Mohave County miner and our mineral wealth., 1922-07-28
THE NOHAVE COUNTY MINER NOW A CONTEMPORARY OF FALL AND DAVIS
 ACCORDING TO JAMES B. GERARD

ter from James B. Grand, which w
 are publishing as it is an answer t
 a recent article in the Miner. Tn
 article referred to was an answer t
 an attack made on Boulder Canyon b.
 MT. Grand and his commendation o
 not the Diamond Creek damsite, bu
 that of the Edison Company at Glel
 Canyon. The Miner in former issue
 has had nothing but the best to sa,
 for MT. Girand's Diamond Canyon pro
 ject, nor have we heard opponents O
 the Boulder Canyon project cast an!
 detrimental remarks concerning MT
 Girand or his project. General Green
 way and others associated with MT
 Grand have our highest esteem. w
 believe MT. Grand made mistake IF
 taking up the cudgel for the Edisor
 Company's project. That is why the
 Miner criticised his article. We pub
 fish herewith the letter that the read
 CT may judge for himself:
 MT. w. G. Damon, Editor-Manager,
 Mohave County Miner,
 Kingman, Arizona.
 My Dear Sir:
 amsure that spirit of fairness,
 coupled with an honest endeavor to bring out all the points, pro and con- as to the proper solution of the Colo rado river problem, will prompt you to give this letter the same promin- ence which you gave the article in your issue of the Mohave County Min CT of July z, 1922.
 I feel that the manner in which my article, which appeared in the Coconi- no Sun, has been distorted in your pa per, deserves an explanation.
 In the first place, wish to call your attention to the fact, when you at tempt to deprecate my knowledge Of the Colorado river, that I have been, for more than twenty-two years, in timately associated with this river; my knowledge extends from the low CT delta to the extreme watershed which I have investigated; l have spent two and half years in the bot tom of this Canyon, meanderlng It's length for some one hundred and nine ty-six miles; I have expended large sums of money in an attempt to de- velop it; have spent many years ana much money in gathering information in regard to it, and I daresay that there is no engineer in the United States who is as familiar with the Colorado river in its entirety, as my self, and I believe that with the ex- perience I have had l am entitled to be heard. I can not be put aside and then have the statement made that ''on the other hand the knowledge or Director Davis is full and complete. I have been to Boulder Canyon prob ably a great many more times than Director Davis has; do not believe that Director Davis has ever been to Creek or to Glen Canyon; he knows nothing of the Colorado riv- er except what has been given to him oy his understudies.
 I am not worrying about the Boul- Ter Canyon dam; say to you that the Boulder Canyon dam will never De built, as it is an engineering inn to build a dam where the lepth to bedrock is 136 feet below the water level.
 It is amusing to set up side by side he figures showing the contents of Boulder Canyon reservoir juggling Jams from 400 to 600 feet high, with reservoir capacities of eleven to thir- y-three million acre feet, and then be- .ause the Boulder Canyon, at $50 feet, S 26,2OO,00O acre feet capacity, and 1len Canyon 23,sO0,OOO capacity, it is m argument in favor of the Boulder Canyon over the Glen Canyon damsite.
 It is also amusing to have one like he author of the article in your paper ettle these questions 50 completely nd fully as he has done, when it is tated that for power purposes there , s no question as to the superiority of , he Boulder Canyon because it IS $ carer to the power market, and for , yater impoundment it has it all over I he Glen Canyon site. He speaks with z n air of finality that has no need f further testimony. e But fortunately you, Arthur P. Da- [ is and Secretary Fall and one or two r .hers are the only. ones who think e rat way. 2 You say "there is no question of n ,per;ority because of nearness to the r ,wer market. I ask you what power t arket? Is it the Los Angeles power g arket or the Arizona power market! t lso it is not necessary to build a ,wer plant at Glen Canyon, as the y iamond Creek plant at Diamond Can n ,n. is to be built. It is not much S rther to the Los Angeles power mar t t than Boulder Canyon is; the Dla- n ond Creek plant will put power into s ,s Angeles cheaper than the Boulder | .nyon will, and as soon as the Cal ( rnia people realize this they will be \ F the Diamond Creek site. t. It is inexplicable to me that coun- a