Page images
PDF
EPUB

320 acres of land. We have brought that land all under a good state of cultivation. At that time the Colorado River was partially running in the Imperial Valley. I then went to the heading, what we call our heading or intake on the Colorado River, and viewed the situation, and it looked bad. We almost knew that the entire river was going to come into Imperial Valley. Regardless of all that, we went ahead with our investment. Soon after that the entire river came in, but I thought: "I know the Government will not allow this beautiful valley to go back to the sea. It can and will be stopped.”. The entire flow of the Colorado River came into Imperial Valley for 18 months, and it was stopped, as you have seen by the records, and the great New River gorge that you saw yesterday carried the entire flow of the Colorado River, with the exception of the small amount that went down the Alamo channel. There was no water in New River when the Colorado broke in; it was merely a dry flat slough covered with patches of mesquite trees. It would carry the overflow every few years from the Colorado River and a small channel was gradually cutting back from the Salton Sea at that time, but had not got only about to Brawley.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, Mr. Aten, is that really relevant to the subject under discussion? We have many witnesses this afternoon, and we want to make as complete a record as possible.

Mr. ATEN. I don't believe you have got it in the record about this channel cutting back. I wanted to tell you about it. While the channel was cutting back during the flood, just a little above where you crossed yesterday, it cut that gorge a mile a day and you could hear that roaring for 10 miles. Every man in the Imrerial Valley that had a team went up to the main canal to keep it from breaking. If the levee had broken at Calexico, the point where you sit now would have been under 2 feet or more of water. This paper refers, as I said, to the political situation of Imperial Valley on this project.

The Yuma County Water Users' Association obtained an injunction against the Imperial irrigation district for the construction of a weir in the Colorado River near its heading for the purpose of diverting the water into the district's canals in 1916. Immediately thereafter the people of the district recognized the necessity of changing its diversion point from the heading it was then and is still using to the Laguna Dam. In order to do this a contract was entered into between the district and the Department of Interior of the United States, whereby the district agreed with reasonable diligence to construct' an All-American Canal and move its diversion point to the Laguna Dam, and an interest in which the district purchased for a consideration of $1,600,000. Under the law it was necessary that a contract carrying a consideration of such magnitude should be submitted to a vote of the people. This was done on the 21st day of January, 1919, pursuant to a resolution of the board of directors of Imperial irrigation district, in words and figures following, to wit:

Whereas it appears that there is a demand for an expression by ballot by the people of Imperial irrigation district, relative to the advisability of full cooperation between Imperial irrigation district and the United States Government in the financing and control of reclamation in Imperial County, the control of flood waters in Mexico, and the unification of the Colorado River; Now, therefore,

Be it resolved, That at the election on January 21, 1919, proposition by separate ballot be submitted to the electors of the Imperial'irrgaition district in words as follows, to-wit:

Do you favor instructing the board of directors to request the Secretary of the Interior and Congress to include the Imperial Valley, both improved and unimproved lands, in a unified Colorado River project which by appropriate Federal legislation shall provide, (a) for storage of waters on the upper Colorado River for irrigation of arid lands and development of power, (b) for connection with Laguna Dam under such conditions as shall be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and (c) adequate provisions for the permanent and sufficient control of the flood menace on the lower Colorado River.

As provided by said resolution, two propositions were submitted to the people, (1) being purely a question of the ratification of the All-American Canal contract of October 23, 1918, which was submitted on the following form ballot:

Shall the contract executed by the board of directors of the Imperial irrigation district and the United States calling for the construction of an All-American Canal and Laguna Dam connection by the district and for joint development of power possibilities and obligating the District to pay the United States the sum of one million six hundred thousand ($1,600,000) dollars for the right to use said Laguna Dam, main canal and appurtenant structures, be ratified and confirmed?

Yes, 2,535; no, 922.

The other proposition was in the nature of instructions to the board to urge the United States to include the Imperial Valley in a unified Colorado River project and submitted on the following form ballot:

Do you favor instructing the board of directors to request the Secretary of the Interior and Congress to include the Imperial Valley, both improved and unimproved lands, in a unified Colorado River project which by appropriate Federal legislation shall provide, (a) for storage of waters on the upper Colorado River for irrigation of arid lands and development of power, (b) for connection with Laguna Dam under such conditions as shall be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and (c) adequate provisions for the permanence and sufficient control of the flood menace on the Lower Colorado River?

Yes, 2,355; no, 495.

At that election, the people approved the ratification of the AllAmerican Canal contract by a vote of 2,535 yes and 922 no and approved the resolution by a vote of 2,355 yes and 495 no. A full tabulation of the vote on both propositions by precincts is as follows:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

At the general irrigation district election held in February, 1921, directors were elected from divisions 1, 3, and 5, No. 1 division including the city of Calexico, No. 3 division including the city of Imperial, and No. 5 division including the city of Holtville. Calexico never favored the All-American Canal, and at that time elected Mr. Brockman as its representative on the board.

There were two candidates from division No. 3, one candidate opposed the All-American Canal. Mr. McPherrin, by public statement, indorsed the All-American Canal and was elected by a vote of 269, whereas his opponent received 60 votes.

There were two candidates for director from division No. 5. Mr. Rose, a well-known All-American Canal man, was elected by a vote of 549 over 243 received by his opponent.

At the general election of the irrigation district held in February, 1923, directors were elected from divisions No. 2 and 4, No. 2 division including the city of El Centro, and No. 4 division including the city of Brawley.

There were three candidates for director in division No. 2, being myself and two others. I had been an advocate of the All-American Canal and that was my platform as a candidate. At the election, I was elected by a vote of 864 over 641 votes received by both my opponents combined, who did not favor the All-American Canal.

In division No. 4 there were four candidates. Mr. Pound, who has been a consistent advocate of the All-American Canal, was elected.

The election for Congressman from the eleventh district of California in 1924 was virtually a referendum of the Swing-Johnson bill. There was no other issue in the campaign. The two Republican candidates agreed that a dam should be constructed in the river by the United States; the disagreement was on the All-American Canal.

Congressman Swing, being one of the authors of the bill now before 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:

[blocks in formation]

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 arainst 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. 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 point, 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

« PreviousContinue »