Story-of-SRP-History-Book

[Audio] THE STORY OF SRP: WATER, POWER, AND COMMUNITY.

[Audio] THESTORYOFSRP. THE STORY OF SRP.

[Audio] THESTORYOFSRP:WATER,POWER,ANDCOMMUNITYPublishedbySaltRiverProject.

[Audio] Acknowledgments: The Story of SRP: Water, Power, and Community is the culmination of the efforts of many dedicated employees, including the historical analysts of SRP's Research Archives and the talented photographers, copy editors, designers, cartographers, and pressmen of SRP's Communications Services. Illustrating SRP's continuous commitment to sustainability, this book was printed on recycled paper. Visit srpnet.com for more information about SRP. Copyright Salt River Project 2017.

[Audio] CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Chapter One: Early Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter Two: The Promise of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Chapter Three: Building Roosevelt Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Chapter Four: The Water Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Chapter Five: 'We Are in the Power Business'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Chapter Six: Pulling Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Chapter Seven: Foundations of the Future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Chapter Eight: The Prunepickers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 Chapter Nine: Territorial Imperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 Chapter Ten: Shifting Gears. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 Chapter Eleven: Decade for Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 Chapter Twelve: Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Chapter Thirteen: Centennial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

[Audio] INTRODUCTIONIn1917thefederalgovernmenttransferredoperationofthefirstprojectcompletedundertheNationalReclamationAct,theSaltRiverProject(SRP),toagroupoflocalwaterusersinArizona,theSaltRiverValleyWaterUsers'Association(Association).Thetransfermarkedanimportantmilestoneintheearlydaysofthenation'seffortstodevelopwaterinfrastructureintheWest.Italsocarriedwithitanunderstandingthatwouldbecomeahallmarkoffutureprojects:thatthesuccessofreclamationprojectsrequirednotonlyfederalinvestment,butalsoastrongbaseoflocalsupport.Asthefirstprojectoperatedbyalocalentity,SRPbecamethemodelofwhatreclamationcouldaccomplishindevelopingWesternlands.ThefactthatSRP's1917contractwiththefederalgovernmentisstillineffecttodaytestifiestotheenduranceofanapproachthatcontinuestobethefoundationformanagingwaterandpowerintheValley.ThecollectivespiritthatguidedtheAssociation'searlydevelopmentwasnotacertaintyatitsformation.WhentheAssociationwasformedin1903asamechanismforresidentstoputforwardtheirlandsascollateralforthefederalfundstoconstructRooseveltDam,theideaofacommonorganizationtounifythecompetinginterestsofValleywateruserswasviewedwithskepticismbymanywhosawitasanunwarrantedintrusionintoprivateendeavors.Theexperienceoflocalwaterinterestsuptothattimewasmarkedbylitigationanddivisionmorethancooperativeandsharedpurpose.Inlightofthisbackground,theAssociation'sformationandultimatesuccessinunifyingdisparateinterestsisevenmoresignificant.Valleyresidentsultimatelyrealizedthefederalsupporttobuildthenecessarywaterinfrastructureforgrowthcouldonlycomethroughlocalcollaborationandapoolingofintereststhatjustified.

[Audio] II INTRODUCTION such a large investment. This book tells the story of the enduring partnership of those common interests, spanning federal, state, and local governments and a range of private interests, which through its continuity withstood the uncertainties of weather, economic cycles, and political movements and transformed a fledgling territorial corporation into a regional water and power provider. In the process, Arizona and SRP grew together into a state of several million residents and an organization that today supplies nearly 800,000 acre-feet of water annually and delivers power to more than a million customers. The founders of the Association clearly understood that Roosevelt Dam and the irrigation and power systems it fed were the keys to the long-term growth and prosperity of the Valley. This realization, born of drought, floods, and false starts, came with an understanding that the project would only be a success if it had a broad base of local support. Previous efforts to build a large storage dam failed principally due to a lack of consensus about who should bear the costs of the project and how the benefits would be distributed. The Association was founded by a coalition of commercial farmers and small ranchers; wealthy businessmen were balanced by corner grocers, "boosters" and "real farmers." No one group could ever completely capture the Salt River Project and redirect it for its own purposes. The solution to most conflicts usually required expanding the community of those with a stake in the organization rather than limiting its reach. This became a key strength of the Salt River Project—its ability to represent a broad spectrum of local stakeholders. As its home community changed, marked by a shift from agriculture to an increasingly urban service area, SRP responded to the needs of its customers by strengthening its role as a power provider. Power quickly emerged as an indispensable tool in meeting the challenges of building the ambitious, unprecedented Roosevelt Dam and pumping groundwater for a growing Valley. Lacking an available power supply, the dam's engineers utilized the natural drop in elevation at the dam site to generate hydroelectricity. Before the dam was complete, the power canal generated enough surplus electricity to supply well pumps and industrial customers in the Valley, simultaneously reflecting growth and supporting additional development in a cycle that has continued for more than a century. With the completion of additional hydroelectric dams on the Salt River, SRP embarked on a program to electrify the Valley's farms, houses, and businesses—years before the passage of the Rural Electrification Act as part of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal—while constructing a financial engine that could sustain water development for generations to come. The same values of innovation, foresight, and collaboration which enabled the success of the Association also emerged as key principles of SRP's provision of this other essential building block of life in the desert. The addition of diesel power to SRP's fuel mix in the late 1930s was only the first step in a constant process of diversification as the organization sought out, adopted, and constantly improved upon new ways of generating, transmitting, and delivering power. Over the years, successful relationships with SRP's partners in providing.

[Audio] INTRODUCTION III power to the Valley—from the planning and development of regional generation assets, to a series of territorial agreements ensuring efficiency, to the increasing integration and operation of the area's power infrastructure as a unified system—have proven the value of cooperation in supplying reliable, affordable power to Valley residents. The organization's relationship with those shareholders and customers has evolved in recent years to reflect emerging notions of stewardship and customer choice through programs that promote careful water use and energy efficiency by giving people more information and more ways to act upon it. This is, in the end, the story of those who call the Valley of the Sun home. From its earliest conception, SRP was created by—and for—the communities it serves. Over time, SRP's water and power services have helped ensure the successful achievement of its original purpose: the economic development of the Valley and the region. When the Association was formed in 1903, the population of Maricopa County was barely twenty thousand.1 On his visit to the Valley just eight years later for the dedication of the massive storage dam that bore his name, President Theodore Roosevelt assessed what he saw as the bright prospects of a burgeoning community. To a crowd gathered on the steps of Old Main at Arizona State University, Roosevelt declared: "I believe as your irrigation projects are established, we will see 75 to 100 thousand people here. . . . You have the great material chance ahead."2 In the 106 years since his speech, the water and power provided by SRP have helped the Valley harness Roosevelt's "great material chance" to a degree even the president might not have imagined—today, the Phoenix metropolitan area boasts over four million residents, placing it among the largest in the United States.3 Just as it has throughout its first century, SRP continues to build upon the achievements of the past in pursuit of a better future..

[Audio] CHAPTERONE:EARLYSETTLEMENTSAgriculturaldevelopmentintheSaltRiverValleybeganover2,000yearsagowhenagroupofpeoplearchaeologistscalltheHohokamfirstsettledthearea.TheHohokamlivedintheValleyforhundredsofyears,fromaroundAD1–1450.1Theculture'ssignaturestyleofpotterywasdiscoveredoverasignificant,centralizedareaintheValley.2TheSonoranDesertoftheHohokam'stimewassimilartotoday'sdesert,withfreezingtemperaturesinthewinter,hotsummers,andannualrainfallaveragingbetweensevenandeightinches.Theinnovativepre-ColumbianfarmersconstructedavastsystemofcanalsandlateralsthatwateredtensofthousandsofacresoffertilefarmlandintheValley.Thesecanals,branchingoutfrombothsidesoftheSaltRiver,displayedasophisticatedunderstandingofirrigationengineering.TheHohokamprimarilyusedstonetoolstodigtheircomplexgravity-basedtransmissionanddeliverysystem,whichwasdesignedforsmoothandsteadyflowingwater.Liketheirmoderncounterparts,theHohokamexperiencedperiodicdroughtandflooding,yettheysustainedathrivingcommunityofanestimated24,000to50,000people.Despitetheirlong,successfullifeintheValley,mostoftheHohokamlefttheareaaround1450,andtheirvillagesandcanalsfellintodisuse.3TheseearlysettlersdemonstratedtheneedforareliablewatersupplytosupportlifeintheSaltRiverValley,aswellasthepotentialsuccessofsuchasystem. AmericansettlementoftheSaltRiverValleybeganinthe1860swiththeestablishmentofaUSArmyoutpostatCampMcDowell,constructedeastoftheValleyin1865neartheconfluenceoftheSaltandVerdeRivers.SoldiersdugacanalfromtheVerdeandplantedseveralacresofforagecrops,grain,andvegetables.ThefirstprivatebusinessintheValleywasthatofJohnY.T.Smith,.

