I am in sympathy with that, and with much of the development down there, if we are protected in a situation which has been a serious drawback heretofore.

Senator JOHNSON. I am very glad that you have answered my question so that I might understand your view.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Emerson, the committee wishes to thank you. The next witness, Senator Kendrick?

Senator KENDRICK. The next witness will be Mr. David J. Howell, attorney general of Wyoming.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Howell will please take a seat at the other end of the table. What is your name and who do you represent?

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID J. HOWELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, CHEYENNE, WYO.

Mr. HOWELL. It is my purpose to read into the record a very brief statement at this time because most of the points have been covered by others of the delegation from the State of Wyoming and other States. I will make it as brief as possible.

It is not my intention to review the many problems relating to the upper basin States of the Colorado River. Most of these have already been presented to your attention. It does, however, seem necessary that the different positions of the several States on these questions be given to this committee.

The seven States of the Colorado River may by concerted effort adopt one of two methods of settling their differences: one is by compact; the other, the ordinary processes of the courts.

The six-State compact, so called, appears to me to be a combination of these two methods and possessing the advantages of neither. The States of Wyoming and Colorado many years ago entered into litigation involving the Laramie River, a comparatively small stream and with few established rights. The cost to both of these States in such litigation was enormous. From the inception of the case to the final decree, a period of 11 years elapsed. I think I am correct in saying that long before that decree was entered, both States were thoroughly disheartened over the situation, and at its conclusion neither State was satisfied with the decision.

Is it, then, strange that Wyoming and Colorado insist that the Colorado River compact be ratified prior to any further develop. ment on the river? We have already had our day in court.

The suggestion and request for a Colorado River compact originally came from the upper States, for the purpose of putting in legal form the many assurances by the lower States. It has been drafted and signed and the upper States insist upon a completed program. The only reason why the six-State compact was ever considered was out of a desire to aid flood control, and was expressly for the benefit of the lower States.

The fact is that the Wyoming representatives are here to-day because Arizona and California have not ratified this pact. The lower States are insisting that power development shall precede the compact, whereas in all equity it should follow. The lower States protest that they have no objection to this compact, yet they have refused to ratify it, but seek to have it made effective in a way that,

to say the least, is open to grave doubts. They seek to determine the method and degree by which the upper States shall receive protection. Do we not have the right to say what shall be done to give the upper States their just share in the waters of the Colorado and to determine for ourselves the efficacy of those methods of protection. There is grave doubt as to whether or not the conditional ratification of the California Legislature upon the six-State compact has any validity. The governor of that State did not sign the resolution. The attorney general of California holds that it is not necessary. Certainly every term of the California ratification must be met by the proposed act of Congress, or the resolution is inoperative.

There are several other legal reasons why this ratification may be found to be impractical.

Another reason impels opposition to any large power site on the river at this time, and one which should weigh very heavily with Arizona herself. It is often suggested and has been mentioned at this hearing that Arizona intends to exact a royalty or some consideration on power produced at sites in that State. It is not improbable that some difficulty may arise in regard to this with the Government, which would necessitate the application by Arizona for an injunction to restrain any work until a settlement was had. This would squarely raise the question of the right of the United States to complete control of the unappropriated waters of the western States, a principle which has long been urged by certain departments of the Federal Government. While we have no doubt of the ultimate conclusion of this issue if presented in a proper case we think it unwise to have that question raised in such a manner and under conditions so extremely unfavorable to all of the States.

Therefore, the representatives of Wyoming desire to be emphatically understood as opposing all major development upon the Colorado River until its rights are established in a way which will without doubt safeguard to the people our share of the waters of that river in perpetuity. We have taken every essential step necessary to assist Arizona and California.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, any questions of the attorney gen

eral?

Senator JOHNSON. You insist upon a ratification of the sevenState compact, do you not?

Mr. HOWELL. That is the position of the upper States. Like some of the other representatives, I am willing to say that, as a last resort, considerable protection could be afforded to other States by the sixState compact.

