Page images

you that

These contracts are two in number: (1) A contract for lease of power privilege executed severally by the City of Los Angeles and the Southern California Edison Co. (Ltd.), and (2) a contract for electrical energy executed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. In addition, under authority of section 5 of the act, I have executed with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California a contract for the delivery of water to be stored in the Boulder Canyon Reservoir.

True copies of the two-power contracts required by section 4 (6) of the act, and of the contract for delivery of water, are submitted to the committee herewith.

With particular reference to the power contracts, I wish to advise

(a) The power contracts between the United States and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the City of Los Angeles, and the Southern California Edison Co. (Ltd.) are adequate in my judgment to insure payment of all expenses of operation and maintenance of the dam and power plant incurred by the United States and the repayment within fifty years from the date of the completion of said works of all amounts advanced to the Colorado River Dam fund under subdivision (6) of section 2 of the project act for such works, together with interest thereon reimbursable under that act. This finding applies to the contracts both as originally drawn, and amended as suggested before the House Committee on Appropriations.

(6) The finding stated above is reported to you regardless of whether the City of Los Angeles, or only its Department of Water and Power, or both the city and the department, as separate entities, are thereby obligated.

(c) The finding stated in paragraph (a) would be reported to you regardless of whether or not the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California was thereby obligated.

As required by S. J. Resolution 164, Seventieth Congress, approved May 29, 1928 (45 Stat. 1011), the Secretary of the Interior, with the sanction and approval of the President, appointed a board of five eminent engineers and geologists, one of whom is an engineer officer of the Army on the retired list, who examined the proposed site of the dam to be constructed under the Boulder Canyon project act, reviewed the plans and estimates made therefor, advised the Secretary as to matters affecting the safety, the economic and engineering feasibility, and adequacy of the proposed structure and incidental works, and approved the plans for construction to date. Plans are proceeding satisfactorily, and construction can start as soon as this appropriation is available.

Report of this board (commonly known as the Sibert board) was submitted to the Secretary, November 24, 1928, and transmitted by him to the Speaker of the House on December 3, 1928. The Boulder Canyon project act thereafter became law. A supplemental report of the board was submitted to the Secretary on April 16, 1930.

True copies of both reports are handed to this committee herewith. Annexed to this report, as a part of it, are two memoranda on the following subjects:

I. Financial operation of the project.
II. Analysis of the power contracts.

Submitted separately are the following memoranda:


1. Present status of Boulder Dam designs.
2. Hydrology of Boulder Canyon Reservoir..
3. Basis of the rates for power.
4. Charts on financial operation.


1. Opinion of the Attorney General on authority of the contractors and

minimum obligations of the contracts. 2. Opinion of the Attorney General on funds required by the act to be

repaid. 3. Opinion by the Solicitor of the Interior Department on sixteen ques

tions involving construction of the act.


1. Audit of the Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light, 1929. 2. Annual Report of the Southern California Edison Co., 1929. Very truly yours,


(For enclosures see Appendixes 43, 44.)




« PreviousContinue »