[Audio] 2 CHAPTER ONE: EARLY SETTLEMENTS who received a contract for the collection of hay in the river bottom to feed Army mules and horses.4 In 1867, a group from Wickenburg, led by Jack Swilling, moved into the Valley and dug a ditch along the route of a prehistoric Hohokam canal. The head of Swilling's Ditch was on the north bank of the Salt River at a place that now lies under the north runway of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.5 Swilling left the Valley after a few years and later died in Yuma. The stolid Smith stayed to become one of the area's most influential residents. In light of these early efforts, Smith and Swilling could be said to share the title of "cofounder of Phoenix."6 In 1870 the people living along Swilling's Ditch formed the Salt River Town Association and selected the "original townsite," a half-square-mile area between what is now Seventh Street and Seventh Avenue, south of Van Buren Street. They called the new town Phoenix, both in tribute to the departed civilization whose canals they would rebuild and as a prophecy of the Valley's promising future. Swilling's Ditch came to be referred to more often as the Town Ditch and, later, the Salt River Valley Canal.7 Earliest canals and settlements of the Valley, c. 1400 er v i er v R e a R i A er i er d v V riz Ri o New na Cana l A gu a F r er v Ri t al S G ra n d C a Casa Buena n al Pueblo Ultimo Casas de las Colinas E a st Casa Chica er Pueblo Grande Pueblo del Monte n C an al La Casita Pueblo del Alamo Pueblo del Rio r e v Ri Salt Gila Pueblo Viejo Casa de Loma Mesa la Casa Ca na l n ter es W Pueblo Primero River Los Muertos Alta Vista l a n a dated C First Settlements nsoli Co Earliest Canals Modern Day SRP Canal Santa C r u z Wa sh.

[Audio] CHAPTER ONE: EARLY SETTLEMENTS 3 IRRIGATION AND FARMING Despite the richness of the soil, farming in the arid Valley required irrigation. Like Swilling's group, many of the new canal builders used the remnants of Hohokam canals for their modern irrigation systems by simply renovating them. Damming the river to direct water into the canals was more difficult. The Salt River meandered through a wide, flat floodplain and frequently shifted its course, especially after a flood. Early settlers placed their rudimentary dams strategically in the river to raise the water level enough to force a flow of water through a headgate into a canal. To build such a diversion structure, settlers dragged large cottonwood and willow limbs into the river with the stump end upstream. Next, they piled brush and rocks onto the limbs, causing the branches to dig themselves into the riverbed. Early Valley residents often built the headgate, which regulated the flow into the canal, out of heavy timbers, with control gates that opened and closed.8 The dams and headgates required constant maintenance, so it was necessary for the Modern canals and settlements of the Valley, pre-1900 er v i R e erd er V v r Camp McDowell a R i e i v Arizona 1 Ri 884 New Peoria A gu a F r er iv R Salt Salt River Indian Reservation Glendale Gr a n d 1 8 7 8 0 ut 187 Scottsdale pa co i Mar Maricopa South Branch 1870 1889 7 Crossc 7 d l 8 1 Salt River Valley 1867 Hayden Branch 1871 O h a t U H i Phoenix g hl San Francisco 1871 an d 18 Mesa Tempe 88 5 8 Sal t R iv er 8 S.F. South Branch 1875 nch 1 Mesa 1878 a r Wor mser B pe 1871 Gila m Te Maricopa Village River xt. E e n e r y 8 8 5 1 K 1 Chandler 189 Early Settlement Location nsolidated Early Canal Co Modern Day SRP Canal.

[Audio] 4 CHAPTER ONE: EARLY SETTLEMENTS farmer-owners to work together. Understanding the cycle of the seasons improved the chances of successful farming. Most of the water came from snowmelt on the distant mountains of the Salt and Verde watersheds. River flow generally peaked in the spring and decreased in May or June. Farmers planted and harvested wheat before the summer dry season began, and many vegetables did well from fall to spring. The best bet for summer was alfalfa, a hardy crop that grew fast with plenty of water and could survive the intense heat if water ran short. Because of the arduous work involved, building an irrigation system was a community enterprise. Early canals operated as cooperatives, with shareholders obligated to contribute labor (in the form of maintenance) or funding according to their shares in the organization. The acreage served by the canal determined an individual's number of shares.9 The organization of the Tempe Canal Company was typical of the era. Canal construction began in the spring of 1871 on the south side of the river, with its dam and headgates several miles upstream from Hayden Butte. The company's founders each put up $200 for tools and provisions. Nine other men agreed to work for shares in the company; one hundred days of work would earn a share equal to that of the men who put up cash. The Building a brush dam, 1906 canal was substantively complete by the mid-1880s.10 This model of canal operation shifted as the Valley grew. Canal companies moved from cooperative enterprises operated by farmers to corporations focused on development.11 The Arizona Canal provided water for the area's first successful largescale, multifaceted real estate enterprise. The canal was forty miles long, and its permanent dam and headgate were much farther upstream than any previously built at a spot called Granite Reef—where the river flowed over a stretch of solid rock that was ideal for the foundation of a diversion dam. Investors hoped opening 100,000 acres of new land to farming would cover the cost of the canal and dam. William John "W. J." Murphy oversaw digging the canal and constructing the dam. View of early Tempe and agricultural lands, looking southward from Hayden Butte, c. 1900 Although many of the most prominent residents of the territory were involved in the Arizona Canal Company, Murphy and his wife, Laura, were most responsible for its success. In addition to building the canal, he cofounded First National Bank of Phoenix in 1883 to help finance.

[Audio] CHAPTER ONE: EARLY SETTLEMENTS 5 construction. To make the development more attractive to investors and settlers, the canal company constructed a wide boulevard known as Grand Avenue in 1887, which ran northwest from the Phoenix townsite through the heart of the lands served by the canal's waters. Along Grand Avenue, the company created the townsites of Alhambra, Glendale, and Peoria.12 In 1887, the Arizona Canal Company reincorporated as the Arizona Improvement Company, with many of the original founders as well as an impressive array of wealthy investors from San Francisco and Chicago. The Arizona Canal was large enough to supply water to all the Valley users north of the Salt River, and the Arizona Improvement Company soon acquired a majority of the stock of all the other northside canal companies: the Salt River Valley Canal Company, Maricopa Canal Company, and Grand Canal Company. By 1889, it had constructed the Crosscut Canal along the 48th Street alignment, from the Arizona Canal to the earlier head of the Grand Canal, so that all the canals on the north side could receive water from the Arizona Canal.13 The Arizona Improvement Company was not the only speculative venture in the Valley. Around 1890, A. J. Chandler joined a group of eastern investors in a development south of Tempe and Mesa. Chandler's group built the Consolidated Canal from Mesa to their lands, but by this time, existing landowners and canal companies had appropriated most of the water in the Salt River. As a solution, Chandler pumped groundwater to support his 18,000-acre ranch. He built the Valley's first hydroelectric power plant at a point on the Tempe Canal where it dropped thirty-five feet. This spot, which came to be known as Chandler Falls, is now on the golf course of Mesa Country Club. Electric lines conveyed the power some eight miles south from the falls to the Chandler wells. Within a few years, Chandler sold some of this power to Mesa and Tempe to light their streets, homes, and shops.14 ESTABLISHING WATER RIGHTS Because of the amount of work necessary to obtain irrigation water and the irregularity of the flow, it quickly became apparent that communities needed a method of apportioning water. This was a concern not just in Arizona but throughout the arid West; most western states and territories adopted some form of appropriation to govern their water laws. This "doctrine of appropriation" recognized "beneficial use" as the standard for anyone to divert water from a river or stream with two important provisions. First, the right to use the water was subject to priority of date—the first person to take a given amount of water and beneficially use the water acquired a permanent first right to take that amount of water from the river. The next diverter on the river could take water only after the prior user's water demand had been satisfied. All other later appropriators had successively lower priorities and were "junior" to these appropriators with "senior" or earlier diversions from the stream. A second important concept was the attachment, or appurtenance, of a water right to the land on which the water was used. This meant that the land acquired.

[Audio] 6 CHAPTER ONE: EARLY SETTLEMENTS owner. For example, portions of what is today Sky Harbor International Airport have water rights dating as far back as 1869.15 In 1863, Judge and politician William Howell drafted a 400-page legal code for the Arizona Territory. The Howell Code, as it came to be known, included a number of significant provisions related to water rights in the territory: it established that the state's surface water was public property and confirmed the principle of appropriation.16 In practical terms, these concepts meant that in times of shortage, the long-established farms would be most likely to get the water they needed for their crops, while newer farms might not. This system ensured that in a dry year at least some lands would have enough water to bring a crop to harvest, rather than allowing unlimited diversion that would doom all crops. In the early years of Valley development, canal companies assumed priority water rights. Owners of canal companies subscribed only the number of acres their canals would supply and distributed the water equally. They also enforced their priority rights in relation to other canal companies. A canal company with senior water rights paid close attention to diversions by water users upstream that diminished the flow to its diversion dam. Like the physical works of an irrigation system, appropriation rights required almost constant maintenance, and litigation of water rights cases filled the docket of the Maricopa County court. In the largest and most important of the early water rights cases, the Salt River Valley, Maricopa, Grand, Mesa, Utah, San Francisco, and Tempe Canals claimed that the Arizona Canal (constructed later and farther upstream) was diverting their water.17 This case, Wormser v. Salt River Valley Canal et al., became a landmark in Arizona water rights law. The decision and decree handed down by Judge Joseph Kibbey formalized many of the principles of Arizona water rights law, including priority rights, beneficial use, and the concept that water rights were appurtenant to the parcel of land to which they were applied and could not be transferred, sold, or rented for use elsewhere. The appurtenance of water to the land remains foundational to SRP's water delivery, and SRP continues to deliver water to lands in the Valley based on priority water rights. The Kibbey Decree was one of the essential building blocks of water rights in Arizona, and Kibbey himself went on to become the foremost legal expert in the development of SRP.18 With a successful network of canals modeled after the Hohokam's system and a legal framework for water rights in place, the Valley's growth continued through the last decade of the nineteenth century. As the Valley's irrigated acreage expanded, so did its transportation needs—the area lacked a direct railroad connection to other markets. In 1887, a local group formed the Maricopa and Phoenix Railroad, and the ubiquitous W. J. Murphy oversaw the work to lay thirty miles of track from Phoenix through Tempe south to a junction with the main line of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The first Southern Pacific train reached the Valley on July 4,.

