Problems in Public Power Administration in the Southwest—Some Arizona Applications

• Author: N.D. Houghton
• Date: 01 March 1951
• DOI: 10.1177/106591295100400116
• Published date: 01 March 1951
• Subject Matter: Articles

PROBLEMS IN PUBLIC POWER ADMINISTRATION IN
THE SOUTHWEST—SOME ARIZONA APPLICATIONS
N. D. HOUGHTON
University of Arizona
OMEVUI-~AT arbitrarily, the term Southwest is being delimited
in this paper to denote that part of the Southwest served by Hoover
&dquo;-
Dam and other lower basin projects on the Colorado River. The
national government’s ventures into power generation began as inciden-
tal adjuncts to its irrigation projects, and were designed to help pay the
costs of its water services. Already, however, the generation and mar~
keting of electric power have come to be a major concern of the Bureau
of Reclamation, which built and has general responsibility for the oper-
ation of Hoover Dam. It should be noted that the Bureau continues to
emphasize that its interest in power is merely incidental to its primary
concern with irrigation; but, as a Task Force Report for the Hoover
Commission pointed out, &dquo;The generation of electric power has become
more and more an important feature of its projects and might now be
considered almost the primary interest of this agency.&dquo; 1
In the West, most federally constructed dams have been built by
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers, but the
electric power produced at these western dams is all marketed by the De,
partment of the Interior through several of its agencies-the Bureau
of Reclamation, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Southwestern
Power Administration, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau
of Reclamation operates as an irrigation-promoting agency in all the
seventeen western states, and as marketing agency for power in most
of them. However, in the Northwest, Bonneville Power Administration
markets federal power; and the Southwestern Power Administration mar-
kets federal power in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas (all within the Bureau’s
field of operations), and also in Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The
Colorado River Basin lies wholly within the area in which federal dams
are built and their power sold by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Beginning in 1906, Congress by a series of laws declared certain basic
policies with respect to hydroelectric power generated at dams built by
the federal government. A listing of some of these basic power policies
seems essential to a discussion of power developments on the Colorado
River:
1
A. B. Roberts, Task Force Report on Water Resources Projects (Appendix K), p. 1. Mr. Roberts was
and is an official in one of the big private utility organizations. For a comprehensive view of the
Bureau’s projects, see its Reclamation Project Data, 1948. See also its The Colorado River, 1946.
116

---

117
1.
That all federal dams shall, where feasible, include facilities for
generating electrical energy.2
2. That, where necessary to make power from federal dams avail-
able in wholesale quantities to customers, transmission lines and related
facilities shall be constructed or acquired by the federal government.3
3. That supply preference in sales of power from federal dams shall
be given to public agencies and co-operatives.4
4
4. That disposal of power from federal dams shall be for the par-
ticular benefit of domestic and rural consumers.5
5. That power from federal dams shall be sold at the lowest pos~
sible rates.6
6. And, that disposal of power from federal dams shall be such as
to encourage widespread use and to prevent monopolization.7
7
All these basic policies are regarded by the Bureau of Reclamation as
determinative of its general power policies within its geographical area of
operation. In accord with them, the Bureau has formulated a set of
principles, including three which are especially pertinent to this discus-
sion :
1. That government hydroelectric plants within a region shall be
integrated by transmission lines.
2. That government-owned transmission lines to existing and po-
tential wholesale power markets shall be provided, unless privately owned
facilities are made available on terms which assure full accomplishment
of congressional power objectives.
3.
And, that public agencies and co-operatives, accessible as cus-
tomers, shall be given active assistance in promoting sound programs and
operations.8
2
Reclamation Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 117, as amended, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 522); Act of July 25, 1912 (37 Stat.
233; 33 U.S.C. Sec. 609); TVA Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 58); Flood Control Acts of 1938 and 1944
(52 Stat. 1216 and 58 Stat. 887).
3
Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887).
4
Reclamation Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 117); "Raker Act" of 1913 (38 Stat. 242); Federal Water Power Act
of 1920 (41 Stat. 1067); Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 1057); TVA Act of 1933
(48 Stat. 58); Rural Electrification Act of 1933 (49 Stat. 1363), and others.
5
TVA Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 58); Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1363); Bonneville Act of 1937
(50 Stat. 731); Fort Peck Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 403).
6
TVA Act of 1933; Bonneville Act of 1937; Fort Peck Act of 1938; Flood Control Act of 1944 (all cited
previously).
7
TVA Act of 1933; REA Act of 1936; Bonneville Act of 1937; Fort Peck Act of 1938; Flood Control Act
of 1944 (all cited previously).
8
Memorandum on Power Policy from the Secretary of the Interior, January 3, 1946, Symbol 123,327-1.

---

118
The story of the movement which finally led to the passage of the
Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, in spite of powerful organized oppo.
sition from the private power and utility interests of the Southwest and
of the country at large, is too long and involved for much attention here.
Simply let that powerful opposition be recalled for the record, at this
point, and let it be recalled also that the private power interests managed
to get the legislation toned down so as to make mandatory somewhat
less of allegedly &dquo;socialistic&dquo; government operation of utility services than
was desired by some of the law’s principal proponents-9
The Boulder Canyon Project Act provided for the building and
operation of the first of our so-called multiple-purpose projects. It provided
that the dam should be used (1) for river regulation, flood control, and
improvement of navigation, (2) to provide water for irrigation and domestic
uses and (3) for power production. The whole project was to be made
&dquo;self-supporting and financially solvent&dquo; by the sale of power from the
dam.&dquo;
The power facilities at the dam were designed to develop a generating
capacity of 1,317,500 kilowatts, or 4,330,000,000 kilowatt-hours,ll of firm
power per year. The law authorized the Secretary of the Interior to
allocate the power among and to the respective applicants for power;
and eligible applicants were designated as being &dquo;States, municipal corpora~
tions, political subdivisions, and private corporations.&dquo;
In the summer and fall of 1929, formal applications were made by
several California cities and private utility companies for definite amounts
of Boulder power. The state of Nevada, rather ambitiously, applied for
one,third of all Boulder power. Only one Arizona county (Mohave) made
application for power. Several private utility companies operating in
Arizona made applications, but only in perfunctory manner, apparently,
since they stated no desired amounts of power The state of Arizona
made no application at that time. The Secretary’s original allotment
stipulated that not more than 18 per cent of Boulder firm power should
be available to Arizona and not more than 18 per cent to the state of
Nevada. But, since it was not expected that either state would actually
9
The tremendous pressure which secured the enactment of the Boulder Canyon Project Act centered in
Southern California, and was marshalled mainly by the Imperial Irrigation District organization
and by the Boulder Dam Association, whose organization was sponsored by the Bureau of Power
and Light of the Los Angeles city government. This municipal agency and others in the region
had worked for provisions in the law which would have given public bodies exclusive rights to
the power. See R. E. Aston, Boulder Dam and the Public Utilities (unpublished thesis in University
of Arizona Library, 1936).
10
45 Stat. 1057.
11
Engineer’s figures on Boulder capacity may appear confusing, since the rated firm capacity drops each
year, due to silting allowances, by 8,760,000 kilowatt hours, the original figure being 4,330,000,000.
12
See Hoover Dam Power and Water Contracts in Boulder Canyon Project, Final Reports (Bureau of
Reclamation, 1950), p. 1150.

---

119
take its allotment, their power was made available for the use of other
California allottees, particularly the Metropolitan Water District, pending
possible later claim to it by these states.13
Acting under authority of the law, the Secretary of the Interior has
now finally allotted Boulder power among applicants on a percentage of
firm power basis: 14
...