Mr. BANNISTER. Well, that is where the raparian rights come from, and what appropriation rights there are in Oregon come out of the previously existing riparian rights of the Federal Government. Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Mr. BANNISTER. That is as to the riparian rights. But this attempt to evade the riparian system and establish more completely the appropriation system is done through the exercise of the State's lawmaking power in those California system States.

Now. Mr. Chairman, with regard to those figures: I was asked the other day--I have forgotten the name of the gentleman who asked me-to give our figures with respect to the lands yet to be irrigated in the upper States. I am going to give you now the figures compiled by Mr. Arthur P. Davis, former Director of the Reclamation Service, as given to the Colorado River Commission at Santa Fe in November, 1922.

According to his figures there is yet land in the lower basin, the three States, feasible of irrigation, to the extent of 754,000 acres for all three States.

There is yet, according to his figures, for the four upper States in the upper basin, and feasible of irrigation, 2,500,000 acres over three times as much.

Now, I am aware of this, that every one of those States in this basin will claim that it has more lands susceptible of irrigation than Mr. Davis assigns to it.

For instance, in my own State, and since Mr. Davis gave this communication to the Colorado River Commission we have had a special engineer who has spent six months in the field for the purpose of determining the feasible additional acres that could be reached with water. His name is Mr. R. I. Meeker, and the result of his investigation is that instead of, as Mr. Davis, says, there being in Colorado 800.000 acres, there are 2,000,000 acres; and I have no doubt that each of the other States claims more than Mr. Davis assigned.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Utah does; I can speak for it.

Mr. BANNISTER. Utah. I did not want to speak for it yesterday, because I did not feel that I knew enough about it: and I did not want to act without authority.

Mr. RAKER. Right there, let me see if I get that: The fundamental principle and the object of the Colorado River compact is to prevent the water being appropriated down the stream, outside those lands that you have just given the acreage of: that is the real purpose of it, is it not?

Mr. BANNISTER. That is not the purpose of the compact. The purpose of the compact is to provide the three lower States with a fund of water from which they may appropriate and the four upper States with a fund of water from which they may appropriate. Mr. RAKER. Let us put it this way: It is so that neither can get the water of the other, as that water is divided by the compact? Mr. BANNISTER. It is so that neither can get water which the other in justice ought to have: yes, you have stated that correctly, I think. In Utah, Doctor Widsoe, one of the leading irrigation authorities of America, tells me that the very able State engineer of that State, Mr. Caldwell, says that there are 1,000,000 acres in Utah which may yet be irrigated. I do not know what claim is made by New

Mexico or by Wyoming. My recollection is that New Mexico claims at least 1,000,000 acres, but how many more I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to put this statement in the record just as it is?

It is a copy

Mr. BANNISTER. I would be glad to have it put in, because that shows the acreage that can be irrigated in each State. of the memorandum of Arthur P. Davis. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Webster from California, who has been here a number of days, but who would like to go home to-day on urgent matters, in response to a telegram he has received, would like to address the committee for about 20 minutes. I just make that suggestion. I do not want to limit Mr. Bannister in any

way.

Mr. BANNISTER. I can finish in three minutes.

Mr. SWING. I want you to have all the time you want, Mr. Bannister.

Mr. BANNISTER. I do not care for any more time.

I have for myself just one more point to make:

We do not care, gentlemen, at this time, whether the principle of dividing this water between the States is that of equitable division or that of interstate priority. If it is the principle of equitable division-I mean by that, if that is the principle that the United States Supreme Court would apply to this stream-then we want the compact in order to determine concretely what that division would be in terms of acre-feet.

If the correct principle is that of interstate priority, then we are here to ask of you gentlemen that you do not use the money of the Federal Government, and the lands of the Federal Government, in which the States on the Upper Basin have an interest by virtue of being member States of the Union, to be used in a way that would

do them an injustice. It is hardly fair for one State to profit at the expense of another, through the aid of a third person. If we States of the basin must fight, let us at least have a fair fight, and let none of us be aided by an outside agency that ought to mete out justice between us.

The Federal Government could turn in and, if the interstate priority principles be the correct principle, ruin every State of this basin that it wants to ruin, or on the other hand, it can serve every State and develop the entire river basin.

Mr. RAKER. I can not see where you get that idea.

Mr. BANNISTER. Assuming the applicability of the principle of interstate priority it can ruin in this way: By consolidating at some one point on the river, and in some one State, all of the now unused water of this stream, thus preventing further development in the other States. That, it seems to me, is not a fair intervention by the Federal Government. The river is a great common supply that, by nature, belongs to all of the States; and the Government ought to make it its business to see to it that in that common supply every State in the basin has a fair share.

And I want to say this further:

I doubt if you gentlemen will ever have before you a more important question than you are having right now.

There is no constructive thing so important to the entire Westseven States-as is the settlement of this great controversy over the waters of this river system. In building, it would as if we ought to build, not for the next 5 years or 10 years or 1 years, but for the centuries to come.

We want to have in this country and in the Southwest a widely diffused population. We must provide for that coming population. and the only way we can provide for it is to protect what, in fairness, ought to be the water supply of each of the seven States of the basin. We can do it in no way except by effecting a division among these States, or at least, between these two groups of States, in some such manner as is done by this compact.

Mr. SINNOTT. Would you object to the bill if we should write into the bill the safeguards contemplated by the compact?

