Page images
PDF
EPUB

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?

Mr. BROOKS. They have estimated it as anywhere from thirty to forty, the estimate I have used, and I would still be in favor of it if it was nearly double that.

Senator PHIPPS. Nearly double?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes; because I still believe that my land would be worth twice as much, and not only that, but if I wanted to dispose of it, I could do so.

Senator PHIPPS. That is what I wanted to get. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Mr. Swing?

Mr. Swing. Mr. Loveland-shall we go on, Mr. Chairman? I will defer to the wishes of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. As I said a moment ago, when I hoped we had come to an agreement, unless there is something in addition, we would not want the testimony, and the request was made upon the chairman, and in a spirit of generosity he said that witnesses not on the list could appear, one of whom happened to be Mr. Chandler, who came here and desired to appear. When the list was given to the chairman it was practically exhausted, and I asked if he were here and was advised he was out of the room. He has returned.

Mr. Swing. Just in the way of explanation: Last evening the opposition asked for time on the program, which was in charge of the committee of fifty. They were asked how many places they wanted, how much time they wanted, and they were voted all the places they wanted.

The CHAIRMAN. My dear sir, this committee is not a jury: this committee is out to have the facts disclosed; we are not bound by so many proponents or so many opponents.

Mr. Swing. I simply say I will follow your wishes in the matter, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I have every reason and purpose to be as fair as I can to all concerned and involved. I have no feeling in the matter at all, but, as chairman, I believe that those who want to appear here before the committee, even though they perhaps have no direct interest in the Imperial Valley, they are interested, maybe, elsewhereshould be accorded that opportunity.

Mr. Swing. We will suspend now, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; I am not asking you do that. I repeat again that the committee is willing to hear any testimony on any point that has not been thoroughly presented. If you have presented your whole subject matter, I think the committee really understands the situation, so we will conclude and then I will ask, because the request has been made upon me, that Mr. Chandler be permitted to make a statement.

Mr. SWING. There are a number of farmers here, but they will very gladly acquiesce to the wishes of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. No; we won't have it that way at all. No witness that you have here is compelled to step, aside for anyone, and if they want to appear, now is the time and opportunity. We are not driving them away; we are wanting them to come here if you so desire.

Mr. SWING. I think we may as well suspend and see what time it will take.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman will suspend when that opportunity is reached, in his judgment. We are not going to suspend now. I would like to see you conclude by 6 o'clock. There is an important executive committee meeting that must be held to-night by the members concerning our itinerary. The members are tired, they worked hard late last night, and we have to make the trip across the continent, and they are not in position to stay up all the time and let their hours be engrossed by hard work, and I would like to conclude by 6 o'clock, so we may have the remainder of the evening for rest and for executive business. Mr. Chandler, do you want to make a statement to the committee?

Mr. HARRY CHANDLER. No, sir; I had not thought of making a statement. I don't know as I could add anything to the statement I made before the House committee in Washington a year ago last May.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. CHANDLER. I will answer any questions that anybody wants to ask me, but I do not care to make a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; I was advised that you wanted to make a statement, and you were accorded the opportunity. If you do not desire to do so, then, Mr. Chandler, I shall ask if there are any questions desired to be propounded to Mr. Chandler by any, one; if not, we will conclude the hearing in Imperial Valley, and at this time I want to take the opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the clear way you have proceeded here, and to the people generally for the delightful way they have treated the committee. We can have an open meeting for a while. If there is any farmer here who desires to make a statement who has not had an opportunity the committee will hear him for a brief session.

For the use of the committee I have caused to be inserted in the record a letter addressed to me by the Colorado River Control Club, opposing the construction of the All-American Canal:

COLORADO River CONTROL CLUB,

El Centro, Calif., October 29, 1925. Hon. CHARLES L. McNary,

El Centro, Calif. DEAR SENATOR: Appreciating your desire to obtain at first-hand full information of all phases of the Colorado River problems, we submit the views of the Colorado River Control Club, an organization of over 1,300 business and professional men and farmers owning more than half the irrigable land of the American portion of the Imperial Valley, with an assessed valuation of more than half of all properties in Imperial Valley.

The club advocates that which is fundamental and of paramount importance, namely, the early construction of a flood control and storage dam or dams at a site or sites to be selected by proper governmental authorities.

The club contends that a flood control and storage dam or dams will meet the outstanding needs of the valley, namely, the conservation of flood waters for use when the river is low and removal of flood menace.

