
 (a) Reports in all cases where it finds that a Government dam may advantageously 
 be used by the United States for public purposes in addition to navigation. (Sec. 
 4d, p. 10, line 25.) 
 
98 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 (/>) The results of its examination and surveys, together with plans and cost esti- 
 mates, in connection with any project which it believes should be undertaken by the 
 United States. (Sec. 7, p. 16, line 3.) 
 
 (c) Reports with cost estimates on all projects on navigable streams in which it 
 appears that the construction of suitable navigation structures can not be under- 
 taken by the applicant. (Sec. 12, p. 29, Jine 4.) 
 
 (d) On or before January 1, -1921, a report on "the cost and, in detail, the economic 
 value" of the Great Falls power project, and "plans and estimates of cost necessary 
 to secure an increased and adequate water supply for the District of Columbia." 
 (Sec. 7, p. 18. line 3.) 
 
 (e) The C3mmission would also be required to make special investigations and 
 assist in the conduct of legal proceedings brought for cancellation of licenses or for 
 requiring specific performance of the provisions of a licensee or of the act. (Sec. 25, 
 p. 48, line 14.) 
 
 The five items listed above are essentially new legislation, involving duties which 
 either are not at present performed by any of the three departments, or which are 
 in addition to similar duties now performed . The War Department, through the 
 Board of Engiiwrs for Tlivers and Harbors, makes reports to Congress on river im- 
 provements. These improvements occasionally provide opportunities for power 
 developments which are reported upon by the engineers who make the examination, 
 but the board probably seldom, if ever, has made reports of the nature required 
 under it";ns (a) mid (h) and only occasionally und"r item ('). Several reports have 
 hitherto been made on the mutters involved in item (</). The act, however, calls 
 for new information in addition to a review of previous ivtnvts. 
 
 In any case that ni-.iv avis inquiring legal proceedings looking toward cancella- 
 tion of a license or enforcement of its provisions, it would !>< the duty of the com- 
 mission to make ill- engineering ami oih.'r i<>chnical investigations necessary and to 
 act as adviser to the Attorp'-v ( icp.-ral. While the conduct of investigations and the 
 preparation of reports could be handled by the individual departments, such (natters 
 would also involve a considerable amount of work on the part of members of the 
 commission or of their staff. 
 
 Of the 45 special functions or duties required of the c M under the act and 
 
 as listed in tin- preceding pages, only six items, name! . . ,/',>. (/), and (/), and 
 
 2 (e) are no-.v being p< rformed l>y the three departments, .'sine items, namely. 2 (a), 
 (6), and (n; <> (a), (o), and (c); ami 7 (a) and (c) involve duiies similar in kind, but 
 additional in amount, to duties now being performed lv the three departments. 
 The remaining :'.() items are entirely now d Hies not hitherto performed by any of 
 the executive departments. 
 
 MEMORANDUM OF ORGANIZATION APPROVE!) BY COMMISSION AT ITS MEETING OF ,'TJLY 
 
 28, 1920. 
 
 Before the Federal Power Commission can undertake the duties placed upon it , 
 the Federal water power act it will be necessary for it to establish a staff organization 
 through which it can not only direct the work performed by its own employees, or 
 those assigned to it by the three departments, but also correlate the work performed 
 for it under the provisions of the act by the departments themselves. Effective 
 administration of the act requires a form of organization which will fix definitely 
 both authority and responsibility. 
 
 The work of the commission may be divided into the following activities: Engi- 
 neering, accounting, statistical, regulatory, licensing, legal, operation. 
 
 These several divisions are considered in detail below. 
 
 Engineering. This is the most important division of the work of the commission, 
 involving the following duties either authorized or required by the act: 
 
 General investigation of ele.ctric-power industry. 
 
 General investigation of water-power sites, and estimates of cost of development. 
 
 Estimates of amount and value of power available at Government dams. 
 
 Examinations, cost estimates, and reports to Congress on projects recommended for 
 construction -by the United States. 
 
 Examinations, cost estimates, and reports to Congress on projects for which it is 
 recommended that the cost of navigation facilities be supplied in whole at in part 
 by the United States. 
 
 Preparation of comprehensive plans for development for all purposes of streams 
 and stream systems upon which applications for licenses are made. 
 
 Passing upon construction plans proposed by licensees. 
 
 Physical valuation of properties in rate making proceedings and when existing 
 plants are brought under the provisions of the bill. 
 
 : 
 
 r 
 
 
PKOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 97 
 
 Determination of necessary repairs required for maintaining projects in effective 
 operating condition. 
 
 Determination of adequate depreciation reserves upon properties. 
 
 Determination of operating rules necessary for protection of life, health, and prop- 
 erty. 
 
 The act provides for the detail of an officej from the United States Engineer Corps 
 to serve the commission as engineer officer. The organization of this division of the 
 work should be undertaken at an early date, since action will be necessary on the 
 many applications which have already been filed. 
 
 Accounting and statistical. For the present at least these two divisions should be 
 combined. The most important item of work will be the formulation of a system of 
 accounting. This will involve a critical review of the accounting systems of the sev- 
 eral States and the adaptation of the commission's system as far as practicable to those 
 of the States. The head of this division must be a man who has had a thorough train- 
 ing in the theory and practice of public utility accounting. It is work that calls for 
 technical qualifications of a high order. It is not probable that the three departments 
 have anyone with the training or experience which would qualify him to perform 
 this work It will be necessary, therefore, either to secure the temporary detail of 
 some qualified person from the Interstate Commerce Commission under the provisions 
 of section 4 (6) of the act, or to employ someone from outside the Government service. 
 The accounting system and its operation is a fundamental feature of the act and will 
 be involved in the issuance of every license, the operation of every project, and in the 
 action taken toward regulation of rates and securities. This division should, therefore , 
 be organized at the earliest practicable date. 
 
 P' The general statistical work will be a matter of development. Information con- 
 cerning water-power resources, utilization and distribution are very meager and 
 unreliable. ^ The commission should endeavor to develop this branch of its activities 
 in cooperation with the industry, with the State public utility commissions, and 
 with other Government agencies. 
 
 Regulatory. This division covers mainly rate, service, and securities regulation. 
 Since none of these matters are likelv to be brought up immediately, the organization 
 of this division may be omitted for the present. 
 
 Licensing and legal. This division will be concerned with all legal matters affecting 
 the work of the commission, and should have charge of the preparation of all permits 
 and licenses and of their extension, transfer, termination, and revocation. Many 
 important legal questions will arise when the commission starts operations. Among 
 these will be: Interpretation of the act; of the relations between the authority of the 
 commission and that of the several States, and of the bearing of State laws, such as 
 
 J.T "__ _ _ * 1 j < 1 1 j / / IT- 
 
 in the conduct of judicial proceedings in connection with revocations, and particu- 
 larly in connection with valuation of properties; and decisions on international ques- 
 tions such as those involved in the settlement of the Niagara situation and in the 
 issuance of licenses for developments on the St. Lawrence and other boundary streams. 
 For these purposes knowledge of an experience in public land law, the law of waters, 
 public utility statutes, and Government practice and procedure, is highly desirable. 
 
 A correct handling of the various legal problems as they first arise will be of great 
 importance in establishing the work of the commission on a sound basis. The com- 
 mission therefore should either have its own chief counsel or secure the assignment of 
 an Assistant Attorney General in that capacity. 
 
 Operation. This division covers the details of office operations such as care of 
 quarters; procurement of equipment, letterheads, seal, and general supplies; estab- 
 lishment and maintenance of files, records, and library; preparation of annual re- 
 ports; handling of details of advertisement of applications, and of appointment, 
 transfer, etc., of personnel; and general control over the messenger, clerical, and 
 stenographic force. 
 
 The act requires that before granting any application, public notice shall be given 
 in writing to any State or municipality likely to be interested, and also that notice 
 shall be published "for eight weeks in a daily or weekly newspaper published in the 
 county or counties" in which the project i$ situated. It is important, therefore, that 
 a procedure be arranged for giving and publishing such notices at an early date so that 
 the commission may be in a position to give prompt consideration to the applications 
 already before it as well as to those which may be filed hereafter. This division should 
 accordingly be organized immediately with a chief clerk in charge. 
 
 On account of the fact that the commission will perform a part of its functions 
 through the personnel of the three departments, it is important that the chief clerk 
 
 2941421 7 
 
98 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 be thoroughly familiar with departmental procedure and practice and have had 
 several years' experience in work of the character which he would perform for the 
 commission. 
 
 Field offices. Certain of the activities of the com Emission can be handled through 
 the field forces of the three departments. It would be desirable that certain offices be 
 designated to receive applications, give the public notice, make the advertisements 
 required by the act, and handle the notifications to the General Land Office. Certain 
 of the field officers should also be designated as field representatives of the commission 
 in securing information and in making examinations and reports upon applications. 
 
 Recommendations. It is recommended that the initial organization of the com- 
 mission be in four divisions, under the general direction of the executive secretary, 
 viz, engineering, accounting, legal, and operation, under the immediate charge, 
 respectively, of a chief engineer, chief accountant, chief counsel, and chief clerk, 
 with a distribution of duties as indicated on the attached chart; that immediate steps 
 be taken to secure the assignment of a chief clerk and a chief counsel ; that the attached 
 orders defining the duties of the executive secretary and engineer officer be approved; 
 and that the plan of utilizing field offices of the Corps of Engineers, the Geological 
 Survey, and the Forest Service to represent the commission in certain matters, be 
 approved in principle, leaving the details of the application of the plan to be worked 
 out later. 
 
 Orders, No. 1: 
 
 By authority of section 2 of the Federal water power act approved June 10, 1920 
 (public 280), it is ordered that the executive secretary of the Federal Power Commis- 
 sion shall be authorized to draw upon the Secretary of the Treasury all warrants for 
 expenditures out of appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for the use of said 
 Commission. 
 
 Done at Washington, D. C., this 31st day of July, 1920. 
 
 NEWTON D. BAKER, Chairman. 
 
 Attest: 
 
 O. C. MERRILL, Executive Secretary. 
 
 DUTIES OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 
 
 By authority of section 2 of the Federal water power act, approved June 10, 1920 
 (Public, 280), it is ordered that the duties of the executive secretary of the Federal 
 Power Commission, to be performed under the general direction of the commission, 
 shall be as follows: 
 
 1 . To administer the act as executive officer of the commission and to see that the 
 rules and regulations of the commission are carreid out. 
 
 2. To supervise under the act and regulations all personnel that may be employed 
 by or detailed or assigned to the commission, and to prescribe their duties within the 
 limits of the act and regulations. 
 
 3. To have general administrative charge of the conduct, preparation, and publi- 
 cation of all investigations, valuations, hearings, and reports authorized or required 
 by the act, unless otherwise provided by the commission. 
 
 4. To approve vouchers for expenditures incurred on account of salaries or expenses 
 payable under the provisions of the act. 
 
 5. To administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidences. 
 G. To formulate, authenticate, and record the findings of the commission provided 
 
 for in section 4 (d), 7, 21, and 23 of the act, or other sections of the act, unless otherwise 
 provided by the commission. 
 
 7. To attest all orders, decisions, or regulations of the commission, and to certify 
 under seal copies of such orders, decisions, or regulations, or of any finding, report, 
 map, plan, or other record of the commission, whenever required for any lawful purpose. 
 
 8. To execute and issue permits and licenses under the seal of the commission. 
 
 9. To approve under the seal of the commission voluntary transfers of licenses, or of 
 the rights thereunder granted. 
 
 10. To cancel or terminate permits or licenses under the conditions prescribed in 
 section 5 and in section 13 of the act, respectively. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington, District of Columbia, this 23d day of August, 1920. 
 
 NEWTON D. BAKER, Chairman. 
 Attest: 
 
 O. C. MERRILL, Executive Secretary. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 99 
 
 DUTIES OF ENGINEER OFFICER. 
 
 By authority of section 2 of the Federal water power act, approved June 10, 1920 
 (Public, 280), it is ordered that Jhe duties of the engineer officer of the Federal Power 
 Commission, to be performed under the general direction of the executive secretary, 
 shall be to act as chief engineer of the commission and to have general charge of its 
 engineering activities. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington, District of Columbia, this 23d day of August, 1920. 
 
 NEWTON D. BAKER, Chairman. 
 Attest: 
 
 O. C. MERRILL, Executive Secretary. 
 
 By authority of section 2 of the Federal water power act, approved June 10, 1920 
 (Public, 280, 66th Cong.), and pursuant to the action of the Federal Power Commission 
 at its meeting of September 3, 1920, it is hereby ordered that the duties of the execu- 
 tive secretary of the commission shall include, in addition to those prescribed in 
 Orders No. 2, dated August 23, 1920, the following, namely: To authorize all advertis- 
 ing in newspapers required by section 4 (d) and section 4 (e) of the act, and such other 
 advertising as may be required in the administration of the act. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington, District of Columbia, this 3d day of September, 1920. 
 
 NEWTON D. BAKER, Chairman. 
 
 Attest: 
 
 O. C. MERRILL, Executive Secretary, 
 
 Estimates of appropriations required for the service of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1922. 
 
 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 
 
 Salaries: 
 
 Executive secretary .(act June 10, 1920, vol. 41, p. 1063, sees. 1-30; sub- 
 mitted) $5, 000 
 
 Chief valuation engineer, $7,500; civil engineers one $6,000, one $3,300, 
 one $2,400, two at $2,100 each; two hydraulic engineers, at $3,300 each; 
 electrical engineer, $2,400; mechanical engineer, $2,400; draftsmen 
 one $2,000, two at $1,500 each; chief accountant, $7,500; accountants 
 two at $3,300 each; assistant attorneys two at $3,600 each; chief clerk, 
 $3,500; librarian, $2,700; clerks one $2,000, three of class four (sub- 
 mitted) 74, 700 
 
 General expenses: 
 
 For every expenditure requisite for and incident to the authorized work 
 of the Federal Power Commission, including personal services in the 
 District of Columbia and the field, and including not to exceed $2,000 
 for necessary books, reports, periodicals, and directories (submitted). . 297, 365 
 
 Employees. 
 
 Rate per 
 annum. 
 
 Estimated. 
 1922. 
 
 Valuation engineer 
 
 $4,500 
 
 Number. 
 1 
 
 Mechanical engineer 
 
 3 300 
 
 1 
 
 Do 
 
 2 400 
 
 1 
 
 Electrical engineer 
 
 3 3CO 
 
 1 
 
 
 2*400 
 
 1 
 
 Civil engineers 
 
 3 300 
 
 5 
 
 Do... 
 
 2' 400 
 
 6 
 
 Do 
 
 2 100 
 
 6 
 
 Civil engineers, junior 
 
 1.800 
 
 17 
 
 Hydraulic engineers 
 
 2 400 
 
 2 
 
 Engineering aids 
 
 1 500 
 
 12 
 
 D raftsmen 
 
 1 500 
 
 g 
 
 Accountant 
 
 4 500 
 
 1 
 
 Do 
 
 3 300 
 
 
 \ccountants 
 
 2 400 
 
 2 
 
 Do .. 
 
 l'800 
 
 3 
 
 Assistant attorney 
 
 4 500 
 
 1 
 
 Assistant attorneys. . . 
 
 2.400 
 
 4 
 
100 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Employees. 
 
 Rate per 
 annum. 
 
 Estimated, 
 1922. 
 
 
 
 Clerks 
 
 $1 800 
 
 Number. 
 4 
 
 Do... 
 
 1,600 
 
 9 
 
 Do 
 
 1 400 
 
 23 
 
 Messengers . . . 
 
 8-10 
 
 2 
 
 Do 
 
 720 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 One-fourth deducted because of estimated average nine 
 months' service during fiscal rear 
 
 213,820 
 53,455 
 
 113 
 
 
 
 
 Salaries 
 
 
 $160 36-' 
 
 OTHER OBJECTS OF EXPENDITURE. 
 
