Page images

feet of water continuous flow of the Colorado River at our headgate. A large bunch of farmers then protested against that, saying that of course it was to go to the Mexican corporation, and we thought that the water should

come to the landowners. Mr. Heber spent several months in Washington in an effort to secure this grant of water. Following the refusal of the Congress to make this grant, Mr. Heber stated that if he could not worship his own shrine he would worship a shrine in Mexico; he would obtain a grant in Mexico and build a canal entirely on Mexican territory to carry water to Imperial Valley, and the 1st of April he left Washington for Mexico City, and on the 1st day of May he obtained a concession granting him the right to divert an amount of water, stated in cubic meters, which equals 10,000 second-feet of water.

Following the granting of this concession, which is the order under which the district now operates in Mexico, Mr. Heber, in an effort to change the diversion of the water used in the Imperial Valley, United States, as well as the water used in Mexico, attempted to make a diversion in Merico about 3 miles south of the international boundary line. To accomplish this he made a cut in the west bank of the Colorado River with the intention of placing a new head gate in the river, but before this was accomplished a flood came down, and before it was stopped, we had what is known as the break of 1904, 1905, and 1906. He turned the river in order to get the system under the jurisdiction of Mexico and beyond the control of the people on the American side. That same authority has been expressed from that day until this. Probably the reasons for it at that time were that a great many of the farmers of the Imperial Valley immediately after the passage of the reclamation act in 1902 made application to be taken under the Reclamation Service, asking then that our canal system be removed from Mexico. At that time there was no development of the property in Mexico. Irrigation began in Mexico following the break of 1905–6 and developed very slowly until 1916, and since that time has developed much more rapidly. The development has proceeded at such a rapid rate that the lands in Mexico have taken, at times, more than half of the water that has been flowing through the canal. That has been particularly true during the last three years, in which they have used more than half of the water available for use during the three months of peak use of water, namely, June, July, and August of each year.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rose, why did you permit owners of land in Mexico to take more than their share of the water?

Mr. Rose. The reason that they were allowed to take more than one-half of the water, because it has not been definitely settled just what the concession means when it says they shall be entitled to one-half of the water. They contend that it means one-half of the water passing through the canal annually and we contend that it means one-half of the daily flow. They grow no crops in the wintertime and therefore use no water for several months in the winter, while on the American side our crop acreage is about the same each month of the year.

They recently made an oral demand for permission to place a gate about halfway between what is known as the Cudahy Check and the intake of the river, or in other words the intake in the first check of the canal system which would be approximately 8 miles down the

canal from the intake for the diversion of water for the irrigation of approximately 100,000 additional acres of land. This, of course, we will oppose, but probably not successfully.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that in excess of the one-half to which you are entitled ?

Mr. Rose. They have to take it in excess if they take it, but there were other issues involved in putting in the check in the canal. In addition to that there is another element in handling the canal, we have extreme difficulty in getting the water out of the Colorado River at the present elevation of our canal head gate. We are obliged to secure a permit from the Yuma County Water Users? Association and the United States War Department to construct a dam in the Colorado River. This weir is replaced annually in order to raise the water sufficiently to properly divert it into our canal, and any obstruction or check in the main canal means that the water surface of the canal must be raised, and the grade on which the canal runs is lessened and the velocity retarded, which means an immediate deposit of the silt in the upper portion of the canal and a more difficult diversion. We have protested against the placing of any checks in our main canal.

The CHAIRMAN. That was on the theory that you were the owner?

Mr. Rose. Yes. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another matter which I want to call to your attention: The irrigation district has built and maintained some 65 or 70 miles of levees in the Republic of Mexico which the American farmer has constructed with moneys which he either furnished by taxation or bonding himself, and no portion of these particular levees have been paid for by the Mexican landowners. In fact, their total contribution to levee protection has been $39,000 as against approximately $5,000,000, which has been spent by moneys furnished from the American side. This, of course, is for the purpose of protecting the canal system and the land on the American side of the line.

The CHAIRMAN. You spent that money?

Mr. Rose. I am speaking about money spent to build protective levees.

The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking about that, too.

