Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you irrigate?
Mr. ARMSTRONG. We do.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you under the present system?
Mr. ARMSTRONG. I don't understand.
The CHAIRMAN. You are under the Imperial Valley district?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Oh, no; we have a district of our own, our own intake and our own works.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Mr. Armstrong, with your statement.,

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, how badly we need flood control up there. In the past 11 years we have spent out of direct taxation $1,737,238.22 for river control. And in addition to that we have spent $1,625,330.36 in bonds, to raise some bond issues. The population is only about 5,000 and the burden is pretty heavy.

Senator Jones. How have you used that money?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. In repairing the damages due to the floods and extending our levees.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. How do you reach the Palos Verdes district from El Centro?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Across the desert.
Senator CAMERON. Mr. Armstrong, where is you intake?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Seven miles above Blythe, about 6 miles below where the proposed line of the aqueduct would be.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Will you give that again, please?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. It is about 6 miles south of the proposed location of the beginning of the Los Angeles aqueduct.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. How far from Blythe is your intake? ?
Mr. ARMSTRONG. About 7 miles above Blythe.

Senator CAMERON. How far about Yuma is the Los Angeles aqueduct intake?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Approximately 80 miles, I should say. The river has made us more or less trouble and more trouble since the Laguna dam was built than before, in spite of the fact that the engineers say it will have no effect on it. The old residents know that after the dam was built the river bottom began to come up, and it is now about 6 feet higher than it was at the time the dam was built. And the Government has put a little extra burden on us in that way. It wouldn't do any harm if they relieved us a little the other way. It is a very serious matter, really, gentlemen, with us. have about 3 miles of river to keep out.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your annual expenditure for that pur-
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, it would be
The CHAIRMAN. Flood control?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. The average is about--that would be approximately-two hundred and fifty or three hundred thousand a year, sir, depending on the seriousness of the floods.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the Government ever contributed any of its funds for that purpose?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. It has not; we hoped it would at one time but it never did.

We

pose?

The CHAIRMAN. It is your opinion that by the construction of a dam at Black Canyon or Boulder Canyon the water would be regulated so it would not further be a menace here?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is my position.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Armstrong.

STATEMENT OF H. C. WEBSTER, PRESIDENT OF THE IM

PERIAL VALLEY FARM BUREAU, BRAWLEY, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Webster, give your name to the reporter for the record,

Mr. WEBSTER. H. C. Webster; Brawley, Calif.; farmer.
The CHAIRMAN What organization do you represent!

Mr. WEBSTER. I represent the Imperial County Farm Bureau, president of zhe organization. Mr. Chairman, I assure you it gives me pleasure to appear before this body again, as I had the honor of appearing before you last winter in Washington, to reiterate some of the statements I made there.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it won't be necessary for you to repeat what you said there. We have preserved that record.

Mr. WEBSTER. Well, I know, but I just want to make one statement.

The CHAIRMAX. Yes.

Mr. WEBSTER. We are still for the legislation that we were there to represent for the Farm Bureau then. I think I made the statement there that 25 to 50 per cent of the Farm Bureau members of Imperial County stand for the Swing-Johnson bill, and, if anything, we are nearer 100 per cent for it now. I am very glad to make that statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. Swing. We have here a long list of individual farmers who would speak for the All-American Canal. We have the county officials, who would express their opinions in favor of the legislation that is before the Senate. I am not going to ask you to take the time to hear them, but just to take my statement that they are here in a body ready and willing to testify if you desire to hear them. If not, that concludes our case.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Swing, if you have anything new to offer--the committee must trust to your judgment on that point and we will listen if you think it would be beneficial, but if it is a repetition of what we have had over and over again we won't need it.

Mr. SWING. It is simply a declaration of their own opinions in favor of this legislation, in favor of the Boulder Dam and the AllAmerican Canal.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I don't think it will be necessary to amplify the record on that point.

Mr. Swing. It has been suggested that you might take the testimony of those present simultaneously by asking all those present to

The CHAIRMAN. No. we are not here for testimonial purposes. Do you want Mr. Hoover or Mr. Yager called ?

Mr. SWING. Mr. Yager is here. He says he will not ask the committee for the time because he would merely repeat what Dr. Jennings previously presented to you in Los Angeles.

stand up:

The CHAIRMAN. Then I understand that so far as the proponents of this bill are concerned, the meeting is concluded ?

Mr. SWING. Unless something should arise subsequently that would call for rebuttal.

Mr. J. C. ALLISON. Mr. Chairman, I am certain that the record is not clear on the duty of water, 8.4 feet, that has been used so often since my

The CHAIRMAN. Come right over here and clarify it, then, if you can.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF J. C. ALLISON, REPRESENTING

THE COLORADO RIVER CONTROL CLUB

Mr. ALLISON. The figure of 8.4 feet is used and was used in the ree cord as the net amount of water used in 25 years, the average of water used in practically all the 25 years. Some of the lands that: are covered with canals are not using water; others are. But we use that 4.8 acre feet as being a criterion, something to go by for the future. It is not used as the present consumption on land, anı acre of land, as receiving water. Therefore, the statement of Mr. Rose is inaccurate in that respect. The Mexican water user pays the: same per acre that the American water user pays, only that the maintenance costs are added. Mr. Frisbie gives the accurate amount of water per acre used in this bill during the time of usage. In arriving at the total of 7,000,000 acre feet the record will show that the estimated amount for seepage and evaporation means that 25 per cent was used in addition to the 4.8 acre feet, and I believe that will clear the record.