 Expense of making field investigations, including travel and 
 subsistence, and the outfitting and maintenance of field par- 
 ties 
 
 
 116,000 
 
 Books, periodicals, reports, and directories 
 
 
 2 000 
 
 : isine, pursuant to the requirements of section 4 (e) of 
 the Federal water power act 
 
 
 10 000 
 
 Furniture and o'liiipinont 
 
 
 5 000 
 
 Stationery 
 
 
 1,200 
 
 Telephone and teleraph 
 
 
 1 100 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 
 1 700 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 297 365 
 
 
 
 
 Investigations by other departments: 
 
 I* For reimbursing other executive departments and agencies of the Gov- 
 ff eminent for expenses of investigations requested by the commission 
 
 (act June 10, 1920, vol. 41, pp. 1063, 1065, sees. 2, 4-b; submitted). . . . $100, 000 
 Printing and binding: 
 
 For printing and binding for the Federal Power Commission (submitted) . 5, 000 
 
 Total 482, 065 
 
 Amount appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921 100, 000 
 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 101 
 
 11 
 
 C8 03 
 
 I|ggl|P*st 
 
 llllll'i'slla^ 
 
 liSllislsilg.* 
 
 |Sf&E( Q ^ 
 
 I5S as 
 
 rt4J 
 - So 
 
 3 3 .3 O Cfl Pi 03 
 
 I* 
 
 K 
 
 1*8 
 
 
 1 : 
 I i 
 
 000 
 
 1 
 
 Is 
 
 pqi-n 
 
 ^b 
 
 p 
 
 3 2 
 
 ir 
 
 
 
 S F 
 Cali 
 
 a . 
 
 s^ 
 
 si 
 
 si 
 
 02^ 
 
 o 
 O <y 
 
 S2 
 
 O 
 
 ijajs 
 
 F.li 
 
 ^e3MCQ = 
 
 C. 
 
 ew ' 
 
 d Si 
 
 o?^^ llflS | 
 
 iipi^ "iii s ^ i 
 
 |pw|g" III! i s g 
 
 ^il^al o .|s >,s ^ 
 
 ^^^25 S|| lg| 03 
 3^^ 03 MO S'^m O<-Jc3 o> 
 
 O OPnO ^tfWQ 
 
 ll II 
 
 op, eco 
 
 Qd 
 
 -^ 8 & o | 
 
 5 - fl ^fi SS 
 
 !? i 2 
 
 S -s 
 
 00 
 
 
 SS 
 
 (M CO 
 
 t>- 00 O5 O i-( 
 
102 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 3 -g 
 
 33^ 
 
 Ed s 
 
 '3 . o 
 
 115 1 
 
 sf 5f 
 
 I !fi 
 
 I ~-2 
 
 i ^ 
 |X'|2 
 
 i*. 6 - 
 
 -g^fl' 
 33** 
 
 12 
 
 ^ 
 
 s s 
 
 Z PS ^ !y;c/D ^ 
 
 ' 
 
 2 w^ -^ w 
 
 s-sS-s^ S^| f^l *? fe a 
 
 !i-M? .ILi^ 1! |2 
 
 .^-: 2 .fli^l 1| ^" 
 
 ' 
 QQ ^8 tf 
 
 "S 'o"_- i ^ -^ 3 3 .2 >- 
 
 1^1 ' ' fe^B - 1 
 
 w<2 w S jS^f2 Q 
 
 o o w 
 
 O"l 
 
 a - 
 
 :-=-- 
 
 
 
 3 tlti 
 
 i -Iff! 
 
 .3 .-a 
 
 ii^. 
 
 ! Ill 
 rl 1 ! 8 ' 
 
 mar, M 
 ew York 
 
 r r! 
 .S O* 
 
 La 
 
 Loc 
 
 165 
 
 9 
 
 l| 
 
 ii 
 
 3 C 
 
 >^ : 
 'a 
 
 xO 
 
 * CO 3 
 
 ! c ^ 
 
 ill 
 1 1. 
 
 ^ ~ CO S 
 
 wSS 
 
 pan; 
 
 05 
 
 ^Ms 
 
 < Q 
 
 
 p PH 
 
 C^ 50 
 
 1 S 
 
 2 
 
 ^ a 
 
 i! 
 
 ^ -S 
 
 W EH 
 
 1 1 
 
 -a 
 
 >, 
 
 .3 -s 
 
 * 
 
 2 g 5 .;3S' , 
 
 a o ^ :| ! 
 I stlo ;|1.s! 
 
 i 
 
 i! 
 
 3 3^ o5>-; ^ 
 
 3 S 
 
 ^ a 
 
 ' ^^^ 2 S S S S 
 
 1 S 33 3 3 if I' 
 
 S S 3 ?? 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL, WATER-POWER ACT. 103 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 & 
 
 ^ o 
 
 ~ ft 
 
 i I 
 
 oil 
 
 5* o 
 d 
 
 ft S 
 
 8 I 
 
 ! : ; 
 
 o g < 
 
 a> 3 : 
 
 -S o ^~ 
 o3 a- 
 
 SI? 
 
 O 03 
 
 ^ S fc 
 
 &il 
 
 00000 
 
 Q ft p Q 
 
 ^!i!l|P 
 
 S* 8W IFr 
 
 I : 
 
 s 
 
 S ! 
 
 S cJ SJ e5 S ro 
 
 3 33333 
 
 rH CC 
 CO 
 
 >% bib 
 
 S 3 
 
 o -I 
 
 O O 
 
 <! CO 
 
104 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 105 
 
 .2 a 
 
 ! S 
 
 o 3 
 
 1 1 
 
 o 5 
 
 1 5 
 
 AH 
 
 -nSwJti 
 
 its 
 
 
 -C3^- 
 
 
 3 s - & a 9 
 
 
 
 2a 
 
 s 
 
 fif 
 
 tti 
 
 S; 
 
 II 
 
 3 
 
 ill 
 
 m 
 
 si lsl 
 
 a 
 
 s< 
 
 02 
 
 3^ o 
 ^ | 
 
 l f 
 
 s 
 
 =sl 
 
 c t* 
 .S 
 
 SB I! I 
 
 S I 
 
 II S I * 
 
 s S .- gS 
 
 o fl ? .? 
 
 H fi g ^ M 
 
 '<-' 2 O AH' 
 
 .ES-S, 
 
 ?" 4 
 
 US- 
 
 S 5 ?5 
 
 I I I 
 
 > > > +; 
 
 O O O o 
 
 ^ ^ o 
 
106 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 s|*.s 
 
 "JW 
 
 ^2- 
 
 * CJU w 3 .in . " 
 
 oj ft-e-fc 
 
 oH-c) cs 
 
 s .a 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 j? |h -2 
 a I g 
 
 ^io-jSS 
 sa> S | 
 
 8^ f 
 ^S^- ~ 
 
 H^I'SE' 
 
 El-^'sif 
 
 MI* 
 
 Mps*J 
 
 Scc = S ^ 
 
 w-1 
 
 S I 
 
 
 
 If 111 HI 
 
 KM 
 
 3.S S Sot^^WS'.S 
 
 I! 1S1 
 
 I il i 
 i * - 
 
 ' S 3 
 
 if > 
 i f a .1 
 
 i PI 
 
 i rii 
 
 3 Sllf 
 
 I 
 
 is | 
 
 c-" - 
 
 ii i 
 
 ga s 
 
 "3 5 
 
 13 I 
 
 !..& 
 
 l 
 
 4 
 
 (SfiS v. 
 
 jO^>, CM a 
 
 s i^s Is 3 
 
 p^'aa* ^=-" 
 
 5cwS g|^g 
 
 so ^ s-isg 
 
 P S5 ta 
 
 fl 
 
 IS 
 
 wg 
 Jl 
 
 tl= 
 
 ant 
 
 s 
 
 I? 
 II 
 
 C3 
 
 O! 
 
 Sa 
 ^ 
 
 o^ 
 
 |3 
 13 
 
 23 
 
 fee 
 
 a. 2 
 ^^ 
 
 c 
 
 s .. 
 
 P 3- 
 
 II 13 
 
 ^ H 
 
 525 | 
 g 
 
 SIS 
 3Si 
 
 |s^ 
 
 jS ^ 
 
 !z 525 
 
 !> > 
 
 II 
 
 fe 88 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 107 
 
 I 1 
 
 o do 
 
 ft ft 
 
 to 3 
 
 Not sta 
 
 1 
 
 ;_, 
 O 
 
 .2 
 3 
 fl 
 
 PM 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 <3 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 is 
 fi 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 Q 
 
 |ggts" 
 +3w3 
 
 
 Ilia 
 ^1 
 
 -o 
 
 l|-|s1^ -p 5 l^^?|& e'slSl || ^'^1^ ! Ha 
 
 wj Jij list ^.iiii 
 
 ill S I If EH 
 
 : * ^^l |o ^1 
 
 rZfc" 1 ^^5-3 . |3 -g^J 
 
 &^^ cnL^ ^^ Tj"S 
 
 M ^ fijg gO ( 
 
 ' "^ s *aii 
 
 jlf1 
 
 aofe^. 
 
 ^2 Bill* 
 
 3 CM .S?- 1 C-^^t-j 
 
 5 Q U5 
 
 
 21 
 
 i. 
 
 S s* 
 
 jj 
 
 li 
 
 a& . 
 
 5 1 
 
 s |s 
 
 8 &H 
 
 S S^' 
 
 Sfd S'S 
 
 ,* ^ s . 
 
 | 2 .-S 
 
 II l 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 I 1 II 
 
 o - 
 
 Is IS I 
 
108 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 
 a 
 >, 
 
 ii 
 
 302 
 
 PH 
 
 -33 
 
 a o 
 
 n 
 
 E 
 
 555. 
 
 !|^.| g*g*|M4 || d |V III 
 
 ES-ais.-flfc'g hSSQsjJ -a^TJfl^o^Sw) pi^ld a * 
 
 wl 
 
 Jflv- 
 3 O 
 &2^ 
 
 r 
 
 ^H I2l!*2ss 
 
 *Ste 
 
 I"-; 
 
 P 0*i 
 
 ^^M 
 
 *! wrt 
 
 ^^Kilj 
 
 3 8*^23 
 
 i* -IS* 
 
 3o>l^ip- 2 ^ g aJo3 3^ ^a-rtl^gSS^ 55 6J- 1* 5 
 
 iiifiJdiM ilili 
 
 ;-g<5t:S53>i5 -^S5sr-^ z :!5feS2*,fl ^ c ?3 
 
 11| 
 
 .13 a&f*^ 
 
 I| i -si n . g ii|v| riftim^ ft|" = 
 
 >. e'l^JIslaa'aSSlSs J^f si^SSas^ .lf 
 
 ft ft 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 109 
 
 >> 
 
 3 3 
 
 3 a ft 
 PH tf 
 
 F * ! g 0*3 t3 
 
 _M C3 E/v 3 ^ 
 
 IS llgl 
 
 
 
110 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 1 1 
 
 ^ S 
 
 1 5 
 
 o t^> 
 SI'S 
 
 < S ^ 
 
 DQ * O 
 
 1 1 
 
 3 > 
 
 A 
 
 Ssf^-SStSo 
 
 ''~ 3 ^g 
 
 S 01 ^ G-^SB -iftOW) 
 
 ^lfi |3ll 
 
 bESSS-H" - 5-^^'S 
 
 =3- sSf=-_- i-sSs 3 
 
 II! HEI ! 
 
 %|| il; 
 
 lo?rflfi%6a a si ^ 
 
 &*rw^*M* r !rJ2;lM = 
 ltf|JrfsflS|l|rf & 
 
 IKlteililllllllli 
 
 I 
 
 s ss 
 
 "g 3 
 
 3 C- 3 
 
 S fi 3 
 
 a||s *!s 
 
 | p|p|sl1l| 
 
 
 
 111 
 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER AOT. Ill 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ) 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 - *2 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 '3 
 
 >! I 1 
 
 S -2* * 
 
 3 
 O CJ 
 
 Q 1 
 
 
 | 
 
 1 ^ ^ 
 
 
 PH 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 PH 
 
 and transmission line, East Walker 
 River, Mono County, Calif. 
 Dam at outlet of Swan Lake, pipe line to 
 poAver house on beach at Carroll Inlet. 
 Dam at outlet of Mirror Lake and pipe 
 line to poAver house at head of Big Lake. 
 Dam at outlet of Big Lake and pipe 
 line to power house on Fish Creek above 
 lower lake. Transmission lines to pulp 
 mill at mouth of Fish Creek, on Thorne 
 Arm, 25 miles from Ketchikan, Alaska. 
 Power deA'elopment on the Deschutes 
 River, Oreg. (Metolius site). 
 Power development on the Deschutes 
 River, Oreg. (reclamation site). 
 Divert Deep Creek and Camas Creek to 
 a common power house on Deep Creek, 
 in sec. 14, T. 39 S., R. 22 E. Trans- 
 mission line 20 miles to LakeA-ieAV, Lake 
 County, Oreg. 
 
 3N DURING THE WEEK ENDING JA 
 
 Transmission line 24 miles long from 
 Blackfoot to Pocatello, Idaho. 
 Power development in Turkey Creek, at 
 Turkey Creek Hill, near Valpariso, Fla. 
 
 Dam and reservoir, 18-mile conduit, and 
 power house on North Fork of Feather 
 River, T. 20 and 21 N., R. 4 E., M. D. 
 M., near Onmlle, Butte County, Calif. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 02 
 
 : -* J ' 
 
 i 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 j S 
 
 o> 
 Pi 
 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 ft 
 
 c? 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 ' B> 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 w fl o 
 
 S ** 
 
 C 
 
 C 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 o3 ^ ^ 
 
 PH 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 PH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C -*~ 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 I! 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 PH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tJo'2 " 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 SQ^ .1 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 tt 
 
 If 1 
 
 02 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 J^grt | 
 
 8 1 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 .J^^ *T 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 ^ 
 
 , c 
 
 :- I i 
 
 > > c_ 
 
 I 
 
 } >. 
 
 i 
 
 | 
 I 
 
 W 
 
 
 <u'3 05*3 Pi 
 
 2 
 
 3 S 
 
 Is 
 
 tZj 
 
 02 
 
 5 5 i 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 | 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 -J 
 
 
 
 
 T 
 C 
 o 
 
 1 
 i 
 
 2 
 PH 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 | 
 
 e 
 
 
 PH 
 
 ^-> fe ^ 
 
 | 
 
 : 
 
 C 
 
 
 Iti 
 
 < 
 
 s I I 
 
 3 5 
 
 ) 
 
 3 
 j 
 
 1! 
 
 O 
 
 1! I 
 
 5 m 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 EH 
 
 'O 
 O 'T? "*5 
 
 * i M ' ' 
 
 <1 2 
 
 KH 
 
 i 2 
 
 j fi W 
 
 O 
 02 
 
 ^ 
 
 2 fi o 
 
 ^ ?5 S S S 
 
 
 T5 CO 00 
 
 ! I 1 1 1 
 
 
 il 1 |l 
 
 . 
 
 H oi c> 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^ 1C <C 
 
 o .. 3 S S S 
 
 
 ^ H i-l 
 
112 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 List of applications before the Federal Power Commission Continued. 
 
 Number of application. 
 
 Name of applicant. 
 
 Application. 
 
 Location. 
 
 Capacity (horsepower). 
 
 Conflict. 
 
 | Valuation required. 
 
 State. 
 
 j 
 
 "c 
 
 Preliminary permit. 
 
 j 
 
 Declaration of intent. 
 
 Public lands. 
 
 1 
 
 j 
 
 "S 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 \ 
 
 6 
 
 f 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 \ 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 
 13 
 14 
 
 15 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 27 
 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 37 
 
 38 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 100,000 
 5,000 
 300,000 
 
 10,000 
 272, 000 
 
 75,000 
 
 60,000 
 900,000 
 
 92,000 
 106, 000 
 95,000 
 217,550 
 
 8,250 
 . 10,000 
 
 5,000 
 400, 000 
 4,000 
 
 25,000 
 66,000 
 21,500 
 
 2,000 
 228,600 
 600,000 
 
 1 250,000 
 
 
 
 Arkansas. 
 Idaho. 
 Washington. 
 
 Alaska. 
 Montana. 
 
 New York. 
 
 Virginia. 
 
 New York. 
 
 California. 
 Washington. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Montana. 
 
 New York. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Missouri. 
 
 Idaho. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Missouri. 
 /New York and 
 \Pennsvlvania. 
 New York. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Oklahoma. 
 
 Minnesota. 
 Do. 
 
 Arizona an 
 California. 
 
 New Jersey. 
 
 California. 
 Arizona. 
 Montana. 
 
 Washington. 
 