Mr. Rose. There is nothing in the concession which requires us to build levees; it is purely an act of self-defense, and has nothing to do with the canal. It must be remembered that while these levees furnish protection for the canal system and the land on the American side of the line, it also furnishes protection for some 400,000 acres of land on the Mexican side of the line, which would be the first to be overflowed by the Colorado River and which has been overflowed every year for the last 20 years. It is not only benefited by the protection of the canal system from which they drew water for the original acreage of land, but, as you will see from the inspection trip to-morrow, it has enabled them to reclaim an additional 200,000 acres or more of land which was overflowed up to the time of the construction of these levees; therefore, these levees are affording protection for the canals and lands on the American side, and they have done likewise for the land on the Mexican side with the additional benefit of making them susceptible for reclamation, which originally they were overflow or swamp lands. Had the protection levees been purely for the protection of the American land and American canal system and the domination of the Mexican landowners, it had not been exercised by the board of this system, who at that time they controlled to a very large extent.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean you are protecting it from overflow? Mr. Rose. Yes, overflow.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me find out from you. Some one has saidit may be a controverted subject--that this corporation owns the property, owns the canal.

Mr. Rose. It does.

The CHAIRMAX. Then it would become your duty to protect your contract, would it not?

Mr. Rose. Well, it becomes our duty to the American farmer, because it protects his ranch from overflow.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that duty then rests in part upon Mexico?

Mr. ROSE. It should.
The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to get your theory.

Mr. Rose. They get the first protection from the overflow for their farm lands. They get, as I say, first protection. Now, they are telling you that they are paying more than the cost of delivering that water. If it is our duty to protect the canals with American moneys, certainly it is their duty then to protect their own lands with their own money, against the flood water.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what is being done now?

Mr. Rose. Well, it is not being charged against the water; I deny that statement made here, that we are actually making a profit. We are not making a profit. Here is what really did happen: In 1921 and 1922, up into 1923, we built what is known as the Pescadero Cut, and we have built levees at a cost of approximately $4,000,000; we have constructed no levees since 1923. The highest river during these last two or three years has not exceeded 60,000 second-feet, which makes it an unfair computation in their showing a possible profit. The river in years previous raised as high as 210,000 secondfeet which required expenditures far above a half a million dollars, while in the last two years have been less than $100,000.

The CHAIRMAN. But you further equalized the burden? Mr. Rose. No. Upon the basis of Mr. Allison, it is only $2.43. They use, as he told you, 2.8 acre-feet of water per acre. Then he talked about figures; he didn't say dollars and cents, he talked about second-feet, which means 2 acre-feet instead of 1. They only use the 2.8 acre-feet.

Senator DILL. Mr. Rose, I have been trying to get some information here. Can you give us the comparative cost each year that the American landowner pays for the water he gets out of this canal as against the comparative cost per acre that the Mexican users say? Mr. Rose. Approximately; I presume that is what you want.

Senator Dill. I get mixed up on all these various added charges, but what I want to know is the amount of the check per acre that the water user writes out to this Imperial district from the American side and on the Mexican side, so I can understand it.

Mr. Rose. I can give you very nearly that. If Mr. Allison's statement is correct, of about $2.43 on the Mexican side for water delivered from our canal system

The CHAIRMAN. Per acre?

Mr. Rose. Per acre, as against $6 on the American side.
Senator Dill. Is that the total that he pays over there?

Mr. Rose. That is the total that he pays to us. Now, he takes his water direct from the canal, and we have several peorle to whom we deliver direct to their lands, but he who carries it off has to say the cost of maintaining his own lateral system.

Senator DILL. The American pays a little less than $6 and the Mexican $2.43; what is the explanation of this difference?

Mr. Rose. When he gave you the cost on the Mexican side he used second-feet.

Senator Dill. I want to know the amount of his check per acre that a man on the Mexican side paid last year.

Mr. Rose. I am telling, using the basis of water, that it was about $2.43.

Senator Dill. And that is all the Mexican man pays?
Mr. Rose. So far as we are concerned.

