respective rights of the State of Arizona and the other Colorado River States shall have been defined and determined; and (2) In the upper basin, until a compact shall have been concluded and ratified by the upper basin States subsidiary to the Colorado River compact and equitably apportioning between them the uses of the waters of the upper basin. While Article IV, paragraph (b), of the Colorado River compact makes the impounding and use of waters for the generation of electrical power subservient to the use and consumption of such waters for agricultural and domestic purposes and shall not interfere with or prevent use for such dominant purposes within the States which have approved the compact, and, while the Boulder Canyon project act impresses the compact upon all public lands and reservations of the United States within the Colorado River Basin, the State of Arizona has not approved and is not a party to or bound by the compact. The jurisdiction of the United States under acts of Congress is limited by the Constitution as regards the waters of the State of Arizona and the rights of that State with relation to the rights of other States of the Colorado River Basin are undetermined. The States of the upper basin are preparing for discussions preliminary to the conclusion of an upper basin compact, and the lower basin States, including the State of Arizona, are now in the midst of negotiations for a subsidiary lower basin compact which will open the way for ratification of the Colorado River compact by the State of Arizona. Respecting the first suggestion, the six Colorado River States which have ratified the compact are not protected by its provisions from adverse claims to the use of the waters of the Colorado River or its tributaries to result from diversion, storage, and uses of such waters by works constructed within the State of Arizona; the relations between the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada respecting diversion, storage, and use of water by means of structure along the main river where the same forms the boundary between Arizona and California and Nevada, are undefined and can only be determined by interstate compact or by decision of the Supreme Court in a suit between those States; the States of the upper division are not protected as against adverse claims by Arizona to result from such diversions, storage, and uses of water upon that portion of the main stream; and the duties and obligations of the State of Arizona with respect to contributions of water to the supply necessary to fulfill future international treaty obligations between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico, if any such there ever be, are undefined and undetermined both as regards the other States of the Colorado River Basin and the United States of America. Furthermore, the States of the upper division are not protected from adverse claims to result from diversions, storage, and uses of water from the main Colorado River at points between Lee Ferry and the northern boundary of the State of Arizona, for the reason that such portion of the river is located within the upper basin, and construction of power or other works prior to ratification of the Colorado River compact by Arizona and the conclusion of a subsidiary compact with that State would give rise to adverse claims of rights to use of all the waters of the river above such works. Further construction of works upon any tributary within the lower basin will materially affect the water supply of the main river necessary for interstate and international obligations unless and until the use of water by the structures so authorized shall have been defined by the interstate compact. Authorization of any power or other projects at points along the main river or elsewhere in the lower basin or in that portion of Arizona within the upper basin, prior to settlement and determination of interstate relations, would result in confusion and the creation of unnecessary and avoidable adverse and exclusive claims. Referring to the second suggestion, while Article IV, paragraph (b), of the Colorado River compact makes the impounding and use of water for power purposes subservient to uses of such water for agricultural and domestic purposes as between those States of the upper basin which have ratified the compact, there are no provisions regulating uses of water for power purposes as between the States or apportioning among the States the use of water allocated to the upper basin for agricultural and domestic purposes. Such matters are to be settled by subsidiary upper basin compacts, now about to be negotiated under the provisions of Article VI. Present authorization of power projects in the upper basin would not only make difficult the apportionment of water for agricultural and domestic purposes between the States but would so disturb interstate relations respecting power uses as to render the conclusion of a satisfactory compact difficult if not impossible. The Federal power act grants to the Federal Power Commission very broad discretion in the granting and refusal of permits and licenses for the development of power and indicates the intent of the act to be that all such shall be refused whenever the granting thereof would be detrimental to public interest or to the general welfare of the States or of the Nation. Both the Federal power act and the Boulder Canyon project act provide for the development of the water resources of the Colorado River in an orderly manner and in conformity with a comprehensive plan. The granting of permits or licenses in the Colorado River Basin by the Federal Power Commission prior to determination of interstate relation, as hereinbefore suggested, would not only be injurious and detrimental to the general welfare of all the States of the Colorado River Basin and of the United States, but would confuse interstate and international relations and would prevent the development of the water resources of the Colorado River system upon a comprehensive plan. The States of the Colorado River Basin are proceeding with that settlement of interstate relations prerequisite to construction of projects for use of the waters of the Colorado River system and the United States are requested to refrain from authorizing the commencement or construction of projects upon the river and its tributaries until interstate relations and titles have been defined and determined, as herein before suggested, in harmony with the intent of the above-mentioned acts of Congress. Very respectfully, WM. H. ADAMS, Governor of the State of Colorado. Governor of the State of New Mexico. Governor of the State of Utah. FRANK C. EMERSON, Governor of the State of Wyoming. Faced with this formal petition by the majority of the interested States for further postponement of all action in respect to the many pending applications, the staff of the commission undertook a comprehensive study to determine whether it might not be possible to formulate a program which would meet the objections of the upper basin States and at the same time permit many of the long-standing applications to be disposed of. As a result of this study it became clear that the applications could be classified in different groups and a specific course of action pre scribed for each group. One group embraced the license applications for constructed and operating plants on tributary streams which lacked proper authorization for their occupancy of public lands. These plants were operating under old purchased water rights or had established water rights by beneficial use over long periods of years. No generating station of large size was involved and it appeared that favorable action on the applications of this character would have no adverse effect on interstate questions. The second group included small proposed projects high up on mountain tributaries and with no appreciable amount of storage regulation. In all cases they were so situated that no irrigation or irrigation storage above them appeared feasible and, therefore, they