 Do. 
 
 New York. 
 Oregon. 
 
 G. W. Spoerry 
 Washington "irriga- 
 tion & Develop- 
 ment Co. 
 Speel River project.. 
 Rocky Mountain 
 Power Co. 
 Niagara County Irri- 
 gation A: water 
 Supply Co. 
 Roanoke Ri . 
 velopment < 
 St. Lawrence Trans- 
 mi ion Co. 
 Pitt River Power Co. 
 Sound Power Co 
 Strait 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 ... 
 
 Y 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .:: 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 '.'.'. 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 / H 
 \ 15 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 } 5,000 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 150,000 
 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 85 
 
 5,000 
 
 
 Hiu I lorn Canyon Ir- 
 rigation (V Power 
 Co. 
 Ford Motor Co 
 Western New York 
 DililiesCo. (Inc.). 
 Hydraulic Race Co 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ... 
 
 
 --- 
 
 
 .X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 / 14," 
 
 \ 15 
 86 
 
 } 10,000 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 The Xiatrara Kails 
 Power Co. 
 Western Tie X Tim- 
 ber Co. 
 Idaho Power Co 
 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 V 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rtah Power & Light 
 W R Banks 
 
 X 
 V 
 
 
 X 
 V 
 
 ... 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Paul T Bradv 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 79 
 \ 31 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 } 20,000 
 
 
 Louisville Power 
 Corporation. 
 Lower Niagara River 
 Power & Water 
 Supply Co. 
 (Niagara^ Lockport,] 
 < & Ontario River} 
 I Power Co. 
 City of Buffalo 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 75,000 
 
 X 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 Courtland P. Che- 
 nault. 
 Markham, Kelsey & 
 Druar. 
 St. Cloud Electric 
 Power Co. 
 Beckman & Linden 
 Engineering Cor- 
 poration. 
 Canada Syndicate! 
 (Ltd.)etal. / 
 R. W. Hawley 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x" 
 
 3,000 
 11,000 
 6,000 
 126,000 
 
 432,300 
 
 107,000 
 9,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ... 
 
 x 
 
 -- 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 / 79 
 J22 
 
 } 228,600 
 
 ... 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 V 
 
 X 
 
 .. 
 
 C. A. Heberlein 
 Montana Water 
 Power & Electric 
 Co. 
 Northwestern Power 
 & Manufacturing 
 Co. 
 Poison, Reed & Abel 
 
 Thomson & Porter 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 -- 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 11 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 900,000 
 7,200 
 
 / 45 
 \89 
 
 ) 500,000 
 
 X 
 
 Crown Williamette 
 Paper Co. 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 If treaty is modified to permit the diversion of 20,000 cubic feet per second additional, these figures 
 will be increased by 100,000 horsepower. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL, WATER-POWER ACT. 113 
 
 List of applications before the Federal Power Commission Continued, 
 
 
 
 Name of applicant. 
 
 Application. 
 
 Location. 
 
 1 
 
 Conflict. 
 
 Valuation required. 
 
 State. 
 
 Formal. 
 
 a 
 
 j? 
 
 
 
 License. 
 
 Declaration of intent. 
 
 Public lands. 
 
 National forest. 
 
 | Indian reservation. 
 
 1 
 p 
 
 | 
 
 03 
 
 With Case No. 
 
 Capacity (horsepower). 
 
 39 
 
 40 
 
 41 
 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 
 46 
 47 
 
 48 
 49 
 
 50 
 
 51 
 
 52 
 53 
 
 54 
 
 55 
 
 56 
 57 
 
 58 
 59 
 
 60 
 
 61 
 62 
 63 
 
 64 
 
 65 
 
 66 
 
 67 
 68 
 
 69 
 70 
 71 
 
 72 
 73 
 
 74 
 75 
 76 
 77 
 
 Millard F Bowen 
 
 x 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 800, 000 
 20,000 
 
 30,000 
 4,000 
 8,000 
 350, 000 
 300, 000 
 
 20,000 
 
 16 
 
 400, 000 
 
 
 New York. 
 Connecticut 
 and Massa- 
 chusetts. 
 Alabama. 
 Florida. 
 Virginia. 
 Washington. 
 New York. 
 
 P e n n s y 1- 
 vania. 
 Idaho. 
 
 Illinois. 
 West Vir- 
 ginia. 
 
 Alaska. 
 Minnesota. 
 
 Alabama. 
 Oklahoma. 
 
 Washington. 
 
 Florida and 
 Alabama. 
 Washington. 
 Oregon. 
 
 California. 
 Arizona and 
 Nevada. 
 
 Alaska. 
 
 Do. 
 California. 
 
 Alaska. 
 
 California. 
 
 Montana. 
 Washington. 
 
 California. 
 Washington. 
 
 North Carolina. 
 Montana. 
 California. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 A. P. Connor 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 Alabama Power Co. 
 The Cove Co 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Big Bend Power Co. 
 Hugh L Cooper 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 
 Niagara Gorge Pow- 
 er Co. 
 W A Dromgold 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 250, 000 
 
 ... 
 
 v 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Moore's Creek 
 Boulder Gold & 
 Dredging Co. 
 State of Illinois 
 
 X 
 V 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 40,000 
 30,000 
 
 19,000 
 
 
 
 
 Tri-State Power & 
 Milling Co., and 
 Tri-State Power 
 Co. 
 Tongass Alaska 
 Pulp & Paper Co. 
 Village of Grand 
 Rapids, Minn. 
 City of Dothan, Ala. 
 E. T. Larimore, L. 
 E. Mills, and C. E. 
 Bailey. 
 Washington Devel- 
 opment Corpora- 
 tion. 
 Reed Bingham 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1,500 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 4,600 
 
 100, 000 
 378, 000 
 
 386 
 420 000 
 
 
 
 
 William F. Scheffel.. 
 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 Columbia Valley 
 Power Co. 
 Luther Hill 
 
 X 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Edw. L. Beyard 
 
 x 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 L. J. Vogter 
 
 x 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 32,000 
 
 16,000 
 31,200 
 300 
 
 15,000 
 
 [50 
 \ 93 
 J94 
 
 19, 000 
 *" 7,000 
 
 \~ 
 
 Wm. D. Grant etal.. 
 A. P. Seybold 
 
 x" 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 ... 
 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 Alaska Endicott 
 Mining & Milling 
 Co. 
 Sespe Light & Power 
 
 Wm.' Park Mills 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 600 
 10, 000 
 
 120 000 
 
 | 
 
 
 Spirit Lake Ry. & 
 Power Co. 
 South California 
 Edison Co. 
 Wenatchee Commer- 
 cial Club. 
 United Mills Co 
 Rock Creek Power Co. 
 H. H. Wadsworth... 
 So. Sierras Power Co. 
 J. G. VanZandt 
 Electric Metals Co... 
 R. G. McDonald... 
 
 x 
 x 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 x 
 x 
 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 x" 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 x" 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 "x 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 V 
 
 ".."." 
 
 X 
 
 100, 000 
 
 1,400 
 428 
 30,000 
 6,800 
 37, 000 
 143, 000 
 4,000 
 737 
 15,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 4,000 
 
 - 
 
 72 
 
 
 
 J. Harvey Pierce 
 
 
 X X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Snow Mount Water 
 & Power Co. 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 2 Transmission line. 
 
 2941421- 
 
114 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 List of applications before the Federal Power Commission Continued. 
 
 Number of application 
 
 Name of applicant. 
 
 Application. 
 
 Location. 
 
 Capacity (horsepower). 
 
 Conflict. 
 
 Valuation required. 
 
 State. 
 
 fe 
 
 Informal. 
 
 Preliminary permit. 
 
 License. 
 
 Declaration of intent. 
 
 Public lands. 
 
 National forest. 
 
 Indian reservation. 
 
 Navigable waters. 
 
 With Case No. 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 78 
 79 
 80 
 81 
 
 82 
 83 
 
 84 
 
 85 
 
 86 
 87 
 
 88 
 89 
 
 90 
 91 
 92 
 
 93 
 94 
 
 95 
 96 
 
 97 
 
 98 
 99 
 
 100 
 101 
 
 102 
 
 103 
 
 104 
 105 
 
 106 
 107 
 
 108 
 
 109 
 110 
 
 111 
 
 112 
 113 
 
 114 
 
 Western States Gas 
 & Electric Co. 
 W. C. Albertson and 
 S. L. Mershon. 
 Amazon Dixie Min- 
 ing Co. 
 Granite Falls Manu- 
 facturing Co. 
 Alabama Power Co 
 
 X 
 
 \ 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 72,000 
 
 20,000 
 f 2 ) 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 California. 
 
 New Jersey. 
 Montana. 
 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Alabama. 
 South Dakota. 
 
 Montana. 
 California. 
 
 Missouri. 
 California. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Arkansas. 
 
 Arizona. 
 Do. 
 
 Mississippi. 
 
 Alaska. 
 
 Do. 
 
 California. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Montana. 
 
 North Caro- 
 lina. 
 
 California. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Wyoming. 
 California . 
 
 Idaho. 
 Montana. 
 
 Wisconsin. 
 
 Montana. 
 California. 
 
 /Utah and Ari- 
 \ zona. 
 Washington. 
 Utah. 
 
 Alaska. 
 
 
 X 
 
 { " 
 
 } 
 
 \ 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 X 
 
 2,000 
 120,000 
 
 200 
 7 500 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P;i vine Granite 
 Quarry Co. 
 Town of Ronan, 
 Mont. 
 Southern California 
 Edson Co. 
 John Daniell 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 \ 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 V 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 30,000 
 
 40,000 
 25,000 
 
 27.900 
 
 17 
 
 4,000 
 
 Coast Valley Gas & 
 
 l.li'.-iric Co. 
 Merced irrigation dis- 
 trict. 
 Garland Hydro- 
 Klivtrir 1'owerCo. 
 Frank <; I -an in 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 \ 
 
 
 Y 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 V 
 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 V 
 
 Y 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 y 
 
 Y 
 
 Y 
 
 
 6.300 
 1,800 
 
 7,000 
 7,000 
 
 30, 000 
 45,000 
 
 19,000 
 
 400,000 
 2,500 
 
 6.50 
 2, .500 
 
 150,000 
 
 3,000 
 
 10 
 800,000 
 
 1.840 
 75,000 
 15 000 
 
 
 
 W II Shrader 
 
 
 Y 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 K. L. Weeks 
 Alaskan - American 
 Paper Corporation. 
 
 Utica Mining Co 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 \ 
 
 
 X 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ... 
 
 /60 
 \94 
 f 60 
 \ 93 
 
 } 7,000 
 \ 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 San Joaquin 
 & Power Corpora- 
 tion. 
 Nevada - California 
 Power Co. 
 Los Angeles, Citv of 
 Western States Gas 
 A KlectricCo. 
 Flathead Valley 
 Electric Co. 
 Catawba Vallcv 
 Light <t Po\M'i 
 
 Co. 
 
 San Joaquin Light 
 & Power Corpora- 
 tion. 
 Pattee, Bernhard & 
 Ross. 
 Home Colony 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 si 
 
 2. 500 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 ... 
 
 Southern California 
 Edison Co. 
 Mrs. Nellie P. Bean. 
 Butte-Jardine Met- 
 als Mines Co. 
 Wisconsin-Minne- 
 sota Light & Pow- 
 er Co. 
 Joseph B. Leighton. 
 Southern California 
 Edison Co. 
 
 do 
 
 Citv of Everett 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 V 3 ; 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 425.000 
 
 3,570,000 
 10, 000 
 
 105 
 
 f 59 
 \121 
 
 425,000 
 } 420,000 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 
 Great Basin Power 
 Co. 
 Mount McKinley 
 Gold Placers. 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 Y 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 25,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 Transmission line. 
 
 Perhaps. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 115 
 
 List of applications before the Federal Power Commission Continued. 
 
 Number of application. 
 
 Name of applicant. 
 
 Application. 
 
 Location. 
 
 9 
 
 & 
 
 1 
 g, 
 
 i& 
 
 * 
 O 
 
 Conflict. 
 
 T3 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 1 
 
 State. 
 
 Formal. 
 
 Informal. 
 
 Preliminary permit. 
 
 License. 
 
 Declaration of intent. 
 
 Public lands. 
 
 1 National forest. 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 "S 
 g 
 
 d 
 
 5 
 -3 
 
 o 
 i 
 
 Navigable waters. 
 
 With Case No. 
 
 ? 
 
 1 
 
 >-> 
 
 1 
 
 115 
 
 116 
 
 117 
 118 
 119 
 120 
 
 121 
 122 
 123 
 124 
 
 125 
 126 
 127 
 128 
 129 
 130 
 131 
 
 132 
 133 
 
 131 
 135 
 
 136 
 137 
 138 
 139 
 
 140 
 
 141 
 142 
 143 
 
 144 
 145 
 146 
 
 Stineman & Quick 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 50, 000 
 
 9, 430 
 
 C 2 ) 
 10,000 
 10, 000 
 
 
 
 
 District of Co- 
 lumbia, Mary- 
 land, and Vir- 
 ginia. 
 California. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Washington. 
 Alaska. 
 California. 
 
 Arizona. 
 California. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Idaho, 
 California. 
 Do. 
 Alaska. 
 Colorado. 
 
 Nevada. 
 
 Alaska. 
 
 Do. 
 
 California. 
 
 Oregon. 
 Alaska. 
 California. 
 Alaska. 
 California. 
 
 Alaska 
 
 Oregon. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Idaho. 
 Florida. 
 California. 
 
 Southern Sierras 
 Power Co. 
 do 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 123 
 
 9, 430 
 
 
 Lloyd E Gandy.. 
 
 
 V 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 M ) 
 
 CD 
 
 X 
 
 (*; 
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 
 
 
 Frank L. Ballaine... 
 Southern California 
 Edison Co. 
 James B. Girand. . . . 
 City of Los Angeles. 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 150, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 x" 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 ... 
 
 60,000 
 60, 000 
 25, 000 
 60, 000 
 
 111 
 
 iie 
 
 60,000 
 
 
 . . do 
 
 X 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 A T 
 
 x 
 
 Southern Sierras 
 Power Co. 
 do 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 30, 000 
 400 
 16, 800 
 27 500 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 Love & von Brecht. . 
 Good win M. Trent.. 
 City of Los Angeles. . 
 William R. Rust 
 
 X 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 250 
 
 f 700 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 19,000 
 
 500 
 () 
 
 22, 000 
 3, 000 
 
 
 
 
 Grace S. Eyre . 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Consolidated Span- 
 ish Belt Silver 
 Mining Co 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 W. E. Epperson 
 
 x 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kantishna Hydraulic 
 Mining Co.. 
 
 x" 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 t 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 114 
 
 500 
 
 
 City of Los Angeles. . 
 Portland Railway. 
 Light & Power Co. 
 Maurice D. Leebey. . 
 Crocker & Preston... 
 George C. Hazelet . 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x 
 
 ... 
 
 X 
 
 38, 400 
 12. 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C. E. Loose. 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 x 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 6,000 
 
 
 
 
 Paul Butler 
 
 H. S. McGowan... 
 do 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 29,000 
 
 387, 000 
 37,600 
 
 / 50 
 \60 
 
 57 
 
 ) 29,000 
 387, 000 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 Mushen & Cronsmil- 
 ler. 
 Idaho Power Co 
 Harold Winter 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 x" 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 ... 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 400 
 5,200 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Great Western 
 Power Co. 
 
 Total 
 Deduct conflict 
 
 X 
 
 94 
 
 
 
 
 52 
 
 112 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 81 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 47 
 
 15,553,930 
 3, 018, 030 
 
 
 3,018,030 
 
 14 
 
 Net total 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12,535,900 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ...|... 
 
 
 2 Transmission line. 
 
 Military reservation. 
 
 Net horsepower. 
 
 45 projects on navigable streams involving approximately 5, 815, 350 
 
 101 projects on public lands and reservations, involving approximately 6, 720, 550 
 
 14 projects requiring property valuation, involving approximately 738, 200 
 
 NOTE. Capacities of Niagara projects are listed in table as limited by diversion now authorized by 
 treaty. 
 
116 PKOPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL, WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Applications by States. 
 
 State. 
 
 Number 
 of appli- 
 cations. 
 
 Estimated 
 horsepower 
 to be de- 
 veloped. 
 