Senator ASHURST. General, I listened with interest to your lawyerlike paper. The Congress of the United States under the Constitution authorized those seven States to enter into a compact for an equitable division of the waters among those seven States, No engineer or lawyer can take that compact and say what water Wyoming gets, or what specified water Arizona gets.

Mr. HOWELL. Of course, Senator Ashurst, you realize

Senator ASHURST (continuing). May I ask you if that does not state the truth of the situation?

Mr. HOWELL. That as far as four States are concerned

Senator ASHURST (interposing). Am I not stating the truth?
Mr. HOWELL. We know what water Wyoming will get.

Senator ASHURST. We do not know what water Arizona will get. Mr. HOWELL. You understand that the four upper basin States, that as to them the water after leaving them is not subject to diversion?

Senator ASHURST. The compact makers divided according to basins. The water should have been divided among the States. Those of us who voted for the bill authorizing the compact commission expected and believed that the compact makers would follow the directions of the Congress. You can not get a thing right that is crooked from the start-and when I say " crooked " I mean in the sense of its having gone in the wrong direction. The men who drew the compact undoubtedly were high-minded and intelligent men, but they did not follow their instructions.

Senator JOHNSON. What is your view of that, Mr. Attorney General? Do you think the compact and I am very much interested in what the Senator from Arizona (Senator Ashurst) is saying-do you think the compact did follow the original authorization?

Mr. HOWELL. There certainly was no division of water as between Arizona and California. There is a division through the physical characteristics of the river, as far as the upper States are concerned. Senator JOHNSON. So you think the members of the compact commission did follow the law?

Mr. HOWELL. In a substantial sense; yes.

Senator JOHNSON. I am asking for your legal view in that respect. Mr. HOWELL. In a substantial sense; yes. Certainly if the Congress would now ratify the compact there should be no legal objection.

Senator ASHURST. How is that?

Mr. HOWELL. I say, if the Congress were to ratify the compact. Senator ASHURST. But Congress intended that Arizona should be able, by looking at the compact, to ascertain how much water Arizona would receive, and the same ought to be true as to California or Wyoming, or any other State. You certainly must perceive, lawyer as you are, that you could not read the compact and say from it how much water Arizona would have. And you could not take the compact by its four corners and say how much water California would have.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. But is it not clear that if the seven States should ratify the suggested seven-State compact and Congress should approve it, there would be a valid agreement between and among these States? Can there be any question at all about that? Mr. HOWELL. I think not.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. And similarly, if the six States should ratify that compact and their ratification should be approved by the Congress, such compact would be binding at least upon the six States, would it not?

Mr. HOWELL. I so understand.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. If Arizona in her wisdom, desiring to safeguard all her rights, should continue to refuse to enter into and be a party to such compact, it would not disturb the relation or legal rights among the States, or as between the States severally, that had entered into the agreement, would it?

Mr. HOWELL. Not as between themselves.
Senator SHORTRIDGE. Certainly not.

Mr. HOWELL. No, sir.

Senator ASHURST. There are now going on conversations among the representatives of the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada looking to a division of these waters, and the necessity for those conversations arises from the remissness, carelessness, or ignorance of those who drew the compact.

Senator PHIPPS. Mr. Chairman, right there I must protest. I dislike to get into a controversy, but I think this is all aside from the problem we have before us, which it seems to me, as far as the hearings of this committee have developed, have not resulted in any criticism on the part of the lower basin States as to the quantity of water which the upper basin States may be allowed to retain, or the amount which they shall allow to flow beyond Lee Ferry. That to my mind having fixed the definite quantities rendered by more use it is for the States of the lower basin to agree among themselves upon a distribution of those waters. Up to date the representatives of the lower basin States, with their governors and all in authority, have failed to come to an agreement. They have, after a lapse of almost three years, or fully three years, failed to come to an agreement as to the amount, and then why should the commissioners, who sat in conference two years and failed to allocate to three of the lower basin States certain specific quantities of water, be criticized for any remissness? To their minds the problem of the upper basin States was settled by the natural geographical situation, the contour of the country, the flow of tributary streams, and all that. They were not complaining about the amount the upper basin States were to retain, or the amount the lower basin States would have to come down to them. It was within the province of the lower basin States to determine among themselves what quantity of water should be allocated to each one of them.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee desires to thank you very much, Mr. Howell, for your statement. The next and concluding witness will be Mr. Boatright, attorney general of the State of Colorado. Mr. Boatright, will you place in the record your full name, address, and who you represent?