Mr. BANNISTER. We should be obliged to object to the bill, even though the bill contained the very words of the compact. Because of the great doubt on the question of whether or not Congress would have the legal power to insert those terms into the compact. If only we knew that the power existed here, then our objection would be removed except that as I pointed out yesterday, I think there are various respects in which the bill could be improved in the accomplishment of its own purposes.

Mr. SINNOTT. But if we could write into the bill those safeguards as to the respective enjoyment of the waters by the different States, then you would have no objection?

Mr. BANNISTER. Then I should say that we should have no right to object. I am assuming that some of these imperfections will be cured as well as that Congress has the legal power, whereas I doubt if it has.

Mr. SINNOTT. Yes.

Mr. BANNISTER. I should say that the protection afforded by the legislation attempted by this act would be just

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). Providing it had the power.
Mr. BANNISTER. Yes; if it had the power-which I fear it has

not.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bannister, we certainly appreciate the splendid statement you have made and the valuable information you have given us.

Mr. BANNISTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

TESTIMONY OF MR. Q. C. WEBSTER, CHAIRMAN COUNTY FARM BUREAU, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIF.

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. Please give your full name, residence, and indicate whom you represent.

Mr. WEBSTER. Q. C. Webster, chairman County Farm Bureau of Imperial County, Calif. My address is Brawley, Calif.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, through an agreement among the different members of our community, we have agreed that each one of us will deal with specific points; and my little talk will be taken up largely with the question of too much water and too little water in the Ineperial Valley.

I want to say first that I represent the Farm Bureau of Imperial County. Its membership last year consisted of 1,360 bona fide members; and I think I am not exaggerating at all when I say that in reality I represent 2,500, because I think there will be that many more that attend the meetings regularly of these farm centers and take an active part in the meetings, whose names are not actually 'on our list.

I wan to say further that I think I am not exaggerating when I say that 90 per cent of the farmers of Imperial Valley are strongly in favor of the bill which has been introduced by Congressman Swing and which is now before you.

And I want to say this: That the few that do not favor it in its entirety have specific reasons, and there are two of these reasons: The first of these reasons is that there is some propaganda that has been put forth to lead some of them to believe that the all-American canal feature attached to this bill is a detriment to it. Therefore, a few oppose it on that ground.

There are a few others that are afraid because of the fear of the cost of this plan being put on their lands.

Now, I believe that those two reasons will cover the ground of any opposition of the farmers of Imperial Valley to the bill. It is not really any substantial opposition; it is just on the theory of being an incumbrance to it, rather than a help.

I myself live down to the left, on the banks of what we know in Imperial Valley as "New River." The channel is about 60 feet deep; and from where I live, and for about 200 miles above it is about onethird of a mile wide. Those lands were almost entirely cut out by the flood waters that came down there in 1906. I speak of that just to let you gentlemen know that we have a constant reminder there of too much water in Imperial Valley. It would be very hard to show you the damage that would be done if that water should come in there again.

Now, I want to say a few words as to the danger that really does exist from a flood in Imperial Valley. You have been told before in these hearings of the levees that are built along certain parts of the country down in Mexico to prevent the water from coming in. Probably it would be very hard to make some of you gentlemen that are not acquainted with the difference in the character of soils-it would be very hard to make you understand what a treacherous soil we have, with which to try to build up a bank to keep the water from inundating our land. Once it gets entirely filled up with water in there, then the water does not want to stay anywhere except on a level. And it is almost impossible to make levees out of the kind of soil that is available down there.

I am reminded of the dangers of the flood by a report which I have here which came out in one of our newspapers, which says that the engineer of the Imperial irrigation district is praying that the south wind will not blow. On this river there is a railroad running along the levee

The CHAIRMAN. Will you indicate those places on the map on the wall?

Mr. WEBSTER. I could not point out the places on the map, because I am not familiar with those places. I have never myself been down on the levees. But there is somebody here that can tell you all about the conditions on the levees.

Mr. SWING. This is the Volcano Lake Levee [indicating on map]. Mr. WEBSTER. At flood tide, when the wind is at its height and the water comes up there, there is a railroad track on top of the levee and one of our directors told me personally that he was down there a few days before and that they had 500 men working along that levee continually filling cracks with dirt and laying them on top of the levee in order to keep the water from slipping over the levee, and that there was constant danger of it slipping over, and once it slipped over, they could not get men enough to stop it; it would go on in spite of anything that they could do; and that whole section would be inundated. And they were continually working there until they could get that condition relieved.

The CHAIRMAN. This gang of men that you speak of was there for the purpose of hauling the dirt

Mr. WEBSTER (interposing). For the purpose of hauling the dirt and the rocks for the building up of the levee.

There is another point which has been spoken of here, but I do not think it can be too much emphasized: This water comes up in flood time and it will strike the levee in one place, and it will begin to work around there; and the men have their load of rocks, and they begin to drop these rocks in at that place, and then possibly they will get that whirling motion of the water, which will continually strike at that one place. But it may strike down below or up above, and then the men have to go to where it is. One of the men told me that it started at one place to go over the levee, and before they could stop it had gotten entirely under the railroad track, so that that prevented them from doing the work they could have done if it had not got there.

And the engineer told me that about midnight one night he called up his foreman on the levee and asked him the condition, and the foreman told him it was getting in at one place, but that it would be