 State. 
 
 Number 
 of appli- 
 cations. 
 
 Estimated 
 horsepower 
 to be de- 
 veloped. 
 
 Alaska 
 
 15 
 
 93 050 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 3 
 
 432. 300 
 
 Alabama 
 
 3 
 
 150 000 
 
 New York 
 
 13 
 
 2 813 200 
 
 Arizona 
 
 7 
 
 3. 739. 200 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 3 
 
 3,400 
 
 -Arkansas 
 
 2 
 
 125.000 
 
 Oklahoma 
 
 2 
 
 4,500 
 
 California 
 
 39 
 
 2 544,700 
 
 Oregon 
 
 6 
 
 445, 800 
 
 Colorado 
 
 1 
 
 700 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 1 
 
 20,000 
 
 'Connecticut 
 
 1 
 
 20.000 
 
 South Dakota 
 
 1 
 
 C 1 ) 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 1 
 
 50 000 
 
 Utah 
 
 1 
 
 25,000 
 
 Florida 
 
 3 
 
 9 000 
 
 Virginia 
 
 2 
 
 68 000 
 
 Maho 
 
 s 
 
 119. 740 
 
 Washington 
 
 12 
 
 1, 171, 000 
 
 Illinois 
 
 l 
 
 40 000 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 1 
 
 30,000 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 3 
 
 17 000 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 1 
 
 75.000 
 ,o,uuu 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 1 
 
 1.500 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 1 
 
 
 Missouri 
 
 g 
 
 32 000 
 
 
 
 
 Montana 
 
 10 
 
 50.~> 800 
 
 Total 
 
 146 
 
 12, 535, 900 
 
 Nevada 
 
 1 
 
 (i) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' Transmission line only. 
 is of projects <;/lri rlixid. 
 
 Project 
 No. 
 
 Applicant. 
 
 Date advertised. 
 
 Date limiting re- 
 ceipt of objec- 
 tions. 
 
 3 
 
 :,s 
 9 
 
 48 
 
 1 
 
 :.7 
 
 67 
 
 55 
 82 
 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 37 
 45 
 
 8 
 70 
 17 
 62 
 74 
 73 
 05 
 20 
 
 69 
 
 81 
 101 
 
 77 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 32 
 99 
 87 
 113 
 66 
 96 
 
 ( 'row n-Willainette Paper Co (Oregon) * 
 
 
 Oct. 2, 1920 
 
 Dec. 7, 1920. 
 Dec. 24, 1920. 
 
 Dec. 13, 1920. 
 Feb. 10, 1921. 
 
 Feb. 16, 1921 (Nov. 
 15, 1920, orig.). 
 Doc. 18, 1920. 
 Feb. 10, 1921 (Jan. 
 7, 1921, orig.). 
 Jan. 20, 1921 (Dec. 
 29, 1920, orig.). 
 Jan. 10, 1921. 
 Jan. 20, 1921. 
 Jan. 12, 1921. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 None fixed. 
 
 Jan. 12, 1921. 
 Jan. 24, 1921. 
 Jan. 29, 1921. 
 Feb. 10, 1921. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Feb. 15, 1921. 
 Feb. 21, 1921. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Feb. 24, 1921. 
 Mar. 16, 1921 (Feb. 
 24, 1921, original). 
 Feb. 15, 1921. 
 Feb. 28, 1921. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Mar. 9, 1921. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 Washington Irrigation & Development Co. (Wash- 
 ington). 
 Luther Hill (California) 
 
 Oct. 16, 1920 
 
 Oct. 11, 1920 
 
 Pitt River Power Co. (California) 
 State of Illinois 
 
 Nov. 17, 1920 (Oct. 
 13, orig.). 
 Dec. 6, 1920 (Sept. 
 11, orig.). 
 Oct. 16, 1920 
 Nov. Hi, 1920 (Oct. 
 29, orig.). 
 Nov. 26. 1920 (Oct. 
 25, orig.). 
 Oct. 28 1920 
 
 I)i\ic Power Co. (Arkansas) 
 
 Columbia V alley Power Co (Oregon) 
 
 Southern California Edison Co. (California) . 
 
 A Reed Bingham ( Alabama and Florida) 
 
 Alabama Power Co. (Alabama) 
 
 Nov. 12, 1920 
 Nov. 13, 1920 
 do 
 
 Niagara County Irrigation &. Water Supply Co. 1 
 
 \V<'>U"'ii \'i" v York ( tililiesCo 
 
 ' i He Race Co 
 
 .do 
 
 i Falls Power Co 
 
 do 
 
 - iagara River Power & Water Supply Co 
 Niagara Lockport & Ontario Power Co 
 
 do 
 ....do 
 
 Citv of Buffalo 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 Niagara Gorge Power Co. (New York) 
 
 .do 
 
 Niagara Cni'mly irrigation & Water Supply Co., 
 merged with Niagara Power & Development Co. 
 St. Lawrence Transmission Co. (New York) 
 Rock Creek Power Co (Montana) 
 
 Dec. 21, 1920 
 
 Nov. 13, 1920 
 .do 
 
 Western Tie & Timber Co. (Missouri) 
 
 Nov. 16, 1920 
 Nov. 17, 1920 
 
 A. P. Seybold 
 
 Electro Metals Co (California") 
 
 do. ... 
 
 J. G. Van Zandt (California) 
 
 Nov. 19,1920 
 
 Wm Park Mills (Montana) 
 
 Nov. 20, 1920 
 
 Utah Light & Power Co. (Idaho) 
 
 Nov. 22, 1920 
 Nov. 24, 1920 
 Nov. 29, 1920 
 
 Merced irrigation district (California) 
 United Mills Co 
 
 Granite Falls Manufacturing Co 
 
 do 
 
 Catawba Valley Light & Power Co. (North Carolina). 
 Snow Mountain Water & Power Co. (California) 
 Roanoke River Development Co (Virginia) 
 
 do 
 
 Dec. 1, 1920 
 Dec. 10, 1920 (Dec. 
 4, original). 
 Dec. 4, 1920 
 Dec. 6, 1920 
 Dec. 8, 1920 
 
 Henry Ford & Son (Inc.) (New York) 
 R . W . llawley (California) 
 Western States Gas & Electric Co. (California) 
 
 Coast Valleys Gas & Electric Co. (California) 
 Gieat Basiii Power Co. (Utah) 
 
 Dec. 9, 1920 
 Dec. 15, 1920 
 Dec. 16, 1920 
 Dec. 18, 1920... 
 
 Spirit Lake Railway & Power Co. (Washington) 
 San Joacmin Licht tt Power Co. (California) . . . 
 
 1 Merged with Niagara Power & Development Co. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 117 
 Synopsis of projects advertised Continued. 
 
 Project 
 No. 
 
 Applicant. 
 
 Date advertised. 
 
 Date limiting re- 
 ceipt of objec- 
 tions. 
 
 105 
 
 Southern California Edison Co (California) 
 
 Dec. 20, 1920 
 
 Mar. 21, 1921. 
 
 120 
 
 do - -. 
 
 do 
 
 Mar. 10, 1921. 
 
 6 
 39 
 
 Niagara County Irrigation & Water Supply Co., 
 merged with Niagara Power & Development Co. 
 (Readvertisement, New York.) 
 Millard F. Bowen (New York) 
 
 Dec. 21, 1920 
 Dec. 22, 1920... 
 
 None fixed. 
 Mar. 10, 1921. 
 
 78 
 85 
 
 Western States Gas & Electric Co. (California) 
 Southern California Edison Co (California) 
 
 Dec. 23, 19202 
 Dec. 24, 1920 
 
 Mar. 16, 1921. 
 Mar. 14, 1921. 
 
 125 
 
 Southern Sierras Power Co. (California) 
 
 Jan. 3, 1921 
 
 Mar. 21, 1921. 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 This advertisement was recalled Dec. 27, 1920. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. MILLARD F. BOWEN, OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. I want to first hand to each of you a map of the pro- 
 posed St. Lawrence and ail-American ship canals, in connection with 
 which power will be generated ; and the question arises whether under 
 the act as it is the Federal Power Commission has jurisdiction to 
 declare the all-American route for the ship canal a public highway of 
 the United States. I ask that the written portions on the map be put 
 in the record. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Has that any relation to the bills we are discussing ? 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. No ; it is a request that the committee add an amend- 
 ment, a committee amendment, that will designate specifically what 
 jurisdiction, if any, the Power Commission would have. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Have you an amendment prepared ? 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. The amendment I would propose to exclude from the 
 jurisdiction of the commission the Niagara River allowance of water 
 by treaty with Canada. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Amendment like that would not be germane to this 
 committee. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I doubt very much if it would be germane. If it 
 goes to the personnel and don't affect the provisions of the original 
 power act affecting jurisdiction of projects I rather think your 
 amendment on 15126 would be germane. You will notice that only 
 deals with personnel, how it is to be paid, where taken from, and so on. 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. I understood the committee could submit a committee 
 amendment that would cover such a case. I have put up to the 
 chairman of the Senate committee, Mr. Jones, this question, whether 
 in enacting the Federal power act the Congress of the United States 
 had in contemplation the delegation of power to the commission to 
 declare such a route for a ship canal a public highway of the United 
 States. Jurisdiction over the development proposed in the ship 
 canal plan can only be had if that declaration can be made. I was 
 told by Mr. Jones that it was not in contemplation of Congress that 
 that power of Congress should be delegated to the commission. If 
 that is true, then the consideration of this matter of the ship canal by 
 the Federal Power Commission would be beyond their jurisdiction, 
 and there are so many questions that join themselves together the 
 route from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario is so closely united in this 
 application with the route from Ontario to the Hudson that they can 
 not be divorced from each other, and I have been informed and notified 
 
118 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 that on the 24th of January there would be a hearing before the com- 
 mission of all the applications, 8 or 9 or 10 of them, referring to the 
 diversion of the treaty water of the Niagara Kiver. And further- 
 more, I have been notified, not in writing but by word, that at that 
 hearing there will be no chance to put in a consideration of the ship 
 canal plan as extended from Ontario to the Hudson, and that would 
 be a separate question 
 
 Well, now, it can not be; the best interests of the people are so inter- 
 woven in making a good job of the whole of the ship canal from Lake 
 Erie to the Hudson River that to divorce the Mohawk Valley route 
 from the Niagara route would not be for the best interest of the 
 people, and with that end in view I have asked the committee to 
 consider that there is great danger that all the treaty water that is 
 allowed to be diverted from Niagara River will be, unless some action 
 is taken by Congress, licensed and granted to other purposes than such 
 a combination of purposes, including the ship canal, as this project 
 covers. 
 
 It is a matter of grave importance and a matter that I think 
 should receive the attention of Congress immediately, because soon 
 after the hearings on the 24th of this month there will be a determined 
 effort on the part of the Niagara Falls Power Co. to get its 50-year 
 franchise established by license of the commission. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The Federal Power Commission > 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What do you want ? ' 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. To take t'he Niagara River out of (he Federal Power 
 Commission's jurisdiction. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You are afraid they will act wrongly on it ? 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. Only they have said to me already they are not going 
 to consider its relation to the complete ship-canal plan at the time 
 of this January 24 hearing. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Whom do you mean by "they?" "They" said to 
 you? 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. Mr. Merrill has said to me that the consideration of 
 the Mohawk branch of the ship canal would not take place at the 
 time the Niagara ship canal is to be heard on the 24th of January. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Why don't you present this matter in a separate 
 bill or some other formal way and bring it up before the committee 
 here, either in the Senate or the House ? 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. It was suggested to me by the chairman that I might 
 be heard at this time and see what the committee would say in regard 
 to it, and if that seems to be a better method I will see to it that a 
 separate amendment will be introduced and considered, I hope, at 
 the same time in connection with the amendments now before you. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Aren't you protected under subdivision A of section 
 10 of the water-power act, that they must in this application adopt 
 a comprehensive scheme of improvement and utilization for the 
 purposes of navigation and water-power development and benefits of 
 other public uses ? 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. It would seem so, my dear sir, if the Congress 
 has delegated to the commission the power to declare such a ship 
 canal a navigable highway of the United States. The commission 
 itself is undecided, as I have been told by their counsel, and the 
 International Joint Commission also have doubts about the jurisdic- 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 119 
 
 tion of the commission. It is something that Congress should decide 
 before the commission has the power to grant away ail of the waters 
 that are now under the jurisdiction for power purposes alone, if there 
 were not such a plan before them for better use of the waters of the 
 Niagara River, and the well-known power of the Niagara Falls 
 Power Co. behind such an application for license 
 
 Mr. RAKER (interposing). Suppose that upon the hearing it will 
 be shown that there was a higher public use than navigation or water- 
 power development? Anything that would be to the benefit of 
 public uses could be shown, couldn't it ? 
 
 Mr. BOWEN. It could be, but then it leaves the proposition to be 
 settled whether the jurisdiction could extend to this. The route 
 includes several portages, and in the case of the Fox and Wisconsin 
 Rivers the Congress gave the right to a private corporation to cut 
 through the portage between the heads of the Fox and Wisconsin 
 Rivers. Only Congress could do that. If this Water Power Com- 
 mission had been in existence at that time it would be Congress 
 that had the jurisdiction at that time, I claim, and it would seem 
 this Congress should take away from this commission the power to 
 dispose of that Niagara water until Congress has enacted certain 
 jurisdiction in the matter; and it is admitted by Senator Jones, 
 without any hesitation, that Congress did not contemplate enacting 
 in the law that such jurisdiction should be delegated to the Federal 
 Power Commission; and I ask your serious consideration on that 
 score, that there is a possibility of doing a great public work here 
 that may be spoiled by this uncertainty, and that you can correct 
 by taking back, if you have ever given anything away to the commis- 
 sion take it back and enact a special bill covering this particular 
 ship canal with all of the benefits that are greater uses than power. 
 
 And one very particular thing in regard to the ship canal: When 
 the Senate last year was considering the matter of referring to the 
 Internationa,! Joint Commission the subject of investigation of the 
 St. Lawrence route, every Senator, nine or ten of them, said if a 
 route could be obtained through our own country that they would 
 favor such a route; in accordance with that suggestion I went to 
 work and added to my previous plan, which only included a route 
 from Erie to Ontario, and have demonstrated that there is enough 
 water power between Ontario and the Hudson, together with water 
 power between Erie and Ontario ; to pay for the ship canal without 
 any appropriation and without any tolls. If a bill could be con- 
 sidered in this short session I should have introduced a bill, but 
 being sure that there could not be any consideration practically 
 paid to the bill I am waiting till next session; then the bill will 
 provide for the full development of not only fifteen hundred thousand 
 horsepower, but also the gift to the Government of a ship canal 
 without tolls; and furthermore to the Government would also come 
 a division of the net earnings. I only ask that you give it fair 
 consideration, and if it is necessary to introduce a separate bill for 
 this amendment, why, after you do consider it, I hope you will 
 notify me that that will be necessary. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I suggest that Mr. Bowen prepare his amendment 
 and extend it in the record. 
 
120 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL, WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 (The amendment proposed by Mr. Bowen is indicated in italics 
 at the end of the following bill:) 
 
 [H. R. 14760, Sixty-sixth Congress, third session.] 
 
 A BILL To amend the Federal water power act approved June 11, 1920, so as to exclude therefrom nationa 
 
 monuments and national parks. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
 in Congress assembled, That the act of Congress entitled "An act to create a Federal 
 Power Commission; to provide for the improvement of navigation; the develop- 
 ment of water power; the use of the public lands in relation thereto; and to repeal 
 section 18 of the river and harbor appropriation act, approved August 8, 1917, and 
 for other purposes," approved June 10, 1920, is hereby amended so as to exclude 
 from the provisions and operation of said act national monuments and national 
 parks of the United States, and the navigable boundary waters of the United States. 
 
 (Further data submitted by Mr. Bowen is as follows :) 
 
 WATER ROUTE. 
 
 Ail-American ship canal, 30 feet deep. Route of ship canal follows barge canal 
 from Lake Oneida to Rotterdam Junction. No tolls; no appropriations. Plan of 
 Millard F. Bowen for Lakes to ocean canal. 
 
 We do not need to go to Canada for a ship canal route; the best rou^e is as shown by 
 the dark line on the map below. 
 