The club opposes the All-American Canal feature of the Swing-Johnson bill as proposed on the grounds that it is not needed by the lands within the Imperial irrigation district, which lands are now, and for 20 years have been, adequately served by the present canals, and would necessitate an expenditure entirely disproportionate to any possible benefits.

If lands now arid need an All-American Canal, and will pay for it, or, if the United States Government will construct such a canal for the benefit of exservice men, the club will interpose no objection.

But the Swing-Johnson bill proposes that a considerable part of the cost of the All-American Canal, estimated to exceed $40 per acre, shall be borne by lands now irrigated, and the club contends that such an increase in our bonded in

debtedness would be ruinous. Surely in such a matter the landowners who must pay the bonds are to be considered, and the majority of them have by joining this club and indorsing its principles, declared their unequivocal opposition to the canal as provided for in the bill.

The reasons advanced for building the canal are so unsound as to merit little attention, were it not that they have been widely broadcasted and have intrigued the support of the uninformed. Chief of these is the claim that the All-American Canal would "get us out of Mexico." The club asserts that it would not.

As well stated in a letter addressed to Hon. Addison T. Smith by the Federal Power Commission, a copy of which is appended hereto:

The construction of the All-American Canal will not obviate the necessity of constant dealings with Mexico in connection with irrigation or protection of lands in the United States. Irrespective of the amount of flood-control storage in the United States it will, for many years at least, be necessary in the protection of the Imperial Valley to maintain levees and revetments in Mexico and arrangements must be effected whereby this work can be carried on whenever necessary without interference."

As is also affirmed in that letter, our problem with Mexico can only be settled through the State Department of the United States and not through the construction of canals.

Furthermore, an open canal of 150 or 200 feet on the bottom and approximately 1,350 feet across the top, extending through a 10-mile region of drifting sand dunes, which rise to a maximum height of 150 feet above the water surface is admittedly an experiment, the practicability of which has been gravely questioned by eminent engineers who at various times during the last 60 years, have investigated it.

Engineer Ebenezer Hadley, of San Diego County, selected a route through Mexico about 60 years ago. Subsequently, in 1876, an examination was made under Government direction to determine whether or not it would be feasible to reach Imperial Valley without following the route through Mexico. This survey was made by Lieut. Eric Bergland, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, who reported unfavorably upon a canal location entirely in the United States, and again called attention to the natural route across Mexican territory.

Dr. Elwood Mead, in his report of 1917 (see p. 29) stated that

“The present canals cross the Mexican territory. Financial considerations make this the proper route and render an All-American Canal impossible.”

The All-American Canal Board, consisting of Doctor Mead, W. W. Schlecht, and C. E. Grunsky, have this to say:

“The contract between the Secretary of the Interior and the Imperial Irrigation district, under which this board has been appointed, is specific and definite in the requirement that an All-American Canal route be surveyed and examined. No alternative has been left open. The surveys and investigations which have been made relate, therefore, to a canal located throughout upon American territory. Our investigation could not be broadened out to a full consideration of the wisest and best treatment of the irrigation problem of the lower Colorado River in its broadest aspect. This is to be regretted, because the lower river presents problems of unique perplexity.”

As implied by the All-American Canal Board in the foregoing quotations and asserted by other engineers the mesa lands can be watered by other means for less cost.

The cost of maintaining the proposed canal has not been estimated but would, doubtless, exceed the cost of maintaining the present canal, which cost is more than offset by the revenue derived from the sale of water to Mexican lands. In 1924 Chief Engineer Carberry of the Imperial irrigation district submitted a financial report which shows that the revenue thus derived is sufficient not only to pay the entire cost of maintaining the canal through Mexico, but, in addition, pay the entire cost of diverting the water from the Colorado, the entire cost of maintaining the protective levees in Mexico and to leave a net balance of approximately $60,000. According to that report the American farmers who own the Imperial irrigation district receive their water at the international line with all those costs paid, plus a substantial profit.

This proposed canal, in so far as the lands now under irrigation in Imperial Valley are concerned, if and when constructed and in operation can be no more than a substitute conduit for carrying a supply of water from the Colorado River to those lands. It would entail the abandonment without recompense of that system of structures and canals, no longer an experiment, but now in satisfactory operation and found practical and efficient after many years of experience and the

« PreviousContinue »