Senator Dill. I wanted to ask a question. Maybe you could answer it. The statement was made here that Mexican users are using water for 200,000 acres, approximately, but that the American water users were watering approximately 400,000 acres. Do I understand by that that there is still available under the agreement, the right to make available, 200,000 acres of water, water for 200,000 acres on the Mexican side?

Mr. Allison. That question, Senator Dill, is in doubt; it is in dispute. The clauses in the Mexican agreement whereby the American Canal Company was permitted to pass the canal through Mexico, are not clear on that subject. The clause is read here for the record, to this effect, that, “Of the waters passing through the Alamo Canal, Mexico is entitled up to one-half," and there the agreement ends. Now, whether that is one-half of the daily use, or one-half of the yearly use is not plain.

Senator Dill. Are the 200,000 acres on the Mexican side using as. much water as the 400,000 on the American side?

Mr. ALLISON. No; they are not. There may be, as Mr. Rose suggested, a day or two or a week or two, in which it is, on account. of the cotton crops in Mexico, but in the yearly or monthly use they are not; they are using proportionately the same waters that the American users are using.

Senator Dill. Are they using one-half?

Mr. Allison. No, sir; they are using on the ratio of 200,000 acres: to 400,000 acres.

72578-257-PT 2-8

Senator DILL. Then there would still be water available for more land in Mexico under this agreement than is now being taken out?

Mr. ALLISON. Yes, sir; there would be.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Let me ask this question: Does it compare, acre for acre north and south of the lineMr. ALLISON. I will compare

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Just one moment, please: Carry this in your mind: An acre north and an acre south, both being irrigated, which costs the more?

Mr. ALLISON. They are identical; they cost the same.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further? You said a moment ago that you were through. Mr. Swing. Because I thought you wanted to adjourn. The CHAIRMAN. Who is your next witness, Mr. Swing! Mr. Swing. Mr. W. H. Brooks. Come right forward, please.

STATEMENT OF W. H. BROOKS, FARMER

The CHAIRMAN. What is your name?
Mr. BROOKS. W. H. Brooks.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your address?
Mr. BROOKS. El Centro.
The CHAIRMAN. You are a farmer?
Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead and make your statement.

Mr. BROOKS. I came to this country in March, 1903. I have been here ever since. I served as a supervisor for eight years, just went off the board the first of last year; and I have been farming from two to five hundred acres of land right along, and most of my land now is leased out. I have always stood for the All-American Canal. I think the country never will be put on a true pro rata basis until we

get that.

Now, I have been working in my land the last few years, and, as I was telling some of you gentlemen last evening, I have got two ranches now that have been leased out, one I have just closed on a five-year lease, thé five year lease is just closed up on it for $42 an acre, which gave me $210 for the five years, and I don't feel that at any time since I have leased that, while that has been running, that I could have cashed in for that money. Yes, I received that money cash for a five-year lease on it. I have another ranch that rented for $40 an acre for five years; that is practically in the same class. And I think the cause of that is

Senator JONES. Might I ask you: That amount leaves you how much per acre?

Mr. Brooks. I haven't made any close figures on that, but I think $10 an acre would cover it amply.

Senator JONES. That is, cover expenses?
Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir.
Senator JONES. Leaving you net $30?
Mr. BROOKS. Yes.

Senator PHIPPS. Do I understand that this rental at $42 a year was paid in advance?

Mr. BROOKS. No; it was about six months in advance. But I say, I have already received that; the five years is up, and they have taken it for another year. And I consider that the cause for this is the uncertainty of our water condition and the general uncertainty of the flood control. I don't see any other reason for it. I believe the Boulder Dam and the All-American Canal would eliminate that and put us on a level with other farming countries.

Senator JONES. You don't think that the building of the Boulder Dam and making more certain these things would increase the rate, it would increase the price you could get for your land?

Mr. BROOKS. It would increase the sale price; people who wanted to sell the land could do it. As I was telling the Senators last evening, there is a ranch right out here that was offered to me at $225, and it sold at $225, and they turned right around and leased it at $50 an acre per year with a three or four years lease on it.

Senator PHIPPs. You are strongly in favor of the All-American Canal ?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir.

Senator PHIPPS. Do you believe that the cost estimate under the provisions of the Swing-Johnson bill would be, say, from $37 to $40 and acre?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir; but that it would immediately put a valuation of $100 to $150 on our land.

Senator PHIPPS. Now, I want to again call your attention to the fact that that estimate is based upon assessing the land under the proposed canal, the land that is now receiving water, merely with its proportionate cost of the canal itself without any reference whatever to the cost of the retaining dam, where the water would be held back?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir.

Senator PHIPPS. Then I wanted to ask you, as I know you understand that situation

Mr. BROOKS. Yes.

Senator PHIPPS. And also the fact that all other reclamation projects in the United States have been assessed not only for their canal cost, but for the dam structures as well ?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir.

Senator PHIPPS. How much more than $40 an acre, in your judgment, could these lands in the Imperial Valley stand?

Mr. Brooks. Well, I would say considerabằy more. And there is another angle to that question: The power that is developed there will offset that considerably.

Senator PHIPPS. True. Let us assume for the sake of the argument that the Government authorities would allocate the cost among the three interests.

Mr. BROOKS. Sure.

Senator PHIPPS. That is to say, reclamation and hydraulic power, paying the Government what they would decide to be the proper proportion for flood control pure and simple?

Mr. Brooks. Yes.

Senator PHIPPS. In that event, if you were assessed with your proportionate share for the purpose of reclamation, how much do you think you could stand, with the possibility of getting it back later, if the power earnings made an adequate return?

« PreviousContinue »