 The reasons are obvious: 
 
 First. Congestion at terminals in New York State will cease when ship canal is 
 operated. Every point upon the banks will become a possible terminal station or man- 
 ufacturing site, rower will be generated where needed most in central New York. 
 
 Second. Fourteen hundred thousand horsepower from water will fill requirements 
 without changing Canadian boundary treaty. Income from power alone will pay all 
 the cost. 
 
 Third. The Government need not spend hundreds of millions, but will get part of 
 net earnings of corporation, as well as the canal free of tolls and construction cost. 
 
 Fourth. After this shall have been accomplished, then aid Canada in building the 
 St. Lawrence Canal, but insist that it be 30 feet deep. 
 
 Fifth. Twenty years ago Commissioners Angell, Russell, Cooley, Raymond, Noble, 
 and Wiener, all good engineers and economists, recommended this ail-American 
 route practically as now offered free by us. Their report cost $500,000. 
 
 Sixth. The traditional conservatism of Army engineers, that ignores income from 
 power and other indirect sources, will be overcome. 
 
 Seventh. Lake freighters will pass back and forth so as to earn money all the year 
 round. The United States will maintain control of navigation. 
 
 Eighth. It will be of great military value, as was demonstrated during the World 
 War. Floods will be stored and flood waters used. 
 
 Ninth. Most of the markets of the world are nearer via this route and it has a longer 
 season of navigation. Sailing time from Duluth to New York will be less than six 
 days. 
 
 Tenth. We ask only a Federal charter, and that Congress declare the route a public 
 highway without tolls. 
 
 These are hard facts, not sentiment. Americans must control their outlet to the sea. 
 
 This is the most important engineering issue since the Panama Canal. 
 
 Dated, Washington, D. C., September 1, 1920. 
 
 MILLARD F. BOWEN AND ASSOCIATES. 
 
 Area of watersheds between Lake Ontario and Hudson River, 4,800 square miles. 
 
 Estimated run-off averages 2.2 cubic feet per second per square mile. 
 
 Federal charter to give Government jurisdiction and control over navigation of ship 
 canal to be built by private enterprise. Waterpower to pay the cost. 
 
 Every stream to have storage reservoirs to retain sufficient water for navigation in 
 the ship canal. 
 
 The barge canal for 100 miles to be deepened from 12 to 30 feet, but not to be closed 
 to local State purposes. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 121 
 
 At Lake Ontario, vessels to be raised 137 feet by one set of locks; from thence to the 
 Hudson River all water to flow eastward. 
 
 High counterbalanced twin lift locks to be built at Little Falls, Mindenville, Am- 
 sterdam, Guilderland, and the Hudson River, instead of old style locks. 
 
 Hudson River is an arm of the sea 150 miles inland; it never completely freezes. 
 
 Senator Lodge said: " We ought to think long before we join with another country 
 to make a waterway which we can not control. The people who control the mouth 
 of a river control the river. If a waterway can be found through our own country, I 
 think the canal should be built through that way. The route should be through 
 American territory, which would give cheapness of transport to the products of the 
 agricultural West, and yet at the same time keep it within our own boundaries. As 
 long as a waterway is in Oiir own territory there is no danger of any international dis- 
 cussion. One way of making our good relations with Canada as close as possible is to 
 avoid subjects of disputes. We are taking some risk when we put control of a large 
 portion of our most important commerce in the hands of another country." (Cong. 
 Rec., p. 3845, Feb. 18, 1919.) 
 
 MILLER TO TEST LEGALITY WATER POWER RESTRAINT. 
 
 ALBANY, N. Y., January 7. Gov. Miller has instructed Attorney General Newton 
 to test the legality of the Esch Act giving control of State boundary waters to the 
 Federal Government. This action was taken after a visit by Paul A. Schoelekoff, 
 president of the Consolidated Niagara Falls Power Co. 
 
 The action of the governor brings forward the whole question of hydroelectric 
 development of the State's resources and the policy to be pursued by the new adminis- 
 tration. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. There are some witnesses here who can not be 
 heard and they will have the privilege of having their remarks 
 printed in the record if presented within the next few days. 
 
 (Thereupon the committee adjourned.) 
 
 LETTERS SUBMITTED. 
 
 LETTER SUBMITTED BY MR. ALBERT L. SCOTT. 
 
 NEW YORK, N. Y., January 7, 1921. 
 Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Water Power, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN ESCH: I was very much pleased yesterday while attending 
 the sessions of your committee to note the careful and intelligent way in which you 
 were going into the entire question of the relation of Congress to the development of 
 water powers in the United States. 
 
 I had hoped for an opportunity during the afternoon to speak to the committee for a 
 few moments to urge the necessity of setting up, under the Federal Power Commission, 
 a staff of its own capable of handling the tremendous interests with which the com- 
 mission has to deal. 
 
 My firm has been engaged in engineering work in this country for a great many 
 years. Even before the Civil War my predecessors were building dams and hydraulic 
 developments in New England and in the South, and our interest in hydraulic work 
 has continued unabated to this day. Owing to the difficulties surrounding the estab- 
 lishment of a water power in the last decade, we have found it difficult to continue 
 our water-power operations in any large way. With the formation of the Water Power 
 Commission we felt that a great advance step had been taken in the way of developing 
 the resources of the country. We hope that your commission in its wisdom will 
 pro\ide this Water Power Commission with a staff which will make it possible for it 
 to function intelligently and promptly. In my opinion it can not do this if it is 
 dependent on borrowing its personnel from other departments of the Government 
 which, presumably, ha\e plenty for their own people to do. You w^ould not consider 
 having the Interstate Commerce Commission conduct its affairs on a borrowed per- 
 sonnel. The Water Pow r er Commission, in the same manner, needs its own highly 
 specialized, highly trained, and experienced organization. 
 
122 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Owing to the difficulties surrounding the development of water powers, there has 
 been a marked tendency in recent years for such developments to fall into the hands 
 of a relatively small group of corporations, known colloquially as the "interests." 
 With the formation of the Water Power Commission, especially if it be backed by an 
 efficient working personnel, water-power developments will be made easier to achieve, 
 and we, as a large independent engineering organization, are very anxious to have 
 this commission get under way at the earliest possible moment. I therefore urge that 
 you modify the terms of House bill 15126 to make it possible for the commission to 
 engage its own personnel independently of any of the other departments of the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Truly, yours. 
 
 LOCKWOOD, GREENE & Co., Engineers. 
 Per ALBERT L. SCOTT, Chairman. 
 
 T.KTTKW SUBMITTED BY MR. M. <>. l.i;rc MTOX. 
 
 \YASHINGTON, D. C.. January 7, 1921. 
 Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, 
 
 Chairman Water Power Committee, Houte of Representatives. 
 
 MY DEAR MR. ESCH: I attended the hearing of the Water Power Committee on 
 H. R. 15126 in the hope of being able to inuk.- a short statement on behalf of Engineer- 
 ing Council as to the provisions of lines 1 to 8, inclusive, of section 2, but was pre- 
 vented from so doing by the length of the discussion on the subject of national parks. 
 Permit me, therefore, to submit the following short statement : 
 
 The position of executive secretary of the Federal Power Commission is one of the 
 most responsible in the executive departments. If you will examine a copy of orders 
 of the commission numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5 ('attached her<'l<. which prescribe the 
 authority and duties of the executive secretary, you will note that he has been given, 
 and almost of necessity must be given, responsibilities nearly equivalent to those of 
 the commission. Ac-cording to the wisdom or unwisdom of his acts great develop- 
 ments will be accelerated or retarded and water power investment will become at- 
 tractive or unattractive. It is manifest to the co'uncil, on whose behalf this letter 
 is written, that neither the Government nor its people nor the developer of water 
 power can afford to place such responsibilities on a $5,000 man. 
 
 \\ 'c do not expect Government compensation for professional services to be on a 
 parity with that which hard-headed business men have found it wise to pay for such 
 services, but it seems as though we could at least expect the Government to pay 
 one-half of the reasonable rate of compensation. The water power law and the orders 
 of the commission describe a man who would be paid at least $15.000 a year in similar 
 private work. Engineering Council hopes that this provision of the bill making it 
 possible to pay $7,500 will speedily become a law. 
 
 There was a time when there were hundreds of men in the departmental service 
 willing to work for a small part of that which they could earn in outside service merely 
 because of their interest in Government work. That spirit is rapidly passing away, 
 because the margin between the one and the other luis Ix-rome so wide. There are 
 comparatively few such men remaining, but one of them is the present executive sec- 
 retary of the Power Commission. Ordinary business prudence renders it advisable to 
 hold that man where he is. He is only human, and it is inevitable that if the present 
 rate of compensation be maintained he will follow the example of many hundred 
 others and go where his services are adequately compensated. If this occurs, his 
 successor will be a $5,000 man, and it follows that he probably won't fill the bill. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 M. O. LEIGHTON, 
 National Service Representative, Engineering Council, 
 
 700 Tenth Street, Washington, D. C. 
 
 LETTER SUBMITTED BY MR. J. H. LEVERING. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., January 11, 1921. 
 Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, 
 
 Chairman House Committee on Water Power. 
 
 SIR- Acting upon the permission granted by your committee, I submit this statement 
 to be included in the transcript. My name is James H. Levering; my permanent resi- 
 dence is Los Angeles, Calif. I am temporarily residing at No. 1006 East Capitol Street. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 123 
 
 I am a civil and hydraulic engineer and have been in the active practice of my pro- 
 fession for more than 30 years'. I am professionally and personally interested in legis- 
 lation pertaining to water power and hydraulic energy throughout the country. As 
 an American citizen; I am interested in the welfare and prosperity of this great Gov- 
 ernment, and appear before this committee in that behalf. 
 
 I ask vour careful consideration of H. R. 15126, and that it be amended at page 2, 
 section 2. line 4. by substituting a period for the comma after the word "duties," and 
 striking out the remainder of lines 4, 5, 6. 7, and 8. 
 
 The 'commission has testified that applications have been filed with them for the 
 development of 12,000,000 horsepower hydraulic energy. A survey of this country 
 shows that as much as 80,000,000 horsepower may yet be developed. The statement 
 may well go unchallenged that the adoption of a defective plan of construction results 
 not only in retardation of water-power development, but also renders useless a vast 
 outlay of money, coupled with an indefinite delay of economic conservation, either 
 of which would in the end prove an economic tragedy. There could be nothing so 
 dangerous and unsatisfactory as to depend upon an incompetent person to approve 
 or change plans of such magnitude. 
 
 The value of a hydroelectric plant, one that is well designed, lies in its ability to 
 show an operating profit, otherwise it could not command financial support. Fo far as 
 I have been able to ascertain, I am aware of no hydroelectric plant constructed by 
 either the War. Interior, or Agricultural Departments, or anv plans that were ma- 
 terially changed bv Government engineers that can generate electric current for less 
 than 6 mills per kilowatt hour, or has ever been built within an expenditure of $300 
 per horsepower. In making this assertion I include the interest and amortization and 
 cost of both the generating and hydraulic units. 
 
 Plants have been built without Government supervision that can produce power 
 as low as 2 mills per kilowatt ihoijr. 
 
 A slight change in the construction of the dam or the installation of the machinery 
 or the transmission lines, or even in event an extraordinary system of bookkeeping 
 might be installed under this act that would increase the producing cost more than 
 1 mill per kilowatt hour. When the present 12,000,000 horsepower are in operation 
 the excess cost of 1 mill per kilowatt hour would amount to a total of $12,000 per hour 
 as a dead loss, or more than $105,000,000 per annum. As a matter of fact I am quite 
 sure that by the time a hydraulic plant has been through the routine of the present 
 commission, and all the changes and additions required by them have been made, 
 . it will impose an encumbrance of over $200.000.000 per annum on this great industry, 
 and will be that much of an irreparable loss. When the total power developed in this 
 country has been increased the loss would be increased proportionally. 
 
 To give you an example of the present inefficiency of the engineering officer of the 
 commission I will quote an interview which appeared in the Washington Herald 
 Friday. December 17, 1920, as follows: 
 
 ''Doubt as to the feasibility of the plan of J. H. Levering, Los Angeles engineer, for 
 harnessing Great Falls, was expressed yesterday by Lieut. Col. William Kelley, chief 
 engineer of the Federal Power Commission, assigned fron the Engineer Corps of the 
 Army. 
 
 "Col. Kelley said he was not familiar with the Levering project, but understood it 
 called for a specialty constructed type of earth filled dam with almost vertical sides 
 and a thin sheathing of steel and concrete to hold the earth in place. 
 
 "'I do not know anything about Levering's engineering ability,' said Kelley, 'but 
 if he is an engineer at. all, he ought to know that this type of dam would not withstand 
 the overtopping floods of the Potomac in the spring of the year.' 
 
 "Any dam constructed across the Potomac, Col. Kelley said, must be built to with- 
 stand overtopping fioods. When huge cakes of floating ice and big tree trunks come 
 sweeping down the Potomac, he said, they would go over the top of the dam, but their 
 weight would force them down on the lower side into contact with the wall of the dam, 
 and it would quickly be ripped open and the dam would go out. 
 
 "Col. Kelley also took issue with the stability of the thin sheets of protecting steel 
 and concrete with which Levering would encase the dam. If the sides of the dam 
 were given a greater slant instead of being almost vertical, the colonel said, the steel 
 walls would stand a better chance, but with the pressure of the water without and the 
 earth within the walls would soon bulge out and break. 
 
 "Col. Kelley cited the case of a similar dam in the Yuba River in California, which 
 went out with the first flood. He said the report of the Army engineers^ now engaged 
 in a survey of the project under the authorization of the Power Commission, probably 
 would be in the hands of the commission some time next week. The commission 
 then would draw up its recommendations and submit them to Congress with the 
 engineers' report by the first of the year, as authorized by Congress." 
 
124 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 This is the authorized statement of the present engineering officer of the Power 
 Commission, a lieutenant colonel, Corps of Engineers, United States Army. He 
 states he is not familiar with the plan that he is criticizing, but that does not seem to 
 be an important factor in the case. 
 
 As to the failure of the Yuba Dam, the personnel of this select committee has been 
 very properly chosen because of their familiarity with the subject in hand, and you 
 can readily ascertain if a calamity as serious as that which would follow the failure of 
 a dam similar to the one proposed for Great Falls ever occurred upon the Yuba 1 iver. 
 The onlv dam that I recall having failed on that stream was one constructed under 
 the authority of the Caminetti Act. Col. Kellev, in his criticisms of my proposed 
 plan, likened it to the one cited by him, and as the engineering officer of the commis- 
 sion seeks by virtue of his authority to bind the commission and its findings and to 
 prejudice their views against my plan by concluding that the same fate would befall 
 the one built on the Potomac River if my plans (which he admits he is unfamiliar 
 with) were followed. 
 
 Quoting from the above article, Col. Kelley states: "I do not know anything about 
 Levering's engineering abilitv." As to this I certainly have the advantage of him, 
 as his ability as an engineer is well established from the following statement: "If 
 sides of the dam were given a greater slant instead of being almost vertical," the 
 colonel said, "the steel walls would stand a bettor chance." ""When huge cakes of 
 floating ice and great tree trunks come sweeping down the Potomac, " he said, "they 
 would go over the top of the dam, but their weight would force them down on the 
 lower side into contact with the wall of the dam and it would quickly be lipped open 
 and the dam would go out." 
 
 Assuming the colonel to be familiar with exterior ballistics or the movement of a 
 projected body through space, we have the novel conclusion of the commission's 
 export engineer advisor that such a moving body when sweeping over a perpendicular 
 dam would quickly rip it open, and his remedy to pi'event such a catastrophe is to give 
 the face of the dam more slant, in order that all such bodies would strike the structure 
 with all the force of tln-ir weight and motion. It is patent to any one that such a 
 body being carried over a dam would come nonror elearinir a perpendicular wall than 
 if the face of the structure were given a greater slant. 
 
 Col. Kelley assumes that such a floatine: body swooping over a perpendicular dam 
 at sufficient velocity to rip open the steel wall, which would by calculation show as 
 much resistance to an object moving almost vertically and parallel to it as would be 
 developed bv the; armor plate of a Battleship ivooiving Iho direct impact of a high- 
 powered projectile of equal weight. It is evident that, the eurront and momentum 
 would sweep all such moving objeets away from a perpendicular structure. In order 
 to strike the face of the dam, if would not 'only have to reveiso its motion, but pierce a 
 heavy curtain of falling water before it could be impinged against the structure. 
 