Mr. BOATRIGHT. My name is W. L. Boatright. I am attorney general of Colorado, and live at Denver, Colo.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you here at the request of the Governor of Colorado?

Mr. BOATRIGHT. Yes, sir; I am here at the request of the governor, and also of the river commissioner, Mr. Carpenter, of Colorado, who has already appeared before you.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. L. BOATRIGHT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF COLORADO, DENVER, COLO.

Mr. BOATRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with a statement made by the assistant to the attorney general of New Mexico, I wish to present in his behalf at this time a statement. Shall I do it now? The CHAIRMAN. Have you a statement from the attorney general of New Mexico?

Mr. BOATRIGHT. I have a statement from the assistant attorney general.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed to read it.

Mr. BOATRIGHT. Mr. J. N. Bujac, assistant attorney general of New Mexico, requested that the following statement in writing be read to this committee by myself.

STATEMENT MADE BY JAMES N. BUJAC, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO, REPRESENTING THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION RELATIVE TO THE HEARING WITH REFERENCE TO THE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM AND THE SWING-JOHNSON BILL During the past few days I have been a very interested listener to the remarks of the representatives of the upper basin States. I was particularly glad to hear Mr. Carpenter make his statement regarding the location of the source of the Gila River, and the further statement by the same witness to the effect that 443,000 acre-feet of water of the Gila River originated in the State of New Mexico. Prior to the aforesaid reference, there seemed to have been an erroneous impression abroad that the Gila River was entirely an Arizona river, the fact of there being a boundary line between the States of New Mexico and Arizona, to the east of which said boundary line the Gila River has its source, being apparently overlooked in this hearing. As a matter of fact the only simon-pure sweet water in the Gila River is produced and originates in the State of New Mexico. While on the subject of this tributary of the Colorado River, and appropos to the general question before this commitee, New Mexico desires to be put on record as being unalterably opposed to any further appropriations being made from the general or common treasury for the continuation of the construction of the San Carlos project on the Gila River until such time as the rights of the States of Arizona and New Mexico to the waters of the Gila shall have been finally determined either by compact between the States or by judicial decree.

In order to show the interest we have in this matter, I will state to you gentlemen that there are at present 35,000 acres of land under irrigation in the State of New Mexico in the basins of the Gila and San Juan Rivers, using approximately 150,000 acre-feet of water. It is estimated by our State engineer's office that we have 1,000,000 acres additional in these two basins that could be irrigated. Again, New Mexico produces a considerable part of the water of the Colorado River system. These figures are estimated because of the fact that hydrographic surveys which are now in progress in these areas have not been completed and exact figures are not available.

In conclusion, I desire to concur, for New Mexico, with the statements of Mr. Carpenter and the other witnesses of the upper basin States relative to the construction of the Boulder Canyon dam, so-called, and further state to this committee that New Mexico is absolutely opposed to any construction or developement of the Colorado River system that places an obstruction in the main bed of any of the streams of this system, or otherwise tends to equate the flow of these rivers, until such time as the seven-State compact has been completely and unqualifiedly ratified by all of the parties thereto, or at least until such time as the rights of the upper basin States have been determined in some other manner beyond all peradventure or doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Boatright, you may make a statement in your own behalf if you desire, and may follow your own course. Mr. BOATRIGHT. I have been exceedingly interested in following the hearings before your committee from their beginning in California, and have listened to practically every witness who has appeared before the committee, or who has made a statement in this

matter.

I am patricularly impressed with some of the problems presented by the lower States. I have collaborated with Mr. Carpenter in the preparation of his statement, and have since read practically his entire statement as made before you, and the same expresses the views entertained by myself with reference to these matters. I shall therefore not go into repetition of those matters.