could have no effect on other water rights. It was concluded that cases in this class which upon investigation proved meritorious might be allowed to proceed. Applications in the third group related to the proposed developments in the Gila River watershed. This basin was specifically excluded from the effect of the legislative embargo on March 4, 1929, and since the development and use of the waters of this region are of interest only to Arizona there seemed no good reason for further delay in the authorization of the legitimate projects. One exception is an application which involves some interest of New Mexico. The fourth group embraced all the applications contemplating developments on the Colorado and its principal tributaries. In most cases these involved the creation of large impounding capacity and complex water-right questions of an interstate character. Moreover, many were in conflict with each other and a number were in conflict with the Boulder Canyon project. The obvious course was to reject the latter together with all others which were found no longer adapted to the changed conditions and continue the rest in a suspended status until the uncertainties about interstate water allocations were cleared up. After some further negotiations with the authorities of the interested States concerning the tentative program, the commission on March 22, 1930, adopted the following resolution:1 Whereas the Congress, by joint resolution of March 4, 1927 (44 Stat. 1456), directed the Federal Power Commission not to issue or approve any permits or licenses in the Colorado River Basin until the Colorado River compact was approved by Congress, or, in the event that said compact was not sooner approved, until March 5, 1929; and by the act of December 21, 1928 (Boulder Dam act), this embargo was extended as to all of the basin, except the Gila River watershed, until such act became effective; and Whereas upon issuance of the Executive order of June 21, 1929, proclaiming the Boulder Dam act effective, full authority was restored to the Federal Power Commission to act upon any applications in the basin; and Whereas it appears desirable to withhold authorizations for proposed projects related to prospective interstate water allocations; and 1 See page 107. Whereas certain small constructed and proposed projects may be authorized without interference with, or embarassment to, interstate negotiations; and Whereas on the Gila River watershed, exempted from the legislative embargo by the act of December 21, 1928, there are a number of proposed projects wholly within the State of Arizona, which involve no relation to interstate water allocation: Therefore be it Resolved, That the commission shall withhold authorization for those projects within the Colorado River Basin which may affect interstate water allocations pending the endeavors being made by the respective States to negotiate agreements, and that other applications, including those in Gila River Basin and those contemplating small constructed and proposed projects, shall be disposed of after examination by the Interior Department as to their general effect on the Colorado River development; and be it Further resolved, That all pending applications found to be not adapted to existing conditions shall be held for rejection subject to the right of applicants within a specified period to show cause why such action may be contrary to public interest. The administrative actions necessary to make this policy effective were deferred until after the approval of the appropriation for beginning construction work on the Boulder Canyon project. Applications qualifying for favorable action are now in process of authorization and those which appear out of harmony with the present situation are being held for rejection. The latter includes not only those in physical conflict with Boulder Canyon, but also the proposed developments which are deprived of a possible market for their output for some years in the future on account of the large amount of power to be available from the plant at Hoover Dam. The cancellation of these applications will clear many long-standing cases from the commission's docket and reduce the proposed installation total by some 15,000,000 horsepower. KINGS RIVER INVESTIGATION Early in 1929 it became apparent that an appraisal of the storage resources of the South and Middle Forks of Kings River, Calif., would be desirable in connection with consideration of a proposal to transfer the region from the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests to the Sequoia National Park. This need arose principally from the fact that, if retained in the national forests, the resources of the region would normally be subject to development for power, irrigation, and other purposes, whereas if transferred to the park they would presumably be held in their natural undeveloped state. Accordingly, on April 26, 1929, the Forester in charge of the Forest Service and the acting director of the National Park Service addressed a joint letter to the executive secretary of the Federal Power Commission requesting that the commission conduct an investigation and prepare a report on (1) the possibilities for water storage for power, irrigation, and other purposes of those parts of the canyons of the South and Middle Forks of Kings River and their tributaries which were proposed to be added to the Sequoia National Park; and (2) the estimated net economic value of the proposed projects and of any additional potential water-storage possibilities. The executive secretary informed representatives of the Forest Service and the National Park Service that the making of such an investigation and report would require extensive topographic, hydrographic, and geologic surveys, and would involve a large expenditure of time and money if it were required that the findings as to costs and economics be conclusive. The two services indicated, however, that they would nevertheless like to have the commission make such an investigation as was practicable without the undertaking of additional surveys. Accordingly, during the summer of 1929, Mr. Ralph R. Randell, senior engineer, was assigned to the task of making the best appraisal practicable within the limitations of available time and funds. The investigation made included field examination of the region by pack train, an airplane inspection in which special attention was given to the numerous small headwater lakes, and the collection, correlation, and analysis of all available pertinent data. Much of the investigation was conducted in cooperation with representatives of the State of California. Costs were variously borne by the commission and the two services for which the work was undertaken. The report submitted as a result of this investigation indicates. a probable total of about 400,000 acre-feet of potential storage capacity within the area in question. The report estimates that the development of this storage will make possible the development of about 800,000 electrical horsepower and the annual production of some 3,600,000,000 kilowatt-hours of primary electric energy in addition to an indeterminate amount of secondary electric energy. It is further estimated that the development of the storage and its use primarily for power purposes will reduce by some 70,000 acre-feet the amount of storage required to be provided lower down on the river for irrigation purposes. The report is being printed and copies will soon be available for distribution. REORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION For many years prior to the adoption of the Federal water power act in 1920 the administration of the Government's interests in waterpower sites was exercised through the departments having jurisdiction over the Federal property on which the water power constituted an incidental use. The War Department controlled the developments in navigable waters, the Department of Agriculture the power sites located in the extensive mountainous regions embraced in the national |