this committee, was at that time, and always has been, a consistent advocate of the All-American Canal. He was elected at the primaries by a vote in Imperial County of 2,775, against the combined vote of 614 received by the other candidates.

At the general irrigation district election, for directors of the Imperial irrigation district, held in February, 1925, directors were elected from divisions 1, 3, and 5.

Mr. Brockman, who is opposed to the All-American Canal, was reelected from the Calexico division; the vote, however, shows that it was the city of Calexico and not the county precinct which brought about his election, the tabulation of the precincts being as follows:

In division No. 3 there were two candidates.

Mr. Blair, who is a well-known advocate of the All-American Canal, and who ran on the All-American Canal platform, was elected by a vote of 399 against 188 votes received by his opponents, who were opposed to the All-American Canal.

In division No. 5, Mr. Rose was again elected to succeed himself, by a vote of 587 against a vote of 187 received by his opponents, who was against the construction of the All-American Canal.

In 1924 there were three Republicans and one Democrat candidates for the assembly of the Legislature of California from Imperial County, three of whom were opposed to the All-American Canal. Mr. A. C. Finney was a strong advocate of the All-American Canal, so strong, in fact, that in campaign literature he was called "AllAmerican Canal Finney." Mr. Finney was nominated on both tickets at the primaries over the field, receiving a total of 1,341 votes, being a majority of all votes cast on each ticket.

This tabulation simply shows that the people of Imperial Valley have always been and still are strongly in favor of the construction of the All-American Canal.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you want Mr. Frisbie called?

Senator JOHNSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. He was before the committee in Los Angeles.
Mr. SWING. Yes, a point of rebuttal.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Charles G. Frisbie.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES G. FRISBIE, REPRESENTING THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, STACK BUILDING, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. FRISBIE. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, my name is Charles G. Frisbie. I am consulting engineer of Los Angeles, Calif. I have been requested to appear before this committee on behalf of the Imperial irrigation district to set right some of the

statements that were made here this morning by some of the opposing interests. One statement that was made by one of the speakers this morning was that it had taken 25 years to develop 781,000 acres of land in the lower basin, and that because of that it would take 25 years to develop a similar acreage in the future. It is a well-known fact, brought out in every line of development, that the late development has constantly accelerated; that in the next 25 years the acreage that will be developed will be very much higher than the acreage that was developed during the past 25 years. He stated that the duty of water in this lower basin was 2.8 acre feet per annum per acre. The records of the Reclamation Service and of the irrigation district show that the gross duty of water at the heading is about 4.4 feet, which is 1.6 times the duty that Mr. Allison claims exists in this country. That is not a matter of information, it is a matter of record; it has been measured for many years by the Reclamation Service and by the irrigation district. He claimed that there would be ample water for all the development of all the irrigable lands in the lower basin outside of the lands up in Arizona, so that 7,000,000 acrefeet of water would irrigate all these lands, including this country and Mexico. With the duty of 4.4 second-feet per acre-I should say 4.4 acre-feet per acre per annum-it would take over 11,000,000 acre-feet of water to irrigate the lands of the lower basin. In the compact between the various States interested nearly 7,500,000 acrefeet of water has been allotted to the lower States. So there is over 4,000,000 acre-feet shortage in there.

Senator ASHURST. I did not hear that distinctly; do I understand you to say that by reason of the fact that the Santa Fe pact only allots 7,500,000 acre-feet each year to pass Lee's ferry, there would be 4,000,000 acres in the southwest doomed to desert that would be otherwise irrigable?

Mr. FRISBIE. No; I did not state that, Senator.
Senator ASHURST. What did you say?

Mr. FRISBIE. I said there would be 4,000,000 acre-feet shortage.
Senator ASHURST. Acre-feet shortage?

Mr. FRISBIE. Yes, acre-feet. And that, of course, would represent about a million acres of land, substantially a million acres of land. Senator JOHNSON. And that includes Mexican lands?

Mr. FRISBIE. And that includes Mexican lands.