Senator Dill. These other men here said it was practically equalized; now you come along and give us a rate of $2.43' as against $6. I get mixed up in all these charges, but certainly that is a total amount which the Mexican owner pays each year because he gets the water, and there is a total amount which the American owner pays each year because he gets the water. Can you give me that total amount per acre, not in second-feet per acre?

Mr. Rose. It is approximately $2.50 on the Mexican side and approximately $6 on the American side.

Senator Dill. Then Mr. Allison's statement was doubly incorrect; that is, he said $4.43 and you say $2.43.

Mr. Rose. Senator Dill, I will say this: I told you, as the other witnesses have told you, that there were over 219,000 acres in cultivation on the Mexican side and they paid us $532,000, and if you divide that number of acres into the money received you will find my statment approximately correct. So you will see that my figures are more nearly correct on the Mexican side of the line according to their own statement. And they have all told you, their own witnesses, that it was about $6 on the American side; Mr. Scott saying it was about $7 on the American side.

Senator PITTMAN. You are giving the figures of delivering it at the main canal ?

Mr. Rose. On the Mexican side.

Senator PITTMAN. Mr. Allison was taking into consideration that there was an additional charge probably for distribution on the land.

Mr. Rose. We don't handle that on the Mexican side. However, a great many of those ranchers are taking water out of the canals and delivering it directly on their lands.

Senator Dill. Is there any charge for delivery?

Mr. Rose. If they transported the water any distance from the canal, beyond a doubt there would be.

Senator JOHNSON. You don't know how much that is, do you?

Mr. Rose. No; because many of the deliveries are taken right out of the canals to the ranch without having to carry it.

The CHAIRMAN. If this appears to be an unfair charge against the American farmers, can't this be adjudicated or composed by some Government agency?

Mr. Rose. We have no power; the Secretary of Mexico fixed the charges under the concession and we have to comply with these regulations as they fix them.

The CHAIRMAN. Could they lower the charge?
Mr. Rose. They could lower it or they could raise it.
The CHAIRMAN. And you have nothing to say about it?
Mr. Rose. No; there has been no change in price since 1917.

It was 50 cents when the water was first brought in here in 1900, and in 1917 it was raised to 86 cents.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a perpetual contract authorizing the Government to fix the charge?

Mr. Rose. There is.
The CHAIRMAN. Does it expire in a short time?
Mr. Rose. No; it is practically a contract.

Senator DILL. Are the people of the irrigation district on the American side protesting against the rate charged over there or have they agreed to do it?

Mr. Rose. We have protested, we have filed many protests to the Mexican Government.

Senator DILL. What do you think they should pay?

Mr. Rose. They should pay exactly the amount per acre that the American lands pay for the general system south of the line; only leaving to the American farmer the excess of the operation north of the international boundary line, including the protection works, including the bonds, both principal and interest on the bonds, that are invested in the system. In addition to that, many hundreds of thousands of dollars have gone into the system which did not go in from bond funds.

Senator Dill. You don't make a profit?

Mr. Rose. We ought to, because we are a private corporation down there.

Senator Dill. But this line comes through Mexico?
Mr. Rose. Yes.

Senator Dill. You must be dependent upon the Mexican company?

Mr. Rose. But we are also paying taxes in Mexico; that helps to some extent. That hasn't anything to do with this particular canal.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you pay anything for the concession?

Mr. Rose. No, not to the Mexican Government, we purchased it largely from the Southern Pacific Co.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you pay for your rights through Mexico?
Mr. Rose. We bought the concession, yes, we did.
The CHAIRMAN. To Mexico or to private citizens?

Mr. Rose. No, to the land owners; there wasn't anything paid for. the concession.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. You bought from them altogether?

Mr. Rose. We bought from them altogether and paid them $3,000,000 for everything they had. It was closed out at a receiver's sale. The real situation, of course, is this; in a nutshell: The situation here is not safe. We have got out water system operation under two governments, two sets of minds. You never know what you are going up against in Mexico. There is no fixed water policy.

Senator KENDRICK. Right there I want to ask: Did I understand you to say a moment ago that recently parties had made request of

« PreviousContinue »