[Audio] CHAPTER ONE: EARLY SETTLEMENTS 7 vegetables for the national market. Thanks to the efforts of the Arizona Improvement Company, citrus fruit was the principal export, and by the mid-1890s farmers had planted 150,000 orange, grapefruit, and lemon trees in the Valley.21 The Valley's civic boosters were particularly interested in attracting well-off winter visitors who might move to or invest in the area, and health seekers who could benefit from the warm, dry climate.22 After traversing hundreds of miles of desert, travelers were no doubt impressed with the vast green fields, large groves of orange trees, and miles of cottonwood trees growing along the waterways across the Valley. The Valley's burgeoning infrastructure—including schools, churches, streetcars, railroads, and water delivery systems—left an impression on visitors as well.23 Amidst this growth, Phoenix became the territorial capital of Arizona in 1889. At the time, there were more than 100,000 irrigated acres under cultivation and Valley boosters calculated that sufficient land and water existed for several times that much farming acreage. Efforts to provide for the continued development of the Valley carried on through the turn of the century. However, this growth required securing additional water supplies to provide for the increased population and agriculture—a challenge Valley residents joined together to meet through reclamation and a partnership with the federal government.24.

[Audio] CHAPTERTWO:THEPROMISEOFRECLAMATIONAcycleoffloodsanddroughtsneartheturnofthecenturyencouragedValleylandownerstolooktothefederalgovernmentforassistanceinconstructingdamsandreliableirrigationinfrastructurethatwouldhelpprotecttheirinvestmentsfromtheuncertaintyofnature.Valleyleadersunderstoodthevitalimportanceofstoringriverflowsforfuturedeliveryviaasystemofdependablecanalsandlaterals.Aprojectofthisscalerequiredtremendousinvestmentandcoordination.TheultimatesolutionfortheValleywasapartnershipbetweenalocalorganization,theSaltRiverValleyWaterUsers'Association,andthefederalgovernment.ThisenduringpartnershipbalancedtheeconomicrisksoftheprojectandensuredtheValley'ssuccessthroughareliablewatersupply.AsAmericansettlementintheValleyincreased,anationalconversationaboutthedevelopmentoftheWestemergedaroundtheideaofreclamation—reclaimingaridlandscapesbybuildingArizonaDam,anearlywaterdiversionstructureontheSaltRivereastoftheValley,1905irrigationinfrastructure.1TheWestheldmillionsofacreswherethesoilandclimatewereexcellentforfarmingbutlackedareliablesupplyofwater.Therewerealsohundredsofmilesofstreamsandriversthatcouldbetappedforirrigation.Irrigationproponentssawagreatopportunitytodevelopnewlandsor,intheparlanceofthetime,"reclaim"themforproductiveuse..

[Audio] 10 CHAPTER TWO: THE PROMISE OF RECLAMATION THROUGH FLOODS AND DROUGHTS Following a devastating flood in 1891, the Arizona Territory entered an equally devastating dry period. The biggest problem during this time was not the lack of rainfall in the Valley but rather the lack of snow on the Salt and Verde watersheds—it was the gradual melting of snow that brought irrigation water to the Valley through the spring growing season. A serious drought struck the Valley from 1898 to 1904, causing agriculture in the area to decline and the economy to suffer.2 This seven-year drought marked a period of limited growth for the Valley. The depression of 1893 curbed the investments by eastern interests that had been the engine of Valley growth for the previous decade. Additionally, the weakness of the bond market hindered expansion plans for developers. As the drought worsened after 1898, Valley residents stretched water supplies increasingly thin.3 Owners of long-established farms receiving water from the early canals were largely able to survive the drought by enforcing their priority water rights, but landowners under the later Arizona, Highland, and Consolidated Canals could not make their company-issued water rights last through a summer of one inadequate irrigation cycle after another. Farmers abandoned nearly 30,000 acres of irrigated land in the drought years, almost all of it under those three canals.4 Valley farmers depended on the 13,000-square-mile combined watersheds of the Salt and Verde Rivers to supply their irrigation needs. Most of the Valley's water supply came from snow and rain falling on a vast area bounded by the White Mountains to the east and the Mogollon Rim to the northwest and extending to the upper reaches of Big Chino Wash near Seligman. Residents of the Valley understood the importance of maintaining a healthy watershed in order to enjoy a reliable water supply.5 The irrigation movement understood this connection as well—the slogan, "Save the forests and store the floods, make homes on the land," coined at the ninth National Irrigation Congress in 1900, concisely expressed this watershed philosophy.6 The United States passed two laws shortly before the turn of the century that impacted the Valley's watershed. The 1891 General Land Law Revision Act gave the president authority to "create forest reserves by proclamation."7 Under the William McKinley administration, Congress enacted the "Organic Act," or forest management act, in 1897, which established policies and procedures for enlarging and managing the country's forests. The act stated that "No public forest reservation shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows." This clarification solidified watershed protection as an important goal in setting aside forest lands. Between the presidencies of Benjamin Harrison and Theodore Roosevelt, the federal government set aside approximately 195 million acres under this act.8 Pressure to develop national forests in the Arizona territory came from Valley farmers, who feared that settlers and large lumber companies in the mountains would remove timber,.

[Audio] CHAPTER TWO: THE PROMISE OF RECLAMATION 11 lessening the amount of snow retained on the watershed during the winter months. The reduced snow retention, in turn, impacted the flow of the Salt and Verde Rivers.9 To address these concerns, in 1897 the Arizona Territorial Legislature requested that Congress reserve the unclaimed mountain timber lands within the watershed above the Salt River Valley.10 On August 17, 1898, President William McKinley signed Proclamation No. 19, creating what would eventually develop into the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in the northeastern portion of the Arizona Territory.11 Within Arizona on the Salt and Verde watersheds, national forests continued to expand. The Tonto National Forest, including lands set aside primarily for the protection of the watershed supplying the Salt River Project, was created on October 3, 1905.12 The early farmers and settlers in the Salt River Valley clearly realized the connection between a healthy watershed and a healthy water supply. Their early efforts to protect watershed lands remain an example of the careful planning and forward thinking that went into ensuring a more reliable water flow in the Salt and Verde Rivers. National forest lands in Salt, Verde, and East Clear Creek watersheds KAIBAB N.F. KAIBAB N.F. Verde River Watershed Verde River Watershed Flagstaff k ree C ar le C PRESCOTT N.F. t s a E Ve r COCONINO N.F. d e R iv e r Prescott East Clear Creek Watershed East Clear Creek Watershed Payson r ve Ri lt Sa TONTO N.F. SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBER LANDS APACHESITGREAVES N.F. Salt River Watershed Salt River Watershed Phoenix.

[Audio] 12 CHAPTER TWO: THE PROMISE OF RECLAMATION Horseshoe Lake HORSESHOE DAM Lake Pleasant r New Rive S A L T S A L T Bartlett Lake Tonto Cre ek BARTLETT DAM e r Theodore Roosevelt Lake a R i v i V E R D E V E R D E F r a e r i v r A g u e R i v d e R l t V e r S a THEODORE ROOSEVELT DAM Saguaro Lake HORSE MESA DAM MORMON FLAT DAM Apache Lake GRANITE REEF DIVERSION DAM Canyon Lake STEWART MOUNTAIN DAM r e SRVWUA SRVWUA i v R t a l S G i l a R i v e r THE IRRIGATION MOVEMENT SRP system of dams and reservoirs on the Salt and Verde Rivers In the decades before the turn of the century, irrigation of the West had become a social crusade. Many politicians, bureaucrats, and journalists were convinced that the establishment of small irrigated homesteads on public lands would solve many of the problems of the West, if not the entire country. Businessmen and investors embraced this possibility and promoted the idea of private financing of the dams and canals needed to open large new irrigation developments.13 The investors hoping to create vast irrigation projects ignored the dawning reality that most of the irrigation water and productive land in the West was already being used, or at least claimed, by existing farms. The Valley represented the issues facing reclamation proponents: the best lands already had water rights claims that exceeded the average flow of the river, and new developments required large investments with no guarantee of a certain water supply. Only a storage dam capable of holding floodwater would alleviate the problems caused by Arizona's characteristic cycle of droughts and floods as well as enable an expansion of irrigated farmland. Having initially failed to secure support from the federal government,.