Senator PHIPPS. Just at that pcint, for the record: While the seven and a half million acre-feet is mentioned in the compact, that is the minimum that must be allowed to come down on the average over a 10-year period of years, as I recall it. The hope and expectation is that the run-off will average very much larger than the seven and one-half million acre-feet per annum.

Senator ASHURST. I hope the able Senator is correct.

Senator JOHNSON. Pardon me, isn't it the maximum that is allowed?

Senator PHIPPS. Oh, by no means.

Senator JOHNSON. I mean it is the maximum that is allotted and the rest is reserved for future allotment?

Senator ASHURST. This compact was drawn by Mr. Delph E. Carpenter. No one else seems to know anything about that compact with the exception of the able Senators from the upper States; we in this lower basin know that the implied limitation will be

resolved against us, through the cunning, subtle wording of that compact.

Senator PHIPPS. I desire to disagree with the Senator from Arizona. I don't profess to have made a special study of the compact myself, but I don't think the Senator means to imply that the representatives from his own State and those of the five other States who considered that compact do not know nearly as much about it as Mr. Carpenter. If he is the author of that he is a very able man.

Senator ASHURST. The Senator from Colorado knows that I have great respect for his ability as a Senator and as a business man, and he has contributed immensely to and has illuminated these hearings. But I fear that under this compact the lower basin will never get more than 75,000,000 acre-feet every 10 years, or about 7,500,000 acre-feet every year.

Senator PHIPPS. I would hate to have to underwrite the proposition of holding back the surplus.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kendrick desires to ask a question.

Senator KENDRICK. I want to ask the Senator from Arizona, in connection with his statement, if it is not true that even the people of his own State agreed that the distribution of the waters between the upper and lower basin States was in entire conformity with the spirit of right and equity?

Senator ASHURST. Our legislature refused to ratify the compact. Senator KENDRICK. I understand they refused to ratify the compact, but did they not insist that the upper basin States were not receiving any more than they were entitled to?

Senator ASHURST. California must have been somewhat alarmed when in her ratification she took pains to make a reservation.

Senator KENDRICK. I think it may be stated here as perfectly reliable that there was a general understanding and a general agreement that there was no controversy between the people of the lower basin States and those of the upper basin States as to the equities involved between those two sections, and I think the Senator's own. people, as Senator Phipps has indicated here, were in entire agreement with the terms of that compact when it was finally signed.

Senator ASHURST. I concede that the seven who met in secret were in agreement, but the people of Arizona have never agreed to it. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Frisbie.

Senator ASHURST. Pardon me for interrupting.

The CHAIRMAN. No; we are glad to have it in the record.

Mr. FRISBIE. Another statement that was made by the same engineer was that the construction of a dam on the upper river would not relieve the perils from flood down in Mexico. The great peril that exists to-day from flood is due to the great flood waters that come down at certain seasons of the year, due to the fact that this area is constantly rising in elevation, building up a delta down there; great quantities of silt are deposited there. When this dam is constructed at Boulder Canyon or elsewhere the silt contained will be greatly reduced; the flow will be regulated. And maintenance of a levee at that point will be comparatively easy; it won't be necessary to raise it year after year to keep up with that constant rise in elevation of that section of the delta.

Then it was pointed out that the All-American Canal passed through drifting sand, that it would be filled up in no time, that the flowing water would cause a great deal of washing. The fact is that this All-American Canal is not in the drifting sand; it is in a mesa formation. Mr. Allison said that he had never surve; ed this area out there; that he had read the report. If he had read the AllAmerican Canal report he would know that that statement of his is not a fact; that the canal itself is 40 feet below the surface of the mesa formation and is fine material for the construction of a canal. The drifting sands in that area have been studied for several years; we have had stakes out there over 10 years and we have measured the drift of the sand. As I told the committee the other day, it is a very small amount per annum, practically negligible; compared with the great quantity of water that would pass through that canal it would amount to less than three-hundredths of 1 per cent. And I pointed out that there had been a similar canal constructed and a canal maintained in drifting dunes successfully for 59 years.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Please indicate how they maintain them there what mechanical device?