 Should the retaining wall of this dam be given a greater slant, as suggested by the 
 supervising engineer of the commit too, we will say, for instance, at an angle of 45 , we 
 would then have this immons" wall of steel and concrete ^hich, in the case of the 
 lower dam would wok'h more than 20,000 tons, resting upon the earth-fill embankment 
 instead of standing upon its foundation. Should the material of the dam shrink away 
 from this wall by settlement or drainage, it would leave it hanging bv its fastenings 
 from the walls of the canyon, and should it by anv ftvak of luck remain in that position 
 it would have the glory of the leaning Tower of Pisa totally eclipsed. 
 
 The absurdity of offering to this commission well-developed plans and meeting such 
 criticism as those, without any investigation on the part of the critic, makes it v<-ry 
 discouraging to attempt to get a sane and efficient set of plans adopted, or of making an 
 investment secure. If the greatest industry of this country is to be placed under mili- 
 tary control by the enactment of this bill, we may have many repetitions of Muscle 
 Shoals projects rather than satisfactory water-power installations. 
 
 As the commission consists of the Secretaries of War, Interior, and Agriculture, and 
 under H. R. 15126 it is hardly possible that the commission would deny the President 
 the right to appoint the engineering officer from the Army. The only relief from this 
 unfortunate situation is to trust the supervision of the plans to men who have had ex- 
 perience in this line of work. Nothing is more hazardous for money investment than 
 an improperly constructed power plant, whose efficiency or use may be impaired or 
 destroyed from improper construction. Such propositions must be made attractive to 
 capital. 
 
 The highest water-power development has been attained in Scandinavia, where the 
 Government encourages rather than handicaps all buch undertakings, both as to earn' 
 ings and a minimum of restrictions and regulations. Many millions of dollars have 
 recently been expatriated to Italy, France, and throughout Scandinavia in the con- 
 struction of hydroelectric plants. Canada is rapidly outstripping our own country 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 125 
 
 along this line; and we, as a people, may well look to our laurels if we expect to keep 
 pace industrially with other countries. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 J. IT. LEVERING, 
 
 1006 East Capitol Street, Washington, D. C, 
 
 LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., December 9, 1920. 
 Hon. JULIUS KAHN, 
 
 House Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
 
 MY DEAR MR. KAHN: You have probably had brought to your attention the pro- 
 posed bill for a modification of the Federal water power act, passed at the last ses- 
 sion of Congress and approved June 10, 1920. 
 
 The suggested amendment has for its purpose eliminating the national parks and 
 monuments from the provisions of the act, in order to preserve these national play- 
 grounds from use for the creation of storage reservoirs and power plants. The agitation 
 in behalf of this amendment was caused by the plans of certain irrigation projects for 
 the storage pf water in Yellowstone National Park. 
 
 This chamber of commerce has made a careful analysis of the act as it now exists and 
 a studv of the objections raised by the National Parks Association. As a result of this 
 study the board of directors has adopted a policy in relation to the subject which we 
 wish to commend to your favorable consideration and trust that you will be able to 
 support our position in the Congress. 
 
 The chamber of commerce is opposed to any measure which would completely 
 eliminate national parks and monuments from the authority of the Federal Power 
 Commission. It would indorse, however, a measure which would prohibit the con- 
 struction of any dam or reservoir or power house by a power company within the 
 boundaries of any existing national park, and would support an amendment to the 
 Federal water power act to this eiiect. 
 
 The chamber believes, however, that authority should remain with the commission 
 to grant licenses for reservoirs and power plants in any national park which may 
 hereafter be created, or in any extension of existing national parks, and that the 
 commission should retain power to grant licenses for transmission lines across any 
 national park. 
 
 It is probable that in the future it may be desired to create additional national 
 parks and extend the boundaries of existing national parks to many of the mountainous 
 sections of the Western States, and the need for development of hydroelectric power 
 to meet growing requirements of these States demands that some competent authority 
 should have power to grant licenses outside of the present national-park areas. We 
 can conceive of no safer tribunal for this purpose than the three Cabinet officers 
 heading the Departments of War, Agriculture, and Interior, within whose jurisdiction 
 the various reservations come. 
 
 Should the authority of this commission to grant licenses be withdrawn from any 
 extensions of existing parks or new parks, the fact that the commission would thereby 
 be deprived of authority to determine the question of licenses for power development 
 would render much more difficult the task of securing support for the new reservation 
 from communities depending upon the hydroelectric development within the sug- 
 gested territory. 
 
 Under the act the commission may grant a 50-year license to a power company 
 for the development of a project in a forest reserve, and it may be necessary to such 
 project that its transmission line should cross a national park and we, therefore, 
 believe that no modification of the act should be permitted that would take from the 
 commission its authority to grant a license to such project to construct such transmis- 
 sion line across a national park. 
 
 The parks are amply protected under the law in the construction of such transmis- 
 sion line by the provision that applicants for licenses must file with the commission 
 maps, plans, and specifications and estimates of cost, and that these maps, plans, and 
 specifications must be approved by the commission one member of which is the 
 Secretary of the Interior and that in order to secure such approval the power com- 
 pany would be required to construct its lines in such manner and over such portions 
 of the park as would not be a detriment to the purposes for which the park was created; 
 and further the license is subject to such conditions as the Secretary of the Department 
 of the Interior deems necessary to the adequate protection and utilization of the park. 
 
126 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 If this authority is denied the Federal Power Commission, permission to construct 
 a transmission line across a national park must be secured from the Department of the 
 Interior and under rulings of that department such permit would if granted be revok- 
 able after one year. This feature would of course jeopardize the entire project and 
 render financing impossible. 
 
 We sincerely trust that you can support the position of the chamber of commerce 
 asiabove outlined, and we shall appreciate any information which you may be able 
 to furnish us in relation to this entire matter/ 
 
 With kindest personal regards, I am, very sincerely yours, 
 
 GEO. C. BOARDMAN, 
 
 Viet President San Francisco Chamber of Commer"*, 
 
 LETTER SUBMITTED BY MISS HARLEAN JAMES. 
 
 WASHFNGTON, D. C., January 8, 19,'i. 
 HON. JOHN J. KSCH, 
 
 Chairman Select Commit tee -on Wiit.er Poire i\ 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 DEAR MR. I^CH: In accordance with permission granted us to submit further 
 resolutions concerning the bills considered at the hearing before the Select < 'ommittee 
 on Water Power on January 8. I have the honor to submit statement of T. Gilbert 
 Pearson, president of the National Association of Audubon Societies, statement of 
 Robert Sterling Yard, executive secretary of the National Parks Association, and 
 statement of Harris A. Il'-ynolds. representing the conference for the protection of 
 the national parks and monument- and the Massachusetts Forestry Association. 
 
 In addition may I repeat what I think is already clear from the* testimony offered 
 before the committee, thai the Americ.-m ' ivie Association favors both Esch amend- 
 ments to the water power act < II . II. 1 Hfi'i and II. K. r>!L'!i>. \Vebelieve.withyou, 
 that the national parks and monument- will be safeguarded by II. H. M409, as sub- 
 mitted, first, because of the principle which will be established by the passage of the 
 bill and, second, because of the publicity and time needed to secure an act of ( 'ongivss 
 which would authorize grants of the people-' rights in their property Local hearings 
 before an executive commission would seldom be advertised sufficiently to notify the 
 people at large of proposed alienations of their rights in national parks and monuments. 
 Thanking you for the courtesy extended to us at the hearing I remain. 
 Very truly, yours. 
 
 HARLEAN JAMES, 
 Secretary American ('iri<- Association. 
 
 LETTER SUBMITTED BY MR. T. GILBERT PEARSOX. 
 
 XEW YORK, N. Y., January 6, 1921. 
 Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, 
 
 Chairman Select Committee on Water Power, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The organization which I represent, with its branches and affiliated 
 societies, numbers in the neighborhood of 1,000,000 of our best people in this country. 
 Permit me to state that this association is unalterably opposed to any change in the 
 national policy which has hitherto held our national parks inviolate. We are opposed 
 to the bill sponsored by Representative Smith of Idaho to construct a reservoir for 
 commercial purposes in the southwestern corner of Yellowstone Park, and believe 
 that the Senate gave favorable consideration to this matter only because of a mis- 
 understanding as to the character of the territory involved. We are also opposed to 
 the bill now pending in the Senate which has for the purpose the damming of the 
 Yellowstone River with the intention of storing water for irrigation in Montana. 
 
 In reference to bill H. R. 14469, intended to amend the water-power bill by striking 
 out the words "national parks and monuments," permit me to say that we greatly 
 favor this and hope it will become a law. 
 
 I wish, in conclusion, to voice my strong opposition to the amendment here to-day 
 proposed by Mr. Pierce, made for the purpose of exempting national parks which 
 may be created in the future from provisions of this bill. 
 
 T. GILBERT PEARSON, 
 President National Association of Audubon Societies, New York City. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 127 
 
 LETTER SUBMITTED BY MR. ROBERT STERLING YARD. 
 
 Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, 
 
 Chairman Select Committee on Water Power, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington., D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: I only learned of this hearing after dinner last night, or I could have 
 brought you the telegraphed evidence that I also represent other organizations besides 
 my own whose combined memberships reach several millions of voters. 
 
 In behalf of our earnest allies, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, I. present 
 the resolutions passed by its board of directors on September 16 last, and state, of my 
 personal knowledge, that the federation, which numbers about 9,000 clubs and 2,500,- 
 000 members, is active to its fingers tips in defense of the national parks conservation. 
 They appear at the close of this statement. 
 
 In evidence that the scientific men of the Nation are alarmed at the threatened 
 destruction of the untouched native quality of the national parks, which constitutes 
 their value to science, I offer you resolutions passed a few days ago by the American 
 Association for the Advancement of Science, and by the Ecological Society of America 
 at their recent conventions in Chicago. As you know, the American Association for 
 the Advancement of Science is the most distinguished and inclusive association of 
 scientists in America. It has 14,000 members. 
 
 As an example of the attitude of those many universities and colleges throughout 
 the land who have expressed themselves upon the present situation, I append resolu- 
 tions passed by Yale University. 
 
 The association which I represent, and hundreds of allied organizations from Maine 
 to Texas, from Florida to Washington, whose earnest purposes I personally and fully 
 know request Congress to pass H. R. 14760 and thereby return the national parks and 
 monuments to the sole authority of Congress. 
 
 Lest they quarrel with me for not joining them in the request, I must name, out of 
 the many, at least these few earnest organizations. : 
 
 The American Forestry Association; the American Automobile Association; the 
 American Federation of Art: the General Federation of Women's Clubs; the National 
 Federation of Business and Professional Women; the League of American Penwomen; 
 the American Bison Society; the American Game Protective and Propagation Associa- 
 tion; the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society; the Mountaineers, 
 Seattle, Wash.; the Natural Parks Association, Seattle, Wash.; the Sage Brush and 
 Pine Club, Yakima, Wash.; the California Alpine Club, San Francisco, Calif.; the 
 Sierra Club, San Francisco, Calif.: the Colorado Mountain Club, Denver, Colo.; the 
 Nature Study Club of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind.; the Field Museum of Chicago 
 Chicago, 111.; the Camp Fire Club, Chicago, 111.; the Prairie Club, Chicago, 111.: the 
 Geographic Society of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa.; the American Museum of 
 Natural History, New York; the Camp Fire Club of America, New York City; the 
 Boone and Crockett Club, New York City. 
 
 Representatives of important organizations in New England, New York, and else- 
 where are present here, in person, notwithstanding the short notice. 
 
 We believe that the doctrine of the complete conservation of the national.. parks and 
 monuments constitutes a fundamental policy upon which no authority short of Con- 
 gress is entitled to pass. 
 
 We believe that to depute the power to grant any commercial use of these reserva- 
 tions is a congressional reversal of this half -century-old policy which Congress at the 
 last, excessively busy, session passed in the water' power bill through sheer inadvert- 
 ence; and that it is the duty of the same Congress at the present session to repair this 
 manifest error by restoring the national parks and monuments to their former statps. 
 
 We believe that continuance of national parks and monuments under the authority 
 of any commission having the power to grant commercial leases amounts to a standing 
 invitation by Congress itself to come in and commercialize the parks, a position cer- 
 tainly never contemplated by Congress at its last session. 
 
 The unique distinction of American national parks as examples of primitive nature 
 is more nighly appreciated abroad, where there are and can be no such examples 
 than at home, but pur own people are now learning their real significance with great 
 rapidity. The national parks have taken a wonderful hold on the imagination of the 
 people West as well as East. I allege with confidence, from my personal experience 
 in spreading the news of the national parks' danger, that western people (I mean 
 people in the Rockies and west of therrO are responding, in full proportion to population 
 as freely and as enthusiastically as eastern people. 
 
 Also, the evidence is growing week by week that national parks States in the West 
 are generally beginning to perceive, as some Western States already have perceived, 
 
128 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL, WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 that national parks, completely conserved, can be made to pay greater dollars-and- 
 cents returns to the State than their waters could in irrigation and power. 
 
 I quote the Montana Record Herald, in its editorials of November 2 and 16, and the 
 Denver Times, of December 30, as evidence, and will be pleased to send clippings to 
 any who desire to see them. 
 
 I am convinced that, if you will hold our national parks safe from commercial 
 invasion for five years more, as the times are moving, we defenders in the cast will all 
 be out of business. The West herself will be her own most valiant defender of the in- 
 tegrity of her national parks, and not for reason of sentiment, but because they pay. 
 Give the parks a chance. Their fruition time has only now arrived. 
 
 Again, and emphatically, the National Parks Association wishes to go on record as 
 strongly opposed to the suggestion made here to-day that this bill of amendment 
 (H. R. 14760) be qualified by restoring to the authority of Congress only the national 
 parks and monuments as at present constituted. 
 
 To do this inevitably will create, at some future time, two classes of national park 
 the older ones exempt from water power, except, of course, at the discretion of Congress, 
 and new parks open to water power at the discretion of the Water Power Commission. 
 
 I record our earnest protest. If certain areas in proposed new parks are more val- 
 uable to the commercial development of this nation than to the national parks sys- 
 tem, by all means let us not include them in new national parks at all. We all want 
 to develop America. Let us cut such areas out of the bills for new parks before offering 
 these bills to Congress. 
 
 The National Parks Association stands for the complete conservation of all national 
 parks, even at the expense, if it should unhappily become necessary, of any enlarge- 
 ment of the system. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS. 
 ^ 
 
 These are merely examples of hundreds of resolutions from organizations of many 
 kinds, which are reaching us continually from every part of the country. There are 
 also scores of petitions. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S 
 CLUBS, SEPTEMBER 1C, 1920, WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs heartily indorses the 
 congressional policy of the last 48 years for preserving our national parks in a state 
 of absolute nature. 
 
 That it considers our national parks invaluable national musuems of nature which 
 it is the Nation's duty to hold untouched for the study and enjoyment of posterity. 
 
 That it protests against the inclusion of national parks and monuments in the 
 provisions of the Federal water power act of June, 1920, and requests Congress to 
 amend that act so as to exclude these reservations from its authority. 
 
 That it protests earnestly against the granting of any irrigation or other privilege 
 in the Yellowstone or any other national park except those customary and necessary 
 for the comfort and convenience of visitors. 
 
 That it authorizes the president of the general federation to take such action as 
 she deems necessary to carry out the spirit and purpose of these resoultions. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE. 
 
 Whereas in recognition of the unique character and value of our national parks and 
 monuments to present and future generations, 24 successive Congresses have wisely 
 resisted attempts to commercialize them and have preserved them inviolate for 
 nearly half a century, 
 
 Whereas certain private interests are now seeking to secure special privileges in these 
 areas, which if granted will seriously interfere with their true purpose and undoubt- 
 edly result in the entire commercialization of these unique national museums: 
 Therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved, That the American Association for the Advancement of Science request 
 Members of Congress first to amend the water power act so that it shall not apply 
 to national parks and monuments, and that their full control be restored to Congress; 
 and second, to reject all present and future measures which propose to surrender any 
 part of these national parks and monuments to private control or to divert them in 
 any way from their original and exclusive purpose, the preservation for all future 
 generations of unique representations of natural conditions such as exist in no other 
 part of the world. 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 129 
 
 RESOLUTIONS BY THE ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA. 
 