[Audio] CHAPTER TWO: THE PROMISE OF RECLAMATION 13 several schemes for large dams and reservoirs were initiated throughout the Valley in this period. The Hudson Reservoir and Canal Company launched the largest water storage plan. It filed claims on a dam site at the lower end of Tonto Basin on the Salt River in preparation for a 200-foot structure capable of retaining an ample supply of water for the fertile lands downriver. But the company could not attract the necessary financing.14 The Rio Verde Canal Company proposed the construction of dams on the Verde River to supply a 140-mile-long canal that would irrigate land in and around Paradise Valley (so named by company promoters). Funds ran out after initial construction efforts. The Agua Fria Water and Land Company nearly completed a diversion dam on the Agua Fria River west of Phoenix before failing in 1895.15 The 1894 Carey Act granted millions of acres to the states and territories to finance irrigation in the hope that local governments and private partnerships would construct storage dams and create irrigation districts.16 But the Carey Act failed to spawn widespread largescale irrigation projects, because the states and territories could neither assume the financial risk nor provide the necessary technical and administrative expertise. Additionally, private partners were unable to raise the necessary capital due to the reluctance of investors. Despite the dreams of irrigation advocates, by the mid-1890s and in the midst of a national depression, bankers and financiers were reluctant to invest in western development.17 Irrigation projects in the West had yielded, said one promoter, only "the crushed and mangled skeletons of defunct corporations," which had disappeared, "leaving only a few defaulted obligations to indicate the route by which they departed."18 In this climate, California lawyer George H. Maxwell assumed a larger role in the movement. While embracing the agrarian ideals of the irrigation movement, he understood that only direct financing and control by the federal government could bring about the large new reclamation projects the West needed. Maxwell's greatest contributions to the movement, though, were his energetic advocacy nationwide for irrigation policy and his formation of alliances with other large interests, such as railroads, that stood to profit from a growth of agriculture in the West. Essential to the success of Maxwell's efforts was his ability to convince easterners that an irrigated West would constitute a new market for eastern goods, not a competitor for eastern farms.19 As the national irrigation movement grew, Valley interests organized a water storage committee to explore possibilities for both private and public development around the turn of the century. Benjamin A. Fowler, new to Arizona in 1899, soon assumed leadership of the local water storage movement. By 1900, the committee had developed a proposal to issue Maricopa County bonds worth $6 million to build a dam at Tonto Basin and buy all the Valley canals. For this plan to succeed without creating a burdensome debt on landowners, it was estimated that 500,000 acres would have to join the effort, a substantial increase over the approximately 100,000 to 125,000 acres then being irrigated.20 That fall, the water storage committee sent.

[Audio] 14 CHAPTER TWO: THE PROMISE OF RECLAMATION legislation that would allow Maricopa County—still under federal control as part of the Arizona Territory—to issue the necessary bonds. In Washington, Fowler met often with Maxwell, who by then was the leading spokesman for western irrigation, as well as Frederick Newell, who was in charge of US Geological Survey (USGS) irrigation studies. Both of these men favored federally financed and federally controlled reclamation, and they soon convinced Fowler of the merits of the concept. Fowler, however, continued to lobby for the water storage committee's plan. Despite his efforts, Congress was unwilling to consider the Arizona proposal.21 While the water storage committee was developing its plans for the Valley, the USGS initiated a new series of studies of potential irrigation sites in the West. A "Water Supply Paper" by Arthur P. Davis of the USGS looked at the irrigation possibilities of the Phoenix area and, in particular, the advantages of the Tonto Dam site, which the Hudson Reservoir and Canal Company had initially proposed.22 These studies provided more technical information and clearly promoted the idea of reclamation as a federal undertaking. By 1900, western states had gained so much support that both political parties included a position on reclamation in their national party platforms. Two competing bills were introduced in the next congressional session. Senator Francis E. Warren of Wyoming proposed that the federal government build the storage dams and then turn them over to state control. The money for this plan would come from the annual public works appropriations. Senator Francis G. Newlands of Nevada wanted continued federal ownership and control of the completed project. He also wanted financing drawn from an independent fund created from the sale of federal lands within states that would directly benefit from reclamation. The Warren Bill had the backing of most western lawmakers, but President Theodore Roosevelt (who took office in late 1901) and his inner circle, which included Newell, favored the Newlands Bill. The Newlands Bill also had the advantage of promotion by Maxwell's national irrigation publicity apparatus and thus garnered growing support from many easterners. A combination of circumstances— including Warren's absence from Washington due to his wife's illness—allowed Newlands and Roosevelt to sway western congressmen toward supporting their bill, which passed on June 17, 1902.23 The US Reclamation Act provided for government construction of irrigation infrastructure, financed by reclamation fund monies drawn from the sale of western lands. Upon completion of construction, local water users would take over operation of the project, at their expense, and repay the construction cost interest-free over ten years. The debt for these projects had to be borne equally among those benefiting from the projects. Ownership and oversight of the project remained with the federal government. The Reclamation Act reinforced the concept of small family farms that had been central to all federal land settlement laws; an individual could not receive reclamation project water for more than 160 acres. The act recognized local water rights laws as controlling the apportionment of waters under the planned federal projects.24 Soon after the passage.

[Audio] CHAPTER TWO: THE PROMISE OF RECLAMATION 15 US Reclamation Service (USRS) under Newell's direction. Newell was very familiar with the potential of the Salt, Verde, and Gila Rivers.25 The Tonto Dam site had many advantages over other possibilities in Arizona. The flow of the Salt was much greater than that of the Gila, and the Valley already had an extensive system of canals and an irrigation community capable of growth ready to use the water. In addition, Fowler had been one of the most important lobbyists for the new law and certainly discussed the merits of reclamation in the Valley.26 In October 1902, a mass meeting was convened to hear the water storage committee's report affirmed by Maxwell. He encouraged Valley landowners to recognize that the federal government would need a local organization with an elected, representational central body to gain control of all the canals, manage the water system, settle their water rights disputes, and make plans for project repayment to the government.27 The report called for the formation of an association with 250,000 membership shares, one for each potentially irrigable acre, with all shares perpetually and inseparably appurtenant to the land to which they were issued. This association, not canal companies, would control access to the water stored by the dam.28 THE SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION An executive committee chaired by Fowler set about drafting Articles of Incorporation for the proposed association. The actual writing of the document was mostly the work of Maxwell and Joseph Kibbey, the former territorial district court judge.29 Kibbey's decision in Wormser v. Salt River Valley Canal had established important principles of water law, but canal companies mostly ignored the decree.30 Now he was in a position to put those principles into action. The articles prescribed how the association would be organized and managed and how it would represent landowners to the government. They also settled some questions of water rights and distribution. The planned project area included presently irrigated lands with established water rights, lands that had historically been irrigated but were left fallow in the recent drought for lack of water, and some lands that had never received water. It was important to balance the interests of all these lands. To do this, the articles recognized existing water rights, and in times of shortage, lands with prior rights would receive preference.31 The organization did not expect shortages, particularly given that information from the existing USGS studies and further work by the USRS allowed for close estimates on the amount of water that would be stored behind Tonto Dam. Therefore, the organization could limit the acreage of the project to match this amount and all member lands could be treated equally and receive a uniform quantity of water.32 Because of this equal treatment, both old and newly irrigated lands would pay the same share of the construction cost.33 However, some members of the water storage committee objected to what they perceived as unequal benefits of the Kibbey-Maxwell plan. A group of established farmers led by owners of some of the earliest irrigated lands in the Valley felt they should not be required to contribute to the construction cost.

[Audio] 16 CHAPTER TWO: THE PROMISE OF RECLAMATION outspoken leader of another minority opinion, Dwight B. Heard, was a relative newcomer to the Valley. Like Fowler, Heard was a health immigrant with important eastern connections, and he and his wife, Mae, soon became leaders in the community. Heard was one of the largest landowners in the Valley, and seeing himself as the natural leader of Valley irrigation interests, he challenged Fowler's direction.35 The dissident group objected to the centralization of control in a single association and demanded the assessments for repayment of the dam reflect the benefits each individual received from stored water. They argued that landowners with existing priority water rights received only the benefit of river regulation (the prevention of floods and droughts) and should pay less than owners of lands benefiting from the capture and storage of floodwaters.36 Despite these challenges, on January 20, 1903, the full water storage committee voted against every attempt to change the articles, rejecting the amendments offered by the "minority report." The new Salt River Valley Water Users' Association (SRVWUA, Association) held several public meetings to explain its operations and Articles of Incorporation.37 The Association filed its articles with the Maricopa County recorder on Saturday, February 7, 1903. The following Monday, they were also filed with the Secretary of the Arizona Territory.38 Until elections could be held, the articles named the original thirty council members, ten board members, and two of the four officers—President Benjamin A. Fowler and Vice President E. W. Wilbur. The Board of Governors appointed a secretary and treasurer at its first official meeting.39 That same week, Tempe Canal Company shareholders voted not to sign up their lands in the Association.40 These landowners knew they would receive their water in any case because of their prior rights, and they preferred to keep their existing system of operations under which they incurred minimal costs. The withdrawal of the Tempe lands did not pose an insurmountable hindrance to the larger project. Nevertheless, continuing efforts of "minority report" backers to circumvent the new Association and go directly to the Department of the Interior (DOI) began to cause resentment. Their attempts to amend the Articles of Incorporation were repeatedly rejected both locally and by the federal government. DOI officials made it clear that the Association plan was the only one they were considering. In fact, the USRS copied the Association articles and distributed them as a model to other areas in the West seeking federal reclamation funding.41 JOINING THE ASSOCIATION The filings of stock subscriptions in the Association, which began in February, were slow at first.42 Only landowners within the area set forth in the Association's Articles of Incorporation could sign up, for a fee of ten cents per acre. The subscription process did not automatically ensure water from the project. At this early stage, joining the Association established that a parcel of land might qualify for water from a storage dam. In so doing,.

