into the Union upon an equal footing with all the other States with such limitations put upon us, is a question which I pass for a future discussion. It is an act of considerable presumption for me to engage in a legal duel with such lawyers as the senior Seantor from California and the junior Senator from California, leaders at the bar in their State.

I read from the enabling act:

There is hereby reserved to the United States and exempted from the operation of any and all grants made or confirmed by this act to said proposed State all land actually or prospectively valuable for the development of water powers or power for hydroelectric use or transmission and which shall be ascertained and designated by the Secretary of the Interior within five years after the proclamation of the President declaring the admission of the State; and no lands so reserved and excepted shall be subject to anyWhat? "Disposition." Do not make a rush for the dictionary to find out what the word "disposition" means; it means to dispose of

shall be subject to any disposition whatever by said State.

The act goes on and shows that it means to say: "Dispose of," for instance:

And any conveyance or transfer of such land by said State or any officer thereof shall be absolutely null and void within the period above named.

In other words, Arizona is simply prohibited from disposing of those lands. The Federal Government adopts that construction. A citizen of the State of Arizona filed an application for a license or permit to generate hydroelectric power on the Colorado River on the Arizona side. That application is now pending before the Federal Power Commission, and the Federal Power Commission has already admitted that no license which the Federal Government could issue would be of any force, effect, or validity unless and until Arizona also gave a permit or license to that same citizen to construct such hydroelectric power plant. The principle of contemporaneous practical construction applies.

Now, the Senator says the Colorado River is navigable. If it be navigable, then under the law the bed of the river belongs to Arizona. That is to say, as to that portion of the river that is in Arizona the bed belongs to Arizona, and where the river divides Arizona and California, Arizona owns the bed of the river from the bank thereof to the thread of the stream. It is nowhere admitted that Arizona ever surrendered the bed of the Colorado River, and it is virtually conceded that the beds of streams in such cases belong to the State sovereignty. It belongs to the State of Arizona.

Now, just one ad hominum statement. Every man and woman of conscience believes that the Imperial Valley should be rescued from its present position of peril.

Senator JOHNSON. And you might add Yuma, too.

Senator ASHURST. And Yuma. I am in favor of the all-American canal. Arizona asks that this dam be placed high enough up the river so that we can irrigate our uplands. The Colorado River is Arizona's jugular vein; sever our jugular vein and we die. We have asked you in polite language and we now ask in vehement language to build the dam far enough up the river.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Arizona remarked that he did not purpose arguing the legal phases of the question, nor do I. I offered these laws for the purpose of future discussion. I certainly do not agree with the conclusions reached by my learned friend.

Senator ASHURST. Do you think "disposition" means other than to dispose of?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Why, that subject has been discussed for many years. under that provision of the Constitution which gives Congress control over the public lands.

The Senator does himself a great injustice. Mr. Chairman, when he says it is a presumption on his part to discuss a legal question with my colleague and myself. Indeed, I should tremble to discuss such a question with the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to add that they all love us very well, but they chastise us in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Carpenter, I think you have concluded your statement and answered all the questions save one or two-one that Senator Jones of Washington wishes to ask and one by Senator Bratton.

Senator JONES of Washington. Mr. Carpenter, if the six-State pact were entered into, would that in any way interfere with the rights of Arizona or in any way tend to prevent her from asserting any rights which she may have and prevent her from causing any delay that she might otherwise be enabled to effect through the courts?

Mr. CARPENTER. No.

Senator BRATTON. Mr. Carpenter, you have indicated some familiarity with conditions in New Mexico in connection with your statement a while ago that the amount of water you use in that State is negligible. What, if you are able to furnish the information, is the approximate amount of land in the San Juan Valley in New Mexico that is subject to irrigation from the Colorado?

Mr. CARPENTER. It is very large. I have heard it estimated at anywhere from 250,000 up to 750,000 acres, according to how much of the Indian reservation was taken in.

Senator BRATTON. Assuming that the Indian reservation is taken in and its lands are subject to irrigation, what would be the total acreage of the San Juan Valley in New Mexico subject to irrigation? Mr. CARPENTER. As I say, somewhere from half a million to threequarters of a million. Senator, I have not been over that territory in detail. I was there and looked it over generally, but as I understand the table that Mr. Meeker has compiled and those in the record, he included the Indian lands as part of that project.

Senator BRATTON. Directing your attention to the Gila River, are you familiar with that in the southwestern part of the State? Mr. CARPENTER. No.

Senator BRATTON. I think you stated two or three minutes ago that approximately an acreage of 75,000 was subject to irrigation in New Mexico from the Gila River.

Mr. CARPENTER. The State engineer of New Mexico so advised me. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carpenter, Congressman Leatherwood, of Utah, would like to propound a question to you.

Representative LEATHERWOOD. Is it not a fact, Mr. Carpenter, that the entimated acreage in the State of Utah yet to be watered by the Colorado River and its tributaries lies principally within the northeastern corner of the State?

Mr. CARPENTER. Yes; in the Green River section.

Representative LEATHERWOOD. Then if it be a fact that railroad lines are about to be constructed into that territory, would you say that the agricultural development of that portion of that part of the State of Utah would be delayed for any great period?

Mr. CARPENTER. It would be hastened. It would build up very rapidly, because that country, the Uintah Basin country, as soon as transportation is afforded, will come forward very rapidly.

Representative LEATHERWOOD. In fact, we would immediately need water for those dry areas?

Mr. CARPENTER. Yes, sir.