 Whereas the United States ( 'oiijjrivss for nearly half a century has loyally and devotedly 
 protected the national parks and monuments from encroachments by private inter- 
 ests, and 
 
 Whereas a provision in the recently enacted water power bill would remove the 
 national parks and monuments from the control of Congress; Therefore, be it 
 Resolved, That the Ecological Society of America approve the measure now pending 
 to remove these from the control of the Federal Commission and return them to the 
 control of Congress: And be it further 
 
 Resolved, That this society urges upon Members of Congress the rejection of all 
 measures and especially the Falls River Basin bill (H. R. 12466), and the Yellow- 
 stone Lake Dam measure (S. 4529), and any and all other bills of similar purpose, 
 providing for any encroachments whatever upon the national parks and monuments 
 or limiting anywhere their complete and unmodified preservation for the use of the 
 whole people in this and future generations: Be it further 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Speaker of the House and the 
 President of the Senate, and also to the members of the appropriate committees, 
 urging them to protect the national parks and monuments against all encroachments 
 by private interests. 
 
 RESOLUTION BY THE COUNCIL OP YALE UNIVERSITY. 
 
 Resolved, That the Council of Yale University joins with the Connecticut Forestry 
 Association in favoring proper amendment of the water power act exempting from 
 its provisions the national parks and monuments which are now open to entry for 
 water power development on the same terms as the national forests and other public 
 lands; and in favoring further amendments which- will prohibit other commercial. 
 uses of the national parks, as grazing and mining. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 ROBERT STERLING YARD, 
 Executive Secretary of the National Parks Association. 
 
 LETTER SUBMITTED BY MR. HARRIS A. REYNOLDS. 
 
 Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, 
 
 Chairman Select Committee on Water Power, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: The people of New England are greatly aroused on this matter of pro- 
 tecting the national parks and monuments from commercialization. A large numbe 
 of the leading public spirited organizations in New England have organized them- 
 selves into a conference for the special purpose of opposing measures which would 
 in any way open the national parks to commercialization. 
 
 The conference strongly is in favor of H. R. 14760, believing that the people are 
 nearer to the control of the parks in Congress than in the Water Power Commission. 
 
 Not only do we wish to push the amendment to'the water-power act, but, since the 
 Smith bill has been discussed to-day, we wish to register our unalterable opposition 
 to any dams within the national parks. That these are absolutely incompatible with 
 scenic conservation is very thoroughly demonstrated by the mud flats around Jackson 
 Lake south of the Yellowstone National Park. It is all camouflage for the promoters 
 of schemes for building dams in the national parks, where the water will be drawn 
 off during the tourist season, to say that such a lake would beautify the park. It is 
 an impossibility to have a beautiful lake with a mud border. 
 
 The only possible way in which the commercial inserests and the park interests 
 can meet on common ground, many of us believe, is to have Congress create some form 
 of commission which will have power to determine the boundary lines of the parks, 
 which will make it possible to exclude areas from the parks which are evidently bet- 
 ter suited for commercialism than for recreation and to include any other areas better 
 suited for recreation than for commercialism. 
 
 When the parks were established, most of them were lined out in rectangular lines 
 with little regard for the topography or for the quality of the lands that were being 
 included. And as the surrounding country becomes more populated the need for. 
 
 2941421 9 
 
130 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 the use of the natural resources of the parks has become greater and greater. But 
 until we can establish the lines beyond which no commercial interest can go, the only 
 safe position is "hands off the national parks," and, so far as the people of New Eng- 
 land are concerned, that will be the policy until sufficient evidence is produced to 
 show that the best interests of the country as a whole can be served by letting down 
 the bars. We are firmly convinced that that time will never come. 
 
 HARRIS A. REYNOLDS, 
 Representing the New England Conference for the Protection of the National 
 
 Parks and Monuments and the Massachusetts Forestry Association. 
 
 LETTER SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHN J. HARRIS. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., January 10, 1921. 
 Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 MY DEAR MR. ESCH: I was present the other day at the hearings before your com- 
 mittee on the subject of amend ing n-rtain provisions of the power bill. I desired to 
 be heard before the committee at that time, but it could not be so arranged. 
 
 I beg now to present herev.it h a copy of the Water Power Bulletin, issued by the 
 Water Power League of America, for the month of Xo\ ember. I'.H'O. Your attention 
 is" called to the article on pages :'. and 1 of the publication. I am also submitting a 
 pamphlet issued by the Yellowstone Irrigation Association, of Livingston, Mont., for 
 the month of November, 1920, with relation to storage of flood waters, etc. 
 
 As both of these articles have a vital bearing on" the subject under consideration, 
 I am asking that they be printed and made a part of the record of the hearings. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN J. HARRIS, 
 President Big Horn Cunyon Jmynlinn d- I'oircr Co., of Hardin, Mont. 
 
 (The articles referred to by Mr. Harris are as follows:) 
 
 FINANCING WATER POWERS WITH FEDERAL ASSISTANCE. 
 
 {By John J. Harris, president of the Big Horn Canyon Irrigation & Power Co.; Hardin, Mont.] 
 
 If we are to have only 15,000,000 of our 100,000,000 water horsepower put on the 
 *oad to construction within the next five years, $2,250,000,000 must be made avail- 
 able. This will average approximately $150 per horsepower, construction cost. 
 Even the most optimistic do not expect this amount to be raised by private agency. 
 There must be another means available, if we are to have only partial development. 
 Where is this money to come from? There is only one answer to this question, and 
 that is, from the National Government. Since the waterways with which it deals 
 are interstate, the question must be approached from that viewpoint. 
 
 Recently, the Water Power League of America held a convention at Washington, 
 D. C., and requested expressions on the financing of power projects under the new 
 la\v, Hon. Secretary Payne, of Department of the Interior, made the only response 
 on this subject which offered any hope, when he obligingly indicated "that a power 
 license secured from the Government would help finance." This is quite true, yet 
 the legal restrictions of the license will also deter capital from going into the water- 
 power business as long as there remains other business in the land free from such 
 restrictions, to which investors may be attracted. 
 
 Not much of restriction or of license is imposed on the automobile business, yet it 
 is among the largest and the most remunerative in the land, and meets with satisfaction 
 on the part of both the Government and the people. Possibly, if such business 
 carried a restrictive license conducive to the employment of high-salaried and tech- 
 nical legal help, to observe the legal restrictions (as is required in the income tax 
 law), the automobile business wouid not be so great and remunerative. 
 
 Even to-day one may venture into the business of mining coal without any legal 
 restrictions, yet water power must find its greatest market in competition with coal 
 and oil. Our national hope and aim is that our wasteful and destructive flood waters 
 may be harnessed to in a large degree take the place of both: yet by law we have 
 placed the restrictions on the wrong foot we have placed them not upon the coal 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 131 
 
 which by use is consumed, but upon water, the substitute for coal, which without 
 being used will continue not only to run to waste, but to work destruction. 
 
 When we reflect upon the importance of this waste water and the countless pur- 
 poses that it can be made to serve, and the vital bearing which water-power develop- 
 ment has upon our national well-being, we wonder why there was not written into 
 the law for each word of restriction a word of financial encouragement. The answer 
 is simple: It was due to lack of understanding of the art on the part of many of our 
 statesmen at the time. 
 
 The question of power development ranges from that of controlling the raindrop, 
 from its source to tidewater and beyond to development of power and for almost 
 every conceivable purpose. Chief among these are: 
 
 The storing of flood waters at their source and elsewhere, to boost the maximum 
 power development at low-water stage. 
 
 The irrigation of arid and semiarid lands, of which Montana alone has 1,000,000 
 acres available. 
 
 The reduction of sediment flow in the rivers caused by reduction of the floods 
 themselves and incidentally reducing dredging, dike, and levee work. 
 
 The regulation of stream 'flow throughout the year and incidentally aiding inland 
 navigation. 
 
 The electrification of steam railways and the great reduction of cost in operation, 
 greatly increasing the efficiency of the railroads without increasing the cost. 
 
 The saving of millions of tons of coal and millions of gallons of oil annually. 
 
 The manufacture of nitrates for fertilizer and for explosives, by hydroelectric 
 process, for commercial and national defense purposes. 
 
 The saving of farm lands that are constantly being cut away by flood waters. 
 
 The reduction of ice gorge troubles. 
 
 The treatment of ores electrically w r hich otherwise could not be made commercially 
 workable. 
 
 The economic manufacture of paper. 
 
 The creating by irrigation of farm lands for the coal miner and others who might 
 wish to engage in agriculture. 
 
 In support of some of the above points I make the following, merely for illustration 
 (and there are many projects of a similar nature in the United States), to wit: 
 
 Our company has planned a water power and irrigation project in the mouth of 
 Big Horn Canyon, near Hardin, Mont. The plan calls for a dam 480 feet high, which 
 will create a reservoir 57 miles in length to store flood water for irrigating 100,000 acres 
 . of land and develop (on a load factor of 50 per cent) over 200 000 horsepower. The 
 power will be used for the operation of 1,500 miles of transcontinental steam railroads 
 which can be reached over a transmission distance not exceeding 200 miles from the 
 power house. The project will cost $25,000,000. The dam and reservoir will store 
 40,000,000,000 cubic feet of water, of which volume 30.000,000.000 cubic feet will 
 b flood water stored, to increase the low flow of the river from 1,200 cubic second-feet 
 to 4,000 cubic second-feet. By the same operation flood water will be reduced from 
 45.000 second-feet to 8,000 second-feet, the flow averaging throughout the year from 
 4,000 second-feet to 8, 000 second-feet. Incidentally, this operation will act to give us 
 complete control of flood water over a drainage area of 21, 000 square miles, or 6 percent 
 of all the water which empties into the Mississippi River from its western drainage 
 area or that Avhich passes a line on the west bank of the Mississippi River from Canada 
 to the Gulf of Mexi co . By this one power proj ect there will b e taken from the Bi g Horn . 
 Yellowstone, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers annually a volume of flood water 5 
 miles wide, 5 feet deep, and 60 miles long. Again, by this same operation, it will be 
 observed to what extent the flow of the above-named rivers will be regulate'd for 
 increased navigation, and last, but not least, what the regularity of flow will mean 
 by way of preventing sediment flow, for it is only at high water or flood stage that 
 river banks are cut away and carried off as sediment, to repose in the bottom of the 
 sluggish flowing streams, such as the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers, and there 
 it remains to reduce the size of the channels, or until it is removed by dredges. As 
 an alternative, the river banks are raised by dikes and levees such as are located at 
 New Orleans, where the city lies 40 feet below the river level. 
 
 The State and National Governments have already spent $180,000,000 in this kind 
 of work without having contributed 1 cent in effort to prevent flood water or sediment 
 flow at its source, and this situation is as bad to-day as it ever has been in the past. 
 Does it not seem that the National Government should, in its own interest, give water 
 power developers a better opportunity than one hedged about entirely by restrictive 
 laws? 
 
132 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 
 
 Approximately 30,000,000.000 cubic feet of flood water will be stored in Yellowstone 
 !Lake for irrigation purposes only, if the Government will permit the plans of that 
 project to be carried out. 
 
 Again, it has been recorded that by water power electrification the Chicago, Mil- 
 waukee <k St. Paul Railroad operating from Harlowton, Mont., to a point near the 
 Pacific coast, last year netted a saving of 300,000 tons of coal and 40,000,000 gallons 
 of oil. Would it not be to our national interest to encourage power development 
 so that more roads may lie electrified and more flood waters be converted to use? 
 
 It has often been said that the railroads would find the money to build water powers 
 with which to electrify when the need grew urgent. In the past nine years I have 
 come in contact with many of the heads of the various railway systems and with others 
 concerned in the financing of roads. They all take the position that it would have 
 been to their interests to have electrified as far back as 10 years ago, if money had 
 boon available. They will toll you now that money is not to be had for this purpose, 
 -dless of its merits. 
 
 Should you suggest to the banker and the financier (who to-dav has no money for 
 power development) that the money in part should be made available by the Gov- 
 ernment, they will tell you that while they do not have the money to invest they would 
 not advise legislation making Government money available, for the reason that with 
 it would follow governmental rosl rid ions such as have como with the Federal farm 
 loan ar-t. fictions would operate against all the good which might otherwise 
 
 be obtained fron 
 
 Personally, I am unalterably opposed to the proposition of Government aid, in 
 the sense that it would carry with il a Control and dictation over and above that which 
 is ordinarily extended to the private bond purchaser, but I am in favor of an amend- 
 ment to the power bill which will permit the ( lovornmo.nt to invest in the bonds of a 
 promising water-power development to the extent of 50 per cent of their cost, con- 
 ditiom-d that tho other ">0 per cent is made available from private <y- other sources, 
 and this only when assured by competent authority that a project is feasible and 
 practicable from every viewpoint. Such amendment should, of course, carry with it 
 an ''optional clause" leaving ii discretionary with the power developer to use or not 
 to use such moii 
 
 This pr,>p:--iii :iited for several very g-""l rouson^. to wit: 
 
 I. That nine years of experience irained in advancing but a single meritorious 
 project i has pi ,,. l>.\-,,nd <)iiesli->n. thai 1'Y leral aid must and should be 
 
 dnd if wiiier po\vors are to be buili. since oilier money is not available. Kmi- 
 iii. in bank* finnnciers have repeatedly assured me in the past "that 
 
 if water-powor ; "/as had. the money to build our project would be available." 
 
 After the li \v:i* had I was ' > retire, as no money jrta expected for 
 
 some time for any project. There is no authority in the 1'iiii" I 81 itea to-day to 
 advise where money can be obtained for power development, regardless of the market, 
 or the promise of a market for the power. 
 
 2. There is the very best authority in the land available to assure a dmenad for 
 hundreds of millions of dollars of power annually, if the same was to be had. 
 
 3. Large water powers require years to build. Therefore it is necessary to start 
 building years in advance of the time when it is expected to have them completed 
 for use. In this respect, they occupy the same position as the railroads have held in 
 the building up of the country. The roads had to come first. 
 
 ! . By reason of the national importance of water power and its kindred developments 
 it would be good business for the Government to enact legislation extending financial 
 aid for suchT without adding much, if anything, to the taxes. It might well apply 
 the annual ''rivers and harbors appropriations" for this purpose for a time, at least, 
 or until its power bonds would begin to bring returns. It might go easy with its 
 "United States Reclamation Service appropriations," as there would be many private 
 irrigation projects connected with power developments that would be built to in a 
 large measure take the place of projects delayed by lack of United States Reclamation 
 Service funds. There are numerous other appropriations that might be dispensed 
 with, and the money appropriated for investment by the Government in this greater 
 and more urgent field of national activity, and where the return of the principal with 
 interest would be assured beyond question, which is not the case with most appro- 
 priations. Most of them are made to be expended and to remain expended; for 
 instance, such as money spent in the building of dikes, levees, and dredging streams, 
 and these offer only temporary relief after all. 
 
 5. Why not effect an appropriation amendment that at once makes for a secure 
 investment in the building of permanent water power and irrigation works? Such 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 133 
 
 would develop cheap power, for which there is to-day a demand even greater than 
 are the losses from floods, due to lack of these developments. 
 
 Why not in this manner encourage to the utmost the reclamation by irrigation of 
 millions of acres of land attendant with power development, and by this single oper- 
 ation secure for the Nation the countless other benefits which limited vision and 
 space will not permit me to dwell upon? 
 
 Why not, in a few words, adopt the policy "That an ounce of prevention is worth 
 a pound of cure." and thereby create a national asset a hundredfold greater than 
 the investment? From an economic standpoint such a policy would surpass any- 
 thing which has yet been attempted. Let private initiative, with Government en- 
 couragement, have full sway in the building of that which means more to the Gov- 
 ernment by far than it means to any set of individuals. 
 
 THE LAKE YELLOWSTONE PROJECT. 
 
 [By the Yellowstone Irrigation Association, Livingston, Mont.] 
 
 Reams of adverse publicity have been circulated against the proposed project for 
 the construction of a dam at the outlet of Lake Yellowstone in the National park. 
 Perhaps 90 per cent of this criticism has been advanced by persons or organizations 
 who have no real conception of the scheme. They do not know what the project 
 really contemplates, why it is necessary, or what the effect will be after it is construc- 
 ted. ' 
 
 In the interest of a full, fair, and thorough understanding of the matter this article 
 is prepared. No statement is herein made that can not be amply supported by 
 engineering data, and no conclusions are drawn except they are so'fully warranted 
 by existing conditions to admit of no argument. 
 