[Audio] CHAPTER TWO: THE PROMISE OF RECLAMATION 17 owners agreed to abide by the Reclamation Act and put their land up as collateral to back the project. In order to receive water from the project, landowners had to obtain a government reservoir right. According to the Reclamation Act, individuals who owned more than 160 acres in the Association area would have to dispose of their "excess" lands, but there were no rules regarding when and how this should occur. Almost half the landowners who joined the Association in this early period had some excess lands.43 Members who signed on knew there was probably not enough water for all their lands. Estimates indicated that the Salt and Verde Rivers could supply between 175,000 and 200,000 acres, including the 30,000 acres in the Valley that had not joined the Association but had early priority dates (the Tempe, Utah, Mesa, and Bartlett-Heard lands).44 When subscriptions closed in July 1903, Association member lands tallied 195,000 acres.45 First SRVWUA ballot, 1904 The selection of SRP as one of the first five federal reclamation projects and the start of the project's construction helped bring more shareholders on board.46 On the north side of the river, the Association subscribed most of the land below the Arizona Canal and east of the Agua Fria River. On the south side, it included almost all the land west of the Highland Canal and north of the Gila River Reservation and South Mountain, down to the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers. In April 1904, the Association held its first election. Voting was on an acreage basis—one vote for each acre subscribed in the Association. This voting structure, established in the Articles of Incorporation, reflected the obligation to repay the federal government for the cost of the project on a per-acre basis. Fowler was elected to continue the presidency he had been appointed to earlier. A month later, the membership of the Association ratified the contract between the Association and the federal government that obligated the latter to build a large storage dam and other works and Association members to pay for the dam through annual assessments. The contract formally placed the lien on the lands of Association members to back their promise to repay the construction cost. Given that no one could say for sure how many acres were obligated or what the cost would be—the government's estimate was $3.8 million—Association landowners were taking quite a leap of faith that the promise of reclamation was about to be fulfilled.47.

[Audio] CHAPTERTHREE: BUILDINGROOSEVELTDAMTheselectionoftheSaltRiverProjectasoneofthefirstfederalreclamationprojectsprovidedthefederalfundingandtechnicalexpertisetobeginworkonamajorstoragedamfortheSaltRiverValley.TheSRVWUAservedasalocalorganizationtoactasaliaisonwiththefederalgovernmenttofacilitatetheprojectanditsrepayment.Withthesetwopiecesinplace,thepathwascleartobeginconstructionontheproject'ssignaturepieceofinfrastructure:RooseveltDam.Whilethedam'sconstructionprogressed,thebenefitsofthereclamationprojectfortheValleywerealreadyapparent—hydropower,amoreefficientwatertransmissionsystem,andanefforttodefinethearea'swaterrights.Whencompleted,thedamsuppliedreliablewaterthatfueledtheValley'sgrowth. PREPARINGTOBUILDADAMImmediatelyaftertheMay1904voteinwhichAssociationmembersapprovedtheconstructionandrepaymentcontractwiththeUnitedStates,theUSRSpurchasedtheassetsoftheHudsonReservoirandCanalCompany,whichheldclaimtotheproposeddamsite.ThesitewasfortymilesaroundthemountainfromGlobeviaaroughroadandsixtymileseastofMesa,towhichtherewasnoroadatall.Beforeconstructioncouldevenbegin,theUSRShadtoworkoutthechallengeoftransportingmenandsuppliestothedamsiteanddeterminedthathaulingfreighteastofMesawouldbecheaperthandoingsofromGlobe,evenwiththecostofconstructingasixty-mileroadoverroughdesertandmountainousterrain.Phoenix,Mesa,andTempeofferedtoaidintheconstruction,recognizingthecommercialadvantageofhavingaroadfromtheValleytothedam.Withcongressionalapproval,eachcitydistributedbondsforacollectivetotalof$75,000.1.

[Audio] 20 CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM Construction of the road was one of the more difficult and hazardous components of the dam project. Apache laborers, who possessed skills in dry masonry and grading, signed on to the road construction crews. Some of the retaining walls they built using only fitted stones with no mortar outlasted the concrete and steel walls built by the project's engineers.2 The road was substantially complete by September 1905, and in its first month of operation moved more than 1.5 million pounds of freight.3 Regular coach service and a telephone line built along the road greatly facilitated communication, allowing USRS officials to live and work in Phoenix where they were directing other work.4 While the new Mesa-Roosevelt road Hauling machinery up the Apache Trail, circa 1900s (eventually named the Apache Trail) improved communication and travel, it was still a long and difficult journey, especially for heavily laden mule-drawn wagons. The engineers decided to limit the amount Apache Trail of materials imported due to the cost of transportation. Consequently, much of the early work involved finding building materials near the dam site. The dam itself was to be built from boulders cut or blasted from the nearby cliffs and bonded with mortar and concrete made from local deposits of sand and clay.5 The nearby Sierra Ancha Mountains provided the timber for the project. In addition to enabling fast, less expensive transport of goods between Phoenix and Globe/Superior, the road through the Superstition Mountains became an important recreational destination after the completion of Roosevelt Dam. The new road was a popular route among private motorists for Sunday drives between Phoenix and Globe, a mere six-hour excursion. Numerous auto touring companies sprang up to meet tourist demand. Another immediate issue to be resolved was supplying electricity to the construction site. In his preliminary plan for Roosevelt Dam, Arthur P. Davis, now Chief Engineer of the Reclamation Service, observed that power was essential for drilling, moving rock, making and hauling cement, and other tasks.7 Because of transportation costs and the lack of locally available fuel to burn for steam power, Davis recommended that the dam include hydropower generation facilities, with the potential to transmit power to the Valley for groundwater pumping purposes once construction was completed.8 Electrical generation required water under pressure, and so it was necessary to In 1916, the Southern Pacific Railroad began offering side excursions from its passenger rail service along the "Sunset Route." For an additional fee, passengers could disembark in Globe or Phoenix and board tenpassenger Cadillac coaches for the 115-mile journey. The route proved extremely popular, and the Southern Pacific's marketing of the journey led to the name "Apache Trail." The Apache Trail journey, and the colorful advertisements the railroad and touring companies produced to promote it, helped establish Arizona's place in the national imagination as an exotic and beautiful destination.6 divert a flow from the Salt River several miles upstream and convey it in a canal nearly nineteen miles long to the cliffs above the dam site. Workers blasted a tunnel, or.

[Audio] CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM 21 Top left: Preparing the foundation of Roosevelt Dam, laborers excavating down to bedrock, 1906 Top right: Flood during the construction of Roosevelt Dam, 1908 Bottom: Building up from bedrock, layers of quarried stone, 1907.

[Audio] 22 CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM 1904 1905 1906 1907 1904 1908 1908 1909.

[Audio] CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM 23 1908 1909 1910 1911 1909 1910 1910 c. 1911 Series depicting construction progress on Roosevelt Dam from various vantage points, 1904–1911.

[Audio] 24 CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM CONSTRUCTION OF ROOSEVELT DAM As designed, Roosevelt Dam was a massive structure—200 feet by 180 feet at the base and tapering up 270 feet between the canyon walls to a 16-foot-wide crest, with a slight upstream bow.10 The areas on either end of the dam that previously served as quarries became the spillways, permitting an estimated 220,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) of floodwater to pass around the dam when the lake was full.11 As later events would prove, this tremendous capacity was necessary to preserve the dam when the Salt River and Tonto Creek flooded. Engineers built a road across the crest of the dam, with bridges over the spillways on both ends.12 Construction had barely begun when a rapidly rising river flooded the dam site late in 1905. After years of drought, this flood marked the first of many that slowed progress toward the dam's completion. At times, floodwaters wiped out months of work while essential equipment and supplies washed away.13 The dam's foundation stood on bedrock, which in some places was nearly forty feet below the riverbed. Workers laid the first quarried stone (weighing six tons) in September 1906. The stones on the upstream and downstream faces were dressed, or squared off, and placed with precision. Large irregular stones weighing up to ten tons each filled the vast bulk of the dam between these two faces, each carried from the quarry areas to the dam by one of the two long cableways stretched across the canyon. Smaller rocks filled the horizontal gaps between the large stones, while concrete filled the vertical spaces. The interior boulders were placed carefully to avoid continuous joints or faults. After drying into a solid mass, each step became the foundation for the next level.14 Despite the persistent flooding and equipment failures, by 1908, as the dam grew vertically, construction processes were well-honed and the work at Roosevelt continued nearly nonstop. The workforce was small but efficient and construction contractor J. M. O'Rourke's workforce consisted of around 220 men in 1908.15 Strings of suspended electric lights allowed crews to labor through the night. The most intensive work was in the quarry, where the stones for the dam were mined during the day and at night were delivered to the worksite via the cableways. This freed up the cableways during the day for the delivery of wet mortar and concrete to the crew placing the stones. A lake began to form behind the dam, and in the summer of 1908, for the first time, a limited amount of stored water was available for irrigation in the Valley.16 WORK AND LIFE AT ROOSEVELT As workers congregated in the area, the town of Roosevelt formed in a low-lying area just above the dam site. By 1908, the waters backing up behind the rising dam inundated the town and it had to relocate to higher ground. The USRS set up offices and living quarters on Government Hill several hundred feet upslope from the main part of town, while O'Rourke's crew camped on the opposite bank.17 At the height of construction, more than 2,000 people.