Representative LEATHERWOOD. That is all.

Senator PITTMAN. An answer of Mr. Carpenter's to Senator Jones might be misleading, if I understood the question and answer. The interpretation might be put upon it that Arizona would not be interferred with by the consummation of this six-power pact. I can not understand that. If the Congress of the United States, by virtue of its control over the public lands, ratified the six-power pact so as to protect the upper States, it would have to restrain the amount of water Arizona could use, would it not?

Mr. CARPENTER. Very true, Senator. When I said it would not, I applied it to the State of Arizona only so far as her jurisdiction extends.

Senator PITTMAN. In other words, the control by Congress of the public lands abutting that river would be so used that Arizona would only get what the Government considered her part of the water, after all?

Mr. CARPENTER. I presume so.

Senator PITTMAN. And instead of Arizona arriving at her part of the water through a treaty with the other six States, she would have it arbitrarily fixed by Congress?

Mr. CARPENTER. She would be in a position for that event to occur. Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Carpenter, I am not sure whether I understood the full inference about the delay in the development of lands in the upper basin States. Did you not intend to say to the committee, in answer to Senator Johnson's question, that the ultimate development of these upper basin mesas would be delayed for 50 or 100 or possibly 200 years?

Mr. CARPENTER. Yes, sir.

Senator KENDRICK. Rather than that the development would not proceed until that time?

Mr. CARPENTER. I meant to say that that would be the ultimate development. There will be a gradual, steady development all the time, year by year, in that particular territory.

Senator KENDRICK. Within the borders of my own State there is, according to the estimates of the Reclamation Department, 750,000 acres of land available for irrigation, and in the several projects, perhaps half a dozen, there is not a single engineering complication. And this land is not situated remotely from the railways; it is now

within, we will say, a reasonable distance of transportation facilities. It is also true that we have industrial centers in the way of our great coal mines in the immediate neighborhood of these lands. The economic need is there at present, but the available capital for development is not to be had as yet. So I do not want to have that statement stand-that our day of development is remote.

Mr. CARPENTER. There will be a gradual and progressive development until the whole is finally completed, unit by unit, small and large.

Senator KENDRICK. One of these projects that is easily available is between 300,000 and 400,000 acres, and no part of that would be initiated without the entire project in all probability. I think this all has a bearing on Senator Johnson's question, and it is also true in connection with another statement you made as to the return flow. Underlying nearly every bit of this acreage is a glacial gravel bed, and I am confident, in spite of your statement that there would be a smaller return flow from the Colorado than is found in the South Platte, and that there would be in that section of the country a materially larger return flow than there is in the South Platte River. Mr. CARPENTER. Senator, I concur with you in your views in that respect, but I took my figures from engineering reports.

Senator GOODING. Mr. Carpenter, on what do you base your estimate that it is going to take a century or a century and a half for the development of the upper basin? Is not that going to depend largely on the needs of the American people for agricultural products, after all?

Mr. CARPENTER. Yes, indeed. The development will occur as fast as lands can be made profitably productive. That includes everything, population, transportation

Senator GOODING. In another half century we will have developed our population, and there is a surplus now in only a few agricultural products of America. Wheat, cotton, and corn are practically the only farm products of which there is surplus. So with lands to be settled anywhere in America, outside of these lands, that can be irrigated, why, we have practically reached the peak of production in America until these farm lands, these irrigated lands, are brought into production.

Mr. CARPENTER. Senator, the estimates of time are used simply for purposes of contrast. All those things are matters of conjecture, but we do know the probabilities are that the southern group will develop faster than the upper group.

Senator GOODING. My judgment is, from studying the conditions, that we have reached pretty near the point in America where consumption will keep up with production, and that if we were to start in to-day building any and all of these irrigation projects we could not keep up with the demands of the American people for farm products with our increase of at least 2,000,000 people every year. And there comes in again the exhaustion of the soil which is going on all over America. As I have studied and understand these things, we have about reached the peak of production in farm products.

Mr. CARPENTER. Yes; I think that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further question to be asked of Mr. Carpenter? If not, the committee is deeply appreciative of your excellent statement, Mr. Carpenter. That will be all. The committee desires to accommodate itself as far as possible to the conveniences of the witnesses. I had hoped that we might conclude with the witnesses from Colorado to-day-the two remaining wit nesses--but that has not been found feasible.

Mr. Bull, the State engineer, is here, but must return to-night to keep an engagement. Mr. Bannister, from Colorado, is also here. He has promised to conclude his statement in an hour, and it will be an interesting one. I suggest to the committee that we meet again this afternoon at 2.30; by so doing we can permit the witnesses from Wyoming to return to their homes.

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I trust you will not do that. There is a very interesting debate on in the Senate, and a very interesting part of it, I think, to-day. I do not wish to ask you to postpone further hearings until to-morrow on my account-I will accommodate myself to the wishes of the committee-but could we not meet a little earlier in the morning?

The CHAIRMAN. That would be practicable, except that Mr. Bull wants to leave to-night. I was thinking particularly of him. We could meet at 4 o'clock and hear Mr. Bull.

Senator JOHNSON. It would be only for the purpose of hearing Mr. Bull, who would occupy only a short time?

The CHAIRMAN. He says not more than 15 minutes.

Senator JOHNSON. If it will be simply for the purpose of hearing one witness I interpose no objection.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. If it is agreeable to Mr. Bull, I suggest 4 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN. There being no objection, the committee will suspend at this point and meet at 4 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock m., a recess was taken until 4 o'clock.)