 Two hundred million dollars lost in Montana. The money loss to the people of 
 Montana due to climatic conditions during the past four years has been well over 
 $200,000.000. This gigantic sum is the difference between what was received for 
 crops and what would nave been received had the rainfall in the growing season been 
 sufficient to produce just an average crop plus the sum that was sent out of the State 
 for stock feed last winter. It is more than $300 each for every man. woman, and 
 child in the State. Probably no other State in the Union could stand such a drain 
 on top of the drain for liberty bond, war relief, and excessive live stock losses suffered 
 in 1919 and 1920 and survive a general and wholesale bankruptcy. 
 
 Reclamation to insure future . Thoughtful persons everywhere, realize that if this 
 condition is to be obviated in the future, if Montana is to come back into its own, 
 and be a really great State, the change must be worked through a great extension 
 of the area under irrigation. Reclamation on a grand scale is the only insurance 
 against another disastrous drought. 
 
 The Yellowstone River. The Yellowstone River drains Lake Yellowstone in the 
 Yellowstone National Park and fairly tumbles down through a rugged canyon in the 
 park and out into a valley in Montama. For 470 miles it then flows through Montana 
 and just over the line into North Dakota where it joins the Missouri on another 1,700- 
 mile journey by way of St. Louis and the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. 
 
 Valley and benches. The valley of the Yellowstone, from 1 to 10 miles wide, is one 
 of the most fertile, and under irrigation one of the most productive areas in the north- 
 west. On either side it is flanked by expansive benches. These benches extend 
 back from the river as far as 40 miles and are even more fertile and under irrigation 
 more productive than the valley itself. 
 
 Tributaries. The river after it leaves the lake is fed by a number of important 
 tributaries. Two of these, the Lamar and the Gardiner, join it while still in Yellow- 
 stone Park. The Shields. Boulder, Stillwater, Clarks Fork, Big Horn, Powder, and 
 Tongue Rivers, together with dozens of lesser tributaries, affect a confluence and 
 add to its volume on the journey down through Montana. These tributary streams 
 like the Yellowstone rise in high mountain ranges, emerge from rugged canyons, and 
 flow for many miles each through valleys bordered by bench lands before they reach 
 the parent river. 
 
 Irrigated acreage. In the main Yellowstone valley and on the bench lands border- 
 ing it, there is now T under irrigation by canals diverted from the river something over 
 250,000 acres. This includes land to be served by canals now under construction. 
 About an equal area has been reclaimed along the various tributaries by canals taken 
 from them . 
 
134 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER / CT. 
 
 Irrigable acreage. There still remains more than 1,000.000 acres of fertile land that 
 could yet be put under water by gravity canals or pumping plants from the river. 
 provided there was a sufficient volume of flow during irrigation season to serve such 
 a demand. 
 
 Water shortage. There is not during the irrigation season sufficient water to supply 
 this need nor any considerable part of it. Indeed, in seasons where the flow is below 
 normal there is not a sufficient volume of Avater to care for the land already under 
 irrigation. In 1919, for instance, the river was at a minimum of flowage. Between 
 Columbus and Forsyth 23 irrigation systems tap the river. For only 2 out of the 23 
 was there a full water supply throughout the season. Several canals received no 
 water at all during the latter part of July and all of August. According to records 
 kept by Mr. B. C. Lillis. a civil engineer, residing at Billings, the total crop loss 
 because of this water shortage under the 23 projects was about $4,000.000. 
 
 To be sure there was some water passing the head gates of all these canals. It 
 could not be diverted into the canals borar.se the floors of the various bead works 
 were in all cases somewhat above the bed of the stream. Had it been possible to 
 divert all of the water needed, the river would have been bone dry at Miles City. 
 In that event the great Lower Yellowstone project constructed to reclaim nearly 
 60.000 acres in the Lower Yellowstone Valley of Montana and North Dakota would 
 have been without water. hcrarsc th" tributaries joining tin- river below Forsyth 
 contributed little or no water drring th<- hut CM- p:irt of -July, all of August, and a part 
 of September. Solely becaii.se 21 projects between Columbus and Forsyth hud little 
 or no supply, there was water enough passed down the channel to serve the 30,000 
 acres actually under irrigation on the Lower Yollowstone project and still permit 
 a limited quantity to pass its head works and flow into the Missouri. 
 
 n ill rcrnr. Of course, these periods of water shortage and severe crop loss 
 
 will recur again and again. They : \pected to recur with greater frequency 
 
 and increased severity in the futun I h.- urea under irrigation along the river 
 
 is being constantly increased with a proportionately heavier demand for \vator. This 
 is even more true of the tributaries. The time must soon come when these tributaries 
 will contribute little <>r no \vator during irrigation season. With possibly on" or two 
 exceptions there is sufficient irrigable hurl in their own valleys, when fully devel 
 to use all the flow, including such Hood R ;n be conserved by reservoirs. The 
 
 Yellowstone musi more and n.ore depend oil ITS main source of the supply, Yellow- 
 stone Lake. 
 
 Floods. The volume of flow in the Yoli,iw>i,>ne 1 liver is 26 times as much duiin.u 
 the flood period in the spring as it is dr tan .-eason in the late summer. 
 
 During .\jay and the e irl v p.ut of June i hat have accumulated through the 
 
 winter months in the mountain r-.invon- iiug the source of the stream and its 
 
 tributaries are rapidly moll ing and running oi'i 1 . The river becomes a veritable torrent. 
 This enormous volume of water runs V;t only is there a waste of water and 
 
 energy, but the raging torrent does a damage that runs into the hundreds of thousands. 
 even millions of d:>M. 
 
 Crops are flooded, farm land is eroded, roads, bridges, and buildings are washed 
 away, railroad embankments are cut through, and towns are inundated. There is 
 not infrequently loss of life. These floods have taken such a toll, at some one or more 
 points along the 500 miles length of the valley, almost everv year since settlement 
 came in fort v-odd yea's ago. A careful compilation of the damage done in 1918, in 
 which season the flood was unusually large, puts the total figures at more than 
 $2,000,000. This is not guesswork, but an actual inventory of "damage done. No 
 complete record of the loss in any other season is available. ( 'onservative men are of 
 the opinion that in 10 years it has been nearly or quite $5,000,000. A flood loss that 
 averages half a million dollars per year is a direct tax of $5 per annum for each of the/ 
 100,000 persons who make their homes along the Yellowstone. 
 
 Problem easily solved. From an engineering and construction standpoint it is a 
 comparatively simple matter to solve the problem of floods in spring and water 
 shortage in summer. A simple concrete dam, that will cost less than half a million 
 dollars, will hold back the floods and prevent an average annual damage equal to its 
 total cost. It will hold in reserve sufficient precious water to make good every water 
 right along the river, and prevent another 4,000,000 crop loss on the irrigated land. 
 It will store sufficient, additional water to make possible the reclamation of 600,000 
 additional arid but fertile acres. 
 
 Millions a year or nothing. The average value of crop production under the Huntley 
 project, which is perhaps a fair sample of irrigated land in Montana, was S39 in 1918 
 and $49 in 1919. Add the items together, flood damage saved present irrigated 
 crops made secure and crop values on land that may be reclaimed. Twenty-five- 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT. 135 
 
 or thirty million dollars a year added to the economic wealth of the State and Nation. 
 Of course, all this can not be realized at once even by the construction of the dam. 
 It may be 25 or even 50 years before the last of all the various canals which must be 
 constructed from the river to irrigate all the separate tracts that go to make up the 
 600,000 acres have been completed. The point is, that by natural development and 
 in time, all the land will be reclaimed if water is provided. It can neither be 
 reclaimed nor made of value without such a water supply. Twenty-five million 
 dollars a year can be added to our wealth if the dam is built. Nothing can be added 
 through an extension of reclamation in the particular area of reclamation unless it is; 
 
 The dam site. There are two possible dam sites. Refusal of permission to make 
 surveys in the park has precluded the engineers of the association from learning which 
 site is the better of the two. One of these is but a few hundred feet below where the 
 river leaves the lake and very near the present "Fishing Bridge." If constructed 
 here the dam will be about 525 feet long and 20 to 25 feet in height above the bed of 
 the stream. (The dam height is an unknown quantity since the depth of the stream 
 at dam site, and the fall of the river from the lake to the site can only be determined 
 by surveys.) The other site, about 2 miles farther down the river, will require a dam 
 about 300 feet long and some 5 feet higher than the "Fishing Bridge" side. This 
 extra height is to take up the fall in the river for the 2^ miles. 
 
 At the "upper site there is an unknown depth of sand, so thai the dam may have to 
 go a considerable distance below the stream bed for a suitable foundation or it may 
 even have to be erected over a pile foundation. At the lower site the river bed is 
 apparently solid bedrock. 
 
 Dam and bridge. Which ever location is to be used the dam will necessarily be an 
 artistic concrete structure in harmony with the surroundings. It will be provided 
 with control gates, by means of which the quantity of water passing through can be 
 regulated. No water will jpass over the dam at any time. Indeed the dam crest 
 will be from 5 to 10 feet above the highest level of the lake behind it. 
 
 The road in from the Cody entrance passes over the present "Fishing Bridge." 
 This is a rickety old pile structure, that must soon be replaced. A permanent, artistic 
 bridge can be put on top of the dam. This will be done without expense to the 
 Government. 
 
 Yellowstone Lake. Yellowstone Lake has an area of about 89,000 acres or nearly 
 140 square miles. It is irregular in shape, with about 100 miles of shore line. Ex- 
 cepting two places, one at the south end where the Yellowstone River enters and the 
 other at the north end near the mouth of Pelican Creek, the banks are comparatively 
 steep. Indeed, for the greater part of the distance along the shore line the banks are 
 precipitate. 
 
 Governmental topography reveals that any such raise as can possibly be made in 
 the elevation of the lake surface, will increase the submerged area only a negligible 
 amount. In no event will this be more than 2 per cent and probably it will be only 
 a fraction of 1 per cent. Under present conditions there is a variation of about 6 feet 
 in the level of the lake between the spring period when an excess of flood waters 
 have gathered and the summer period after these floods have run out. 
 
 Raising the lake. The volume of water that annually drains from Lake Yellowstone, 
 averages 1,215,425 acre-feet. (An acre-foot is the quantity of water required to cover 
 1 acre a foot in depth.) The lake area is 89,000 acres. 
 
 Assuming that the gates in the dam were closed and remained closed an entire year 
 (this can not be permitted because in the winter a sufficient volume of water must 
 pass to protect the fish, and in the tourist season at least a normal flow must be main- 
 tained over the falls and through the Grand Canyon), the water would pile up in the 
 and raise its surface a total of 13 feet, or 1\ feet above its present maximum level. 
 Making a minimum allowance for the water that must be permitted to pass and the 
 maximum amount the lake can be raised is 7 feet above its present high level. In 
 actual practice the plan is to raise it a little if any above this high water level but 
 simply to hold back flood water sufficient to maintain this high level and have a 
 reserve supply for the latter part of the irrigation season when the tributaries can not 
 furnish enough water to the river to meet the demand. In reality the dam does 
 nothing more than equalize the flow, so that instead of a great volume of water going 
 out of the lake during a 15 or 20 day period in the spring a constant flow will be main- 
 tained throughout the season. 
 
 Effect on Yellowstone Park. A dam sufficient to regulate and control the river 
 flow, as described, is the only structure of any kind that will be required in the park. 
 The first canal and diversion works will be in Yankee Jim Canyon, 15 miles outside 
 the park boundary. Other diversion works and canal systems will be miles farther 
 down the stream. The dam will be surmounted by an artistic bridge, now badly 
 
136 PROPOSKI.) AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER-POWER ACT;. 
 
 needed. The whole will be an attractive structure, quite as pleasing and harmonious 
 as the beautiful concrete arch bridge that now spans the canyon above the falls. The 
 aver;) without realization that il i 1 -; a dam site at all. 
 
 The np/> Tories circulated by our eastern friends, who are unwittingly 
 
 permitting their imaginations to run riot, are to the effect that great areas of forest 
 are to be I; ugly stretches of mud bank left by the draining of the lake: 
 
 game run out of rhe park: the paint pot md other scenic wonders destroyed. 
 
 This is all pure iiction. The lake can in no event be raised more than a couple of 
 feet above ition to which high winds now drive the waves on to the shore. 
 
 Then the beach thus -created. If a few come within the line of a 
 
 new 1 .led i hey can be removed. .\ variation in the lake 
 
 level nix!' not an acre ol 'nk along the entire 
 
 hundred o Why then will there be mud ban;- e dam is built? 
 
 would be no mud banks if the lake was raised 20 feet. In 
 
 the first place there is little or no soil around the shore. It is mostly either formation 
 
 dly, a, body of water large enough to have vigorous wave action never 
 
 has mud banks. The waves wear the soil out and leave only sand and gravel. The 
 
 t all large lakes and along the sea shor- i>le evidence of this. 
 
 dam c by the concrete bridge at the canyon. Why will 
 
 it be i ' a dam and bridge at the lake? The paint pots are a hundred 
 
 feet or more in elevation above the maximum height to which the lake can possibly 
 
 be raised while the ay on iho opposite ^ide of a mountain 
 
 range. 
 
 ficialfl of the Int irtment, while admitting 
 
 the need of ad.i er c mtrol on the Yellow-lone, adva ea that it should 
 
 : in Yankee Tim <'anvon outside the park, Surveys have been made to 
 
 ility of this siie. and the n;> that can be accom- 
 
 plhli. Lou of a dam here. The-o surveys show that there i.- an e\- 
 
 i dam i ro i-'ct high. To 'build it higher than this would back the river 
 up over the town of Gardiner and into the park. A dam this height will provide 
 ; .old the flood wi which the Hoods would, 
 
 continue do\vn the stream as before, it will conserve sufficient irrigation w;i 
 reclaim only I "><).<)<)(> acre.- of land. On the other hand it will submerge Hi miles of 
 railro, lown of 'iardiner and practically block the northern entrance 
 
 Clearly a dam at this p able and there is no other 
 
 plac. ire ri\"er that aiV ; h e dam .- 
 
 If i. unum the lake water would cover three or four hot springs. A 
 
 iMiiental bulle- ire 5,000 of these in the park. This probably does 
 
 not indud hundred that are already submerged by the lake, 
 
 may [ p trom the bottom. 
 
 The rould be submerged a part of the 
 
 year. Xear it an; three simihti 1 cratere at slightly higher elevations. The lake level 
 
 13 not to leave ;< I'ish ( '<n\<>." About 
 
 half a mile of road might have to be rai from 
 
 making it soft. This is ilu- sum total of damage that can possibly be done. 
 
 On the other hand the dam will hold back the iloods that go out in the spring. This 
 
 volun ! will be releu much increased 
 
 !ls and through the Grand < anyon all during the tourist season. This 
 
 will tremendously enhance the beauty of the canyon and fails. In truth, the project 
 
 is not a damage to the park but a distinct advantage to it. 
 
 Who id!! '.ill be asked to grant the required permit to the State 
 
 of Montana. Either the State or an irrigation district composed of all the land to be 
 led by the dam, will undertake the construction and furnish the finances. Xo 
 water will be rented or sold. It will continue to be had by appropriation from the 
 river, just as it lias in the past. The project is not a money-making scheme for any 
 group of individuals any more than a municipal water plant is a money-making 
 scheme for the property owners in the city where it is installed. 
 
 The argument that a bad precedent will be established has little weight. There is 
 already a dam in Yosemite Park, by congressional permission. After this dam is 
 built no other dam can be constructed in any park except by the consent of Congress. 
 Congress is not going to permit any public park to be exploited. The people who 
 live near these parks and have an interest inspired by sentiment as well as an even 
 larger interest inspired by the revenue these playgrounds bring are not willing 
 that Congress permit such a policy. The citizenship of Montana asks for no favoritism, 
 but for simple justice in the granting of a concession that means a billion dollars in 
 future development. A concession that costs the Government nothing and may be 
 granted without harm to the Yellowstone Xational Park. 
 
 X