9407

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9407
• Author: Water Education Foundation.
• Title: 75th Anniversary Colorado River Compact Symposium Proceedings.
• USFW Year: 1997.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

In 1921, the city of Los Angeles filed applications
with Arizona, Nevada and the Federal Power Com-
mission to develop Boulder power. Then Southern
California Edison presented a strong proposal to
Nevada and Arizona to develop the site with signifi-
cant benefits for both states.
Nevada originally favored the development of
Boulder Dam by private interests, which would
enable the state to tax the project and receive
preferential power rates. Boyle and Scrugham viewed
as promising the proposal from Southern California
Edison. Nevada's particular interest was in developing
cheap power to assist the mining industry which
produced a variety of metals. In testimony before
Congress, Gov. Boyle articulated Nevada's interests in
Colorado River water as follows: "It may be said that
Nevada's interest in this proposition is not so great
from the standpoint of irrigation as that of other
states. The state engineer has computed that some
80,000 acres ofland may be put under cultivation
as a result of the construction of a dam at Boulder
Canyon." Any of you who have visited Las Vegas in
the last few years know that we grow money there
and we do not grow crops.
As to the role of the federal government in
building the dam, Scrugham wrote to then Sen. Key
Pittman of Nevada: "If the Reclamation Service or
any other department of the federal government is
allowed to dominate the situation, the state of
Nevada will receive little or no profit from its
erection. I consider that the best interests of this state
will be conserved by preventing the U.S. Reclamation
Service from having any participation whatsoever in
the construction of the Boulder Canyon Reservoir.
I'm backed in this point of view by the leading
authorities and practically all of the interested states,
with the exception of California."
A month later, Scrugham wrote to the members
of the Nevada Development Commission, "Attached
find a copy of proposed license and contract between
the city of Los Angeles and the federal government
for power rights at Boulder Canyon Dam in the
Colorado River. This amazing document was
prepared by Me. A.P. Davis, director of the U.S.
Reclamation Service and in effect proposes to grant
the power rights which belong to the state of Nevada
to the city of Los Angeles in perpetuity." Now we still
have a little difficulty in understanding how come
Los Angeles got all the power. That's an aside.
Continuing the quote: "I have advance copies of
the Davis report and other documents, none of which
mention the state of Nevada or recognize our rights
in any way whatever. The governor and myself are
now in conference with certain Imperial Valley
interests who feel that they have been jobbed in the

matter and are ready and willing to aid this state in its
control of the situation." And that sometimes doesn't
change either, as an aside.
"Speaking of Davis," Scrugham continues in his
letter, "on account of the high-handed attitude of
Director Davis, it becomes evident that the best
interests of Nevada demand the total elimination of
the Reclamation Service and the municipality of Los
Angeles in participation in the construction of the
Boulder Canyon Project." Oh, and an aside - only
wish that that were true.
Furthering the quote: "Under the guise of
protecting the people from the power ttusrs, the city
of Los Angeles municipal officials with the conniv-
ance of certain government officials, are attempting
to put over one of
the most unfair,
improper and
outrageous power
monopolies ever
conceived." Amen.
A couple of weeks
later, Gov. Boyle
wrote to the secre-
tary-treasurer of the
League of the
Southwest stating
strong opposition to
the Davis report, and
I quote from that
document: "We will bend every effort to tie a tight
and a painful knot in the tail of anything, from the
U.S. government down, which tries to barter away
forever our rights to development of our own rich
and vast territory with our own resources."
Delph Carpenter, as we heard about earlier, of
Colorado, often called the "Father of the Compact,"
supported Nevada and Arizona's claim to additional
benefits from the Boulder Canyon Project. Carpenter
suggested that Nevada and Arizona should stop
assisting the U.S. Reclamation Service in the geologic
work that was being conducted at the Boulder
Canyon site. Carpenter wrote to Scrugham: "While I
am not in a position to even suggest the matters of
best policy for Nevada and Arizona, I conscientiously
feel that the first benefits from any reservoir con-
structed in the Colorado River across your common
interstate line should run to the two states whose
territory is involved. Neither state can afford to
encourage any construction whereby power to be
developed may be bargained away for the benefit of
the territory of some other state." I think that is
consistent with his strong feeling about states' rights.
Nevada's effort to secure private development of
Boulder Dam under state regulation ran into the

STATES'
PE RS PECTIVES

Any of you who have
visited Las Vegas in
the last few years know

that we grow money
there and we do not

grow crops.

- Richard Bunker

SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
MAY 1997

<2>