oil.running to waste, in a country where fuel and power are badly needed, and where oil ought to be conserved. And I think that of itself would be reason enough for undertaking this project. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now, let me ask you this question: The power would be valuable for that purpose, would it not? Mr. SWING. Yes, sir; for all purposes. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If it should develop that we have a possible 8,000,000,000 barrels of oil above the junction of the Green and Grand Rivers, would it be important to have a little power up there? Mr. SWING. Yes, sir; believe me, when I say that I approach this subject of the Colorado River in no narrow, local or partisan manner. I hope to see the time come when it will be the proud boast of the American people that they have so developed this stream that every ounce of energy and every drop of water has been put to beneficial use for all the people from one end of the stream to the other. Now, I want to come down to this point: That, having stored this immense amount of water in a country where water is immensely valuable, should we then turn it loose again? It seems to me that it follows as naturally as day follows night that, in an arid country, if the Government is called upon, as a protective proposition, to store this water, it would then be exceedingly unbusinesslike and unstatesmanlike to turn the water loose to run to waste again. But worse for us than running to waste, the water would flow down to Mexico and there be used on Mexican lands, and because of that fact I believe that no legislation can pass Congress that does not contain within itself some declaration of the intention on the part of our Government to put this water, which falls on American soil, to use on Amercian soil, and not let it run down to be used in Mexico. Because we are charged with the knowledge of the country and with the fact that