Senator PHIPPS. We had that in the record day before yesterday. Senator SHORTRIDGE. Did you explain that?

Mr. FRISBIE. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. What do they do, erect some barriers? Mr. FRISBIE. Well, five years after the canal had been constructed they found that up to that time it had not been necessary to do anything except to do a small amount of dredging through the sanddrifting section, two dredges operating six months, and with that they were able to keep this canal in first-class condition. That was a report made by an engineer five years after it was open to navigation. It must be remembered in this canal there is practically no velocity, practically negligible, while in this canal we have a great river flowing at a very high velocity which will carry up big quantities of material. It has been shown that over 50,000,000 cubic yards of material comes into the Imperial Canal system to-day; that a great part of that is carried clear through and deposited on the land, and the amount of silt that would go in the canal is negligible compared to the quantities that come into this canal and system at present. Senator SHORTRIDGE. Assuming the building of the dam? Mr. FRISBIE. Yes; assuming the building of the dam.

Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Frisbie, is there a considerable acreage of land to be reclaimed under the All-American Canal that could not or would not be reclaimed under the necessary high line-the canal that is now in operation?

Mr. FRISBIE. Yes; there is quite a large acreage that could not be reclaimed any way except by an All-American Canal from Laguna Dam.

Senator KENDRICK. Can you give us the figures as to those acres? Mr. FRISBIE. The present canal system could not possibly irrigate by gravity more than an additional 150,000 acres. The All-American Canal is capable of irrigating over 400,000 additional acres. It has its source at Laguna Dam, an elevation of about 30 feet above the present heading, and is kept at a higher grade all the way through; it hasn't the fall that the present canal system has.

Senator PHIPPS. What is the general elevation of those mesa lands as compared to the highest levels your ditches will now run by gravity?

Mr. FRISBIE. The mesa lands are about-most of them are about 30 feet.

Senator PHIPPS. Yes.

Mr. FRISBIE. Thirty-about 35 feet.

Senator PHIPPS. That accords with my recollection when some years ago it was seriously considered to irrigate those lands by pumping up to the levels of those laterals. That would be feasible, would it not? To raise water 30 feet would not be unduly expensive or prohibitive, would it?

Mr. FRISBIE. It would not be prohibitive, but it would not be as economical as to have a gravity canal and make the original investment necessary to construct that canal.

Senator PHIPPS. Depending somewaht on the cost of the flow line of that canal?

Mr. FRISBIE. Yes; but assuming the cost as outlined in the AllAmerican-Canal report.

Senator PHIPPS. So there is a possibility of irrigating that land without an all-American canal?

MR. FRISBIE. They could be irrigated by pumping on them, but it would be at a greater cost than it would be through an allAmerican-canal system.

Senator JOHNSON. And you have got to irrigate an equal number of acres in Mexico, too, have you not?

Mr. FRISBIE. Yes, Senator; that is in my opinion the big reason for the All-American Canal, the fact that there is not water enough in the Colorado river in the average annual flow to irrigate all of the lands in the lower basin. It means that as long as this canal system is maintained as at present that half of the waters that are diverted through it will have to remain in Mexico, and there is no way to prevent that. The only way that we can get away from that situation is to divert it on American soil and keep it on American soil, letting Mexico have such waters as we do not need on American soil.

Senator PHIPPS. Unless by negotiation you could secure a modification of your present understanding.

Mr. FRISBIE. I would not think that the modification would be probable when they have the advantage that they have at the present time.

Senator PHIPPS. It might be possible, I should think, if you would enter into an understanding that you propose to put in words that would irrigate an additional area in the Imperial Valley of Mexico at a large expenditure and you would only do that in case the owners of land in Mexico would agree to a modification of their present agreement under which they would limit themselves to a certain measured additional supply of water in any event.

Mr. FRISBIE. Of course the only way that any modification of that kind could be enforced would be through Mexican courts. We would have not jurisdiction over such a measure in our own

court.

Senator PHIPPS. I am simply trying to bring out the possibilities of the development of the Imperial Valley; I am not trying to oppose