[Audio] CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM 25 lived in the town and outlying camps, making the area one of the largest settlements in the Arizona Territory.18 With periodic floods suspending construction, workers often had to leave to find other employment. Coupled with the isolation of Roosevelt, the difficult and dangerous work, and the relatively low wages, the project suffered from episodic labor shortages. Advertisements for both O'Rourke's contracting firm and the USRS spanned the country to recruit laborers and groups of specialized workers, such as Italian stonemasons from Pennsylvania and New York.19 The town of Roosevelt, Government Hill camp, and O'Rourke's camp were multicultural communities with significant numbers of white, black, Mexican-American, and Native American workers.20 Despite being a rough and temporary community, Roosevelt had a surprising number of amenities. It boasted a post office, restaurants, a hotel, churches, a bakery and butcher shop, laundries, a grocer and dry-goods store, an ice cream parlor, an optometrist, and a photographer.21 Entire families Dining hall in the town of Roosevelt, February 1906 moved to the area, and by 1905, 100 children attended Roosevelt School.22 In their spare time, residents enjoyed a bowling alley, dancing school, and nearby hot springs.23 The men's baseball teams and a women's basketball team competed in regional leagues, and for a time there was even a grass tennis court. Balls, dances, and holiday fiestas occurred regularly, as did musical performances by local artists.24 In November 1905, a touring company staged a two-night run of the play Miss Hursey from Jersey.25 Life at Roosevelt Dam reflected the diverse population of people working on the dam, and the town evolved into a meaningful community as construction progressed. FROM GRANITE REEF TO THE VALLEY The Salt River Project included much more than Roosevelt Dam. The USRS and the Association undertook numerous other efforts in the Valley, including unifying the vast network of irrigation works into an area-wide water transmission and delivery system, securing the water rights of Valley lands, and developing a power delivery infrastructure capable of serving growing electricity needs. For the most efficient operation, USRS engineers and Association leaders believed that SRP should own and control the entire Valley irrigation system, including a permanent diversion Buildings used during the construction of Roosevelt Dam, like the Apache Lodge, were repurposed after the dam's completion. The Apache Lodge served as a hotel for tourists to the area. dam at Granite Reef just below the confluence of the Salt and Verde Rivers. The second dam would serve as the diversion point for delivery systems on the north and south sides of the river. The 1905 flood tore out parts of an existing takeout structure and headgate feeding the.

[Audio] 26 CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM Arizona Canal, a fatal blow to the Arizona Water Company, owner of all the Arizona Canal features and the rest of the northside canals. While northside landowners faced difficulty in maintaining their water supply, the Association and the USRS convened a board of engineers to appraise the assets of the struggling company. The board recommended that the federal government acquire the canal system north of the Salt River. A supplemental contract between the US government and SRVWUA, signed in March 1906, authorized this purchase and the incorporation of the northside canals as part of the project. The contract also solidified a commitment by the USRS to build a permanent concrete diversion dam. The northside irrigation Granite Reef Diversion Dam and westside intake gates, 1911 system purchase included two hydropower plants on the canals, originally owned by the Phoenix Light and Fuel Company (PL&FC). Rather than be obliged to run canal water to power the plants, the USRS agreed to supply the company with power from Roosevelt Dam.26 Construction of the 1,100-foot-long Granite Reef Diversion Dam began later the same year. Firmly anchored in bedrock and rising fifteen feet above the riverbed, the dam diverted the river flow into the Arizona Canal, which would carry water to the northside canal system and the new South Canal to feed the entire southside system. The curved design of the dam allowed floods to pass over it easily with minimal damage to the structure. On its completion in 1908, the dam changed the Salt River bed through the Valley from an intermittent desert stream to a dry riverbed. Granite Reef could fully divert the river flow under normal flow conditions. As a result, a small, attractive lake, dubbed Lake Martin (after the superintendent of construction), formed behind the dam, making it a popular recreation destination.27 On June 13, 1908, Granite Reef's official dedication took place, presided over by Governor Joseph H. Kibbey. The Arizona Republican proclaimed that "from this day forward, there will be no chance for the water to shirk its duty or dodge a confiding and trustful public. We will have what we have got, and it can't get away."28 By 1910, the government had acquired and developed much of the southside irrigation system, including the purchase of the Consolidated Canal and construction of the Eastern Canal, which replaced the Highland Canal.29 The farmer-owners of the Mesa Canal Company, who had previously declined to join the Association, sold their canal to the government and filed for membership in the Association.30 Louis C. Hill, Supervising Engineer of Roosevelt Dam construction, tried to persuade the Tempe Canal Company to do the same, in part because.

[Audio] CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM 27 Governor Kibbey speaking on Dedication Day at Granite Reef Diversion Dam, June 13, 1908 the Tempe lands essentially cut off access to 6,000 acres of SRP land south of Phoenix. When the Tempe landowners again voted not to join the Water Users' Association, the south Phoenix landowners raised the money to build the Western Canal, which connected to feeder ditches from the Consolidated Canal.31 A. J. Chandler's Consolidated Canal had never delivered much water, because the Chandler lands had such low-priority water rights. Less than a quarter of the land in the development was irrigated before the government bought the canal in 1908. The USRS purchased the little-used canal for $187,000, mainly because it would have been much more expensive to replace the upper section of the canal, which "climbed" from the riverbed up to the southside mesa. Although the purchase price merely reimbursed Chandler and his associates for the cost of the canal, the sale was worth much more to them as it ensured that their lands were able to receive water stored by the new dam. They had purchased much of their land for as little as $1.25 an acre in the 1890s. By 1915, the USRS would estimate that the market price of the Chandler Ranch land was $85 per acre.32 DETERMINING WATER RIGHTS In 1904, at the urging of the federal government, the Association had initiated a friendly lawsuit, Patrick T. Hurley v. Charles F. Abbott et al., to establish once and for all the water rights of every section of farmland in the Valley.33 At first, some questioned the need for a suit, partly because of concern that drawing attention to the tenuousness of water rights in the newer developed areas might hurt land sales. However, once the federal government entered the suit as a cross-complainant on behalf of the Indians of the Salt River and Fort McDowell Reservations, it became clear that the case would be prosecuted to its conclusion..

[Audio] 28 CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM In March 1910, Judge Edward Kent issued his opinion, called the Kent Decree.34 The Kent Decree defined the three classes of water that would be available to Valley lands: normal flow, floodwater, and water that would be stored behind the dam. It also divided the lands of the Valley into three classes with corresponding priorities for water rights. Class A lands were those that had been more or less continuously cultivated since first irrigated. Class B lands had been irrigated in the past but not after 1903. These were largely lands with low-priority rights that were left without water during the drought of 1897–1904. Class C lands were those with no history of irrigation. Under these definitions, the Valley contained 151,000 acres of Class A land and 29,000 acres of Class B land. Kent also determined water allocations to the Salt River and Fort McDowell Reservations and gave them the highest priority. His decision upheld the principles of prior appropriation, appurtenance, and beneficial use, established in the 1892 Kibbey Decree in Wormser v. Salt River Valley Canal.35 The Kent Decree provided the necessary legal complement to the professionally engineered irrigation system under construction at the same time. Combined with improved Kent Decree lands, 1910 ver i R de r e v Ver i R w e River N ria Peoria Peoria Peoria Peoria F lt R a i v S er ua g A Salt River Pima - Maricopa Indian Community Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Tempe Mesa Tempe Mesa Tempe Mesa Tempe Mesa Salt River G il a Gilbert Gilbert Gilbert Gilbert R ive r Kent Class A Chandler Chandler Kent Class B Kent Class C.

[Audio] CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM 29 data on water supply and use, the Kent Decree made possible the determination of the number of acres Roosevelt Dam could support. Equally important, by formalizing the water claims of Valley lands, the decree essentially reserved the water of the Salt and Verde Rivers for the Valley. Kent's decision was enduring—SRP continues to deliver water to its shareholders according to the Kent Decree. THE POWER SYSTEM While SRP water development advanced, the production and delivery of power emerged as another key component of western reclamation projects. While the 1902 Reclamation Act made no explicit provision for hydropower generation, by 1906, an addendum to the law, the Townsite Act, allowed reclamation projects to provide water to nearby towns, formalized the utilization of generated power for project uses, such as groundwater pumping, and allowed excess power to be sold as a revenue stream to underwrite costs. USRS engineers working on Roosevelt Dam planned a powerhouse to fully utilize the generating capacity of the dam. In addition to the power canal, which would continue to provide power for generation, the penstock through the dam carried irrigation water releases to the powerhouse for even more hydropower production. In July 1909, workers completed a transmission line from Roosevelt Dam to Mesa and Phoenix. Regular transmission to Phoenix and Mesa began in September of that same year.36 The Roosevelt hydropower station was by far the largest in Arizona with great potential for revenue. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E, no relation to the California utility) purchased the majority of the power wholesale at a rate of 1.5¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh). PG&E was the successor of the Phoenix Light & Fuel Company and had inherited a Transmission tower along the Apache Trail, 1909 franchise to serve Phoenix. The contract with the USRS was for ten years of Roosevelt power.37 Other early power contracts generally went to large users, including other area towns, the Consolidated Canal Company, and Southwestern Sugar and Land Company in Glendale.38 Early contracts required customers to provide their own transformer and line from the two main SRP lines in the Valley.39 By 1908, the USRS had received queries from the copper mining industry around Globe about purchasing power. The Association board passed a resolution that all power developed by the project beyond that needed for SRP purposes should be sold on the best possible terms, "having due regard always for the best advantage that may accrue to this association and to the people of this valley."40 This was perhaps the first statement on the benefits of SRP's development.

[Audio] 30 CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM of the Valley through electric power generation. Through a 1912 contract, the Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company of Miami became by far the largest single consumer of SRP power and it would remain so for most of the twentieth century.41 The Inspiration contract proved crucial to the financial stability of SRP and laid a foundation for the future of its power business. Association leaders were also well aware of the potential for hydroelectric generation on the SRP canals. Existing hydropower plants at Arizona Falls, on the Arizona Canal, and Chandler Falls, on the Tempe Canal, had proved that drops as small as eighteen feet could generate significant amounts of power. By 1910, however, it was apparent that the USRS had no funds available for additions to SRP, no matter how profitable they might be. Nevertheless, the Association pressed on with plans for additional hydrogeneration facilities. It assessed each member acre $2 per year for two years and estimated that power sales from the stations would return the members' investment within two years of completion.42 USRS engineers designed and directed the construction of three new hydropower plants, one replacing the Arizona Falls plant, one on the South Canal at its junction with the Consolidated Canal, and a third much larger hydropower station in Papago Park near the headworks of the Grand Canal.43 When completed in 1915, the three Valley facilities almost doubled the power generating capacity of Roosevelt.44 The Association's willingness to finance improvements to a federal project established a precedent that would resonate throughout SRP's history. DEDICATION OF ROOSEVELT DAM Crosscut Hydropower Plant under construction, circa 1913 The major work on Roosevelt Dam was finished in 1910. By summer's end, the workforce had scattered and much of the equipment was taken down and sold. Final touches included the completion of bridges and parapets for the road across the dam.45 A record 131,000 acres was irrigated in the Valley in 1910.46 It would have been possible to dedicate the dam in the fall of 1910, but in hopes of a full reservoir, the planning committee decided to wait until the following spring. Permanent lighted globes were installed on the dam's parapets, partly to create an impressive display for the ceremony. Organizers invited former President Roosevelt to preside over the ceremony and based on his schedule selected March 18, 1911, as the dedication date. Roosevelt's private railroad car arrived in Phoenix before ten o'clock that morning, and an official caravan of.

[Audio] CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM 31 more than twenty automobiles, with Roosevelt's in the lead, immediately left for a tour across the Valley and east to the new dam. In his speech that afternoon, delivered on the top of the monumental new structure, the former president cited western reclamation and the Panama Canal as two of the greatest accomplishments of his administration. Though not yet half full, the reservoir contained more than 500,000 acre-feet of water. Supervising Engineer Hill remarked, "The water in the reservoir is creeping up a few inches every day and every inch now means a good many acre-feet [for the Valley]."47 SRP was considered a model project from the beginning due to the Valley's ideal climate, layout, and soil, and because its residents already had the resources, experience, and ambition necessary for success. The Phoenix Board of Trade released a report which concluded that a storage dam would lead to 500,000 people living and working on Valley farms and another 500,000 settling in Valley towns: "The proposition . . . is in no sense visionary. The site for a large and ample reservoir is a fact."48 The US government made a huge investment in the Valley with its construction of SRP and did not have to wait long to see positive results. Within a few years of the dedication of Roosevelt Dam in 1911, the Valley doubled its farmed acreage and quadrupled the value of its crops. Within ten months, Phoenix was the capital of the new state of Arizona. The construction of Roosevelt Dam and other works created a new sense of optimism and prosperity. The USRS showcased its prize project to a steady stream of politicians, engineers, and journalists, generating a great deal of free publicity for the region. The project brought to the Valley large numbers of engineers who contributed their expertise not only to the irrigation project but also to agriculture, infrastructure, and industry. They investigated groundwater resources and soil conditions, developed profitable new varieties of crops, and engineered roads and bridges.49 The Phoenix Board of Trade joined with the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads to promote the Valley nationally, and other trade organizations followed suit. They marketed a profitable, pastoral region that would support a good life for families. A 1908 article in National Geographic devoted to homemaking on western reclamation projects was effusive in its description of SRP and echoed the theme of easy living: "There are no farmhouses on the farms. The farmer lives in town and goes to and from his small farm each day. Here at last the farmer's wife has her innings. She has the society of her neighbors; her children have graded schools; the church and library are at hand. There is no isolation, no loneliness."50 Such descriptions attracted national attention. By 1908, the USRS was receiving a thousand inquiries a week about SRP from home seekers across the country.51 WATER OVER THE SPILLWAY In the spring of 1915, Roosevelt Lake filled rapidly with spring runoff from winter snows despite the fact that 1,000 acre-feet of water per day was being released for irrigation. As the water level rose steadily, a rededication was planned to celebrate the first overflow of.

[Audio] 32 CHAPTER THREE: BUILDING ROOSEVELT DAM the reservoir. "Nine Inches of Dry Concrete between Lake Level and Overflow Point" read a newspaper headline on the morning of April 14, and people from the Valley, Globe, and Miami left for the dam.52 At 8:30 p.m., a trickle of water went over the spillway, some of which was captured by Project Engineer C. H. Fitch and placed in a copper flask. The flask of precious Arizona water was sent to New York, where it would be used to christen a new battleship, the USS Arizona.53 The crowd at the dam on April 15 for the rededication ceremony was estimated at 3,000 people—twice the size of the crowd at the official dedication four years earlier. In the four years between the dedication and rededication ceremonies, Arizona became a state and SRP had manifestly proven itself. All the acreage under the project and the Tempe lands (whose owners had yet to join the Association) were receiving water. Speakers at the "Water Fête" praised the foresight of the project pioneers and marveled at how the improved irrigation had energized the Valley, contributing to a doubling of population and a sevenfold increase in the assessed property values in less than ten years.54 Water flowing over spillways at Roosevelt, 1916.

[Audio] CHAPTER FOUR: THE WATER USERS As the physical infrastructure of the Salt River Project neared completion, the USRS and local water users debated the methods of managing the final irrigation system and how to distribute the project's costs. This discussion, contentious at times, lasted for six years following the completion of Roosevelt Dam, resulting in a contract that defined the terms of the relationship between the SRVWUA and the United States as well as the nature of federal interest in a local entity. Following the negotiation of the Association's contract with the United States, the Association took over the management of the Salt River Project. In its early years, the organization faced economic hardships, implemented organizational improvements, and elected new leadership. The Association partnered with other groups to address challenges and continued its commitment to protecting the water rights of its shareholders. REPAYMENT CONCERNS As the USRS took on the monumental task of building reclamation projects all over the West, it faced numerous challenges with the communities it served. Many local farmers complained that the federal entity was unresponsive to their concerns. Tension mounted as water users groups and irrigation districts throughout the West pressured the Secretary of the Interior and Congress to amend the Reclamation Act or modify the policies of the USRS, particularly as it related to financial matters. The initial mechanism for funding federal reclamation projects began to show signs of trouble. Originally, project funds were supposed to derive from.

[Audio] 34 CHAPTER FOUR: THE WATER USERS sales of public land, allocated according to the value of land sales in each state or territory— those areas that raised the most money would receive the most investment. However, this formula proved inadequate as the bulk of reclamation funds went toward more expensive items like water storage, pump, and transmission facilities to serve lands already under irrigation rather than raw desert. Land sales did not cover the increasing cost of reclamation projects.1 The ultimate responsibility for payment fell to the water users who would benefit from the improvements and, as soon became clear, the financial burden was significant. The questions over the terms of repayment of the government loans concerned a wide range of participants, including the landowners and leadership of the various reclamation projects, the USRS, and the US Congress. SRP water users joined with their counterparts on other reclamation projects in seeking alternative options for addressing project costs, which had grown substantially from initial estimates. As a showcase project for the USRS, the Salt River Project received substantial funding. The first estimates for the project came in at $3.75 million.2 However, by 1909, project development had grown to more than double the original cost estimates due to the improved design for larger reservoir capacity; the construction of a power canal, hydropower station, and Granite Reef Diversion Dam; the purchase and renovation of Valley water delivery systems; and rising labor costs.3 The Water Users' Association and the community at large had supported the addition of new power facilities and water infrastructure, but as the time approached to begin paying the government back, farmers expressed doubts about their ability to afford the assessments. While they originally expected to pay around $20 an acre, farmers now faced estimated assessments of more than double that amount, as much as $7,000 on a 160-acre farm at a time when a few thousand dollars a year was considered a good annual income.4 In addition to the construction repayment, farmers would be charged an annual assessment for operations and maintenance—the cost of delivering the water. Many landowners, particularly recent arrivals in the Valley, were also making loan and mortgage payments on their land, homes, and equipment, as well as paying taxes. In 1909, the Senate, sufficiently concerned about the status of western reclamation, sent its Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands on an inspection tour of almost every western project. A public hearing before the committee in Phoenix revealed that although SRVWUA leadership and membership as a whole supported the work of the USRS and endorsed plans for additions to the project, some Association members felt that the repayment term should be extended.5 In fact, many farmers across the West advocated extending the repayment term from ten to twenty years. The USRS opposed any extension, a stance which supported the long-term viability of western reclamation but showed little sympathy for the realities of regional farm economics. The committee's final report proposed no substantial changes in either the law or the USRS administration. It recommended that the repayment.

[Audio] CHAPTER FOUR: THE WATER USERS 35 period not be extended and that the water users repay the full cost of each project, as spelled out in the original agreements.6 The concerns of Salt River Valley farmers were not unique, but rather part of a growing chorus of public and political calls for the USRS to demonstrate more flexibility, show consideration for local conditions, and focus on local decision-making.7 In the Salt River Valley, the Board of Governors of the Association initially avoided pushing this issue, fearing that a strong stand might endanger the funding necessary to complete construction. However, by 1912, project costs had climbed to $10.5 million, and pressure from the Association's membership moved the board to support an extension of the repayment period.8 With repayment issues looming large for members of the Association, concerns also emerged over operating costs. In 1909, some shareholders circulated a petition demanding the resignation of Association President Benjamin A. Fowler and legal counsel Joseph Kibbey, the principal issue being their salaries of $2,000 per year.9 Another source of controversy was the so-called Water Temple, a proposed office building for the Association in downtown Phoenix, which was financed by assessing Association members. A segment of the farm population considered the building unnecessary. This faction even enjoyed some support from SRVWUA's elected leadership.10 Local newspapers reported that a number of Association members were backing a new candidate for president in the biennial election scheduled for April 1910: John P. Orme. Orme had been a board member since 1904 and also served on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. His campaign supporters declared that he stood for "the small farmer against the speculator."11 Like Fowler, Orme supported the Water Temple, but he proposed that Association membership vote on the matter. Once it became clear that Orme had considerable support and a strong desire for the office, Fowler declined to run for a fourth term as president.12 Orme won the election and served as Association president until 1918. The Water Temple assessment also passed.13 After the election of President Woodrow Wilson in 1912, the new Secretary of the Interior, Franklin K. Lane, faced immediate pressure to resolve the reclamation controversies. He noted, "Ever since I came here, senators and congressmen have been overwhelming me with curses upon the Reclamation Service."14 Lane immediately initiated changes to increase the power of water users while adhering to the principles of the Reclamation Act. With his support, the Reclamation Extension Act passed Congress in 1914, increasing the repayment term for reclamation projects to twenty years. Lane also replaced USRS Director Frederick Newell with Arthur P. Davis. Lane's primary method of resolving disputes was to establish independent boards of review consisting of members of the USRS, the water users associations, and outside engineers. He convened two such boards to resolve the outstanding points of contention regarding SRP: the final delineation of the lands to be included in the project and the project's.

[Audio] 36 CHAPTER FOUR: THE WATER USERS cost. The group charged with deciding land issues, called the Board of Survey, primarily followed the water rights principles established in the Kent Decree mitigated by practical consideration of water delivery issues, the 160-acre limit on farm size under the reclamation law, and the history of cultivation. In its final report, approved by Lane in November 1914, the Board of Survey found that of the more than 230,000 acres of irrigable land within the project's boundaries, the maximum available water supply would serve approximately 195,000 acres. These findings necessitated a reduction of almost 40,000 acres, including many lands previously subscribed in the Association. Most of the excluded lands were on the fringes of the project area and had not been irrigated prior to Roosevelt Dam's construction. To lessen the outcry of those landowners whose lands were wholly or partly excluded, the Board of Survey urged additional groundwater pumping and the damming of the Verde River to increase the amount of water in storage.15 In fact, most of the affected landowners were able to purchase surplus water from SRP to continue irrigating their acreages, and when new water supplies became available in the 1920s, they joined the SRVWUA as project lands. Resolving the final costs for the project took time and negotiation. The initial board was divided and resolved that the proper cost of the Salt River Project—that is, the total cost minus deductions for mistakes and inefficiencies—was $7.2 million. The Department of the Interior overturned this finding and held that the value of the works created and the difficulties of the project justified the total cost with no more than a nominal reduction for overhead. After considerable negotiation both within the DOI and between the Association and Washington, DC, the cost was fixed at a little more than $10 million, slightly less than $60 per acre.16 THE 1917 CONTRACT Despite the intent of the Reclamation Act, by 1917 few local entities had taken over control of reclamation projects. For SRP, the Association was poised to take over operation— construction was complete, the lands to receive irrigation designated, and the farmers were prosperous. Several contentious issues remained, however. First, the Water Users' Association sought to have the cost of the Roosevelt power canal removed from the project repayment because it had proven extremely difficult to maintain and only marginally useful for power generation.17 Second, the Association wanted to delay the start of payments for seven years while it built a dam on the Verde River. This dam would allow the "dry-landers" (those Association subscribers denied SRP water by the 1914 Board of Survey) to be included in the project and protect SRP claims to Verde water. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Association wanted to keep the revenues from selling power generated by the project. The costs of the Roosevelt power plant and transmission system were included in the Association's repayment obligation, and Association shareholders had already bonded.

[Audio] CHAPTER FOUR: THE WATER USERS 37 themselves to pay for hydropower plants along Valley canals, which they deeded to the government. A USRS study estimated that the SRP power plants were producing $30,000 a month above operating expenses, and Association President Orme and the Board of Governors wanted to apply this revenue to offset project expenses.18 Many of these leaders evidently remembered the years before the USRS arrived, when lack of financial resources as much as lack of water threatened the Valley's prosperity and continued growth. USRS Director Davis opposed these requests because they would either reduce or delay payments from the Association into the reclamation fund. In February 1917, Orme and legal counsel Kibbey went to Washington to discuss these issues with Arizona Congressman Carl Hayden, Interior Secretary Lane, and Director Davis. Hayden took the position that the Association shareholders had agreed to finance the canal power plants only because of a tacit agreement with the USRS that the power revenues would be applied to offset Association costs. Davis countered that the Association had already enjoyed six years of benefit from Roosevelt Dam and the power system without having paid a penny of either principal or interest and that this benefit was all they were entitled to. After considerable discussion, as reported by Davis, Lane made a proposal: The Secretary then announced to the Arizona delegation that he was anxious to get rid of the project, and if they would enter into a contract to take care of all future expenditures and to return the entire cost of the project . . . he would turn over the entire project to them and they might apply all the power receipts in any way they saw fit. He asked Judge Kibbey if he thought the water users would approve such a contract. Judge Kibbey expressed doubt, but after considerable discussion, both Judge Kibbey and Mr. Orme agreed that such a contract might be approved by the water users and would be put up to them if approved by the Secretary.19 Hayden was prescient in understanding that the Association's ability to keep power revenues was much more important than the other issues. Orme and Kibbey had come to the meeting principally seeking to resolve the issues of the power canal cost and the delay in payments, which were the primary concerns of Association shareholders. After some thought, however, they apparently realized that this was an offer they could not afford to refuse. Davis was furious and peppered Lane for months with complaints about what he saw as the illegality, foolhardiness, and even immorality of turning the power revenues over to the Association, but Lane never swayed. 20 This provision of the 1917 contract was essential in shaping SRP into the regional power entity it is today. Over the next several months, government and Association officials worked out the details of the contract. In August 1917, shareholders voted to ratify the contract by a tally of 49,024 acres to 3,145.21 Some DOI officials questioned the validity of the vote on the basis that only a.

[Audio] 38 CHAPTER FOUR: THE WATER USERS minority of the roughly 180,000 possible votes were cast. Association leaders assured Secretary Lane, however, that the low turnout reflected nothing more than satisfaction with the terms.22 The Association—which had been acting as a client, adviser, and liaison to the USRS since its founding in 1903—took over management and responsibility for the operation of SRP on November 1, 1917.23 The terms of the agreement, though hard fought, were simple and straightforward. The agreement represented the collective experience and wisdom of the engineers, farmers, lawyers, and politicians with stakes in the project. In accordance with reclamation law, the contract specified that the federal government retained title to project dams, canals, and hydropower plants, and that the Salt River Project remained a federal reclamation project. The Association became financially independent of the government and assumed the responsibility for carrying out and paying for ongoing operation and maintenance as well as any further improvements. The control of federally owned dams, canals, and rights-ofway by a local, financially independent organization was the most important statement to date of the public-private nature of SRP. This legal status conferred both strengths and burdens. SRP enjoyed some of the privileges of a federal agency, such as freedom from most state taxes, yet was also able to operate as a private corporation in business aspects of the company, financing power plants, and generating revenue, and it never had direct access to federal appropriations. Furthermore, all revenues went toward the power and water systems; the Association could not pay dividends to its shareholders, because the project benefits accrue to the SRP lands, not their owners. Moreover, the generation of low-cost power and the provision of a reliable water supply promoted economic development that advanced the entire Valley, not just Association members. The 1917 contract between the United States and the Association marked a crucial milestone for the project and continues to govern SRP's relationship with the federal government. The transfer of operations from the USRS to a local entity also represented an important moment for federal reclamation in the West. OPERATING THE PROJECT LOCALLY When it took over the operation of the project, the Association solidified its position as one of the most important organizations in the Valley. For the next thirty years, SRVWUA played a large role in the daily affairs of area residents as the leading supplier of irrigation water and wholesale power. The Association emerged as virtually the only organization in the state that maintained a relationship with the federal government in Washington. It also took on the responsibility of ensuring repayment to the reclamation fund, sending the first payment of $132,000 to Washington in December 1917.24 When the Association took over operation of SRP from the government, most of the USRS employees transferred to other projects, went into private business, or joined the military. W. R. Elliott was appointed the Association's first general superintendent and chief engineer..