OCR Text |
Show 10 BOULDER CANYON PROJECT As said by Mr. Hoover, Secretary of Commerce: I believe the largest group of those who have dealt with the problem, both engineers and business folk, have come to the conclusion that there should be a high dam erected somewhere in the vicinity of Black Canyon. That is known usually as the Boulder Canyon site, but nevertheless it is actually Black Canyon. The dam so erected is proposed to serve the triple purpose of power, flood control, and storage. Perhaps I should state them in a different order-flood control, storage, and power, as power is a by-product of these other works. There are theoretical engineering reasons why flood control and storage works should be erected farther up the river and why storage works should be erected farther down the river; and I have not any doubt that given another century of development on the river all these things will be done. The problem that we have to consider, however, is what will serve the next generation in the most economical manner, and we must take capital expenditure and power markets into consideration in determining this. I can conceive the development of probably 15 different dams on the Colorado River, the securing of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 horsepower; but the only place where there is an economic market for power to-day, at least of any consequence, is in Southern California, the economical distance for the most of such dams being too remote for that market. No doubt markets will grow in time so as to warrant the construction of dams all up an down the river. We have to consider here the problem of financing; that in the erection of a dam-or of any works, for that matter-we nwet make such recovery as we can on the cost, and therefore we must find an immediate market for power. For that reason it seems to be that logic drives us as near to the power market as possible, and that it therefore it takes us down into the lower canyon. (Hearings on S. 320, 68th Cong., 2d sess., p. 601.) Mr. Garfield, one of the special advisers to the Secretary of the Interior, in his recent report said: I am satisfied that the most favorable site for first construction is at Boulder Canyon. At that point the opportunity is afforded to construct a dam which would impound approximately 26,000,000 acre-feet of water, thus assuring, as far as it is humanly possible to assure, the storage of floods and permit a flow in the river below at such times and in such quantities as would provide for future irrigation and prevent the disasters which have been and will be attendant upon unregulated floods. The recent report of Governor Scrugham to the Secretary of the Interior also said: UPPER BOULDER CANYON AND LOWER BOULDER CANYON OR BLACK CANYON These two sites, on account of their adjacent location and marked superiority to all other locations, are best considered together. 1. Both sites are topographically well adapted for the construction of a high dam and large impounding reservoir. 2. The rock formation at the upper Boulder site is granite. At the lower Boulder or Black site it is a highly silicified adesitic tuff which is more monolithic in character. 3. For the same height of dam above low water, the Black Canyon site will give somewhat larger reservoir and storage capacity. For the same elevation of economic high-water level the advantage is very much in favor of the Black Canyon site. 4. This lower site also has available large deposits of suitable gravel and other necessary construction materials which will reduce construction costs. 5. The Black Canyon site is readily accessible by rail and wagon road. The upper Boulder, Bridge, Diamond, and Glen Canyon sites are all very difficult of access. 6. The Black Canyon si$e has more suitable bedrock for dam foundation at distinctly less depth than other sites examined. The canyon walls are closer together and there are more favorable locations for the proposed power house and construction camps. All of these items will tend to reduce construction costs. 7. The Black Canyon site is closer to the territory to be served by the reservoir than any of the previously mentioned sites thus reducing costs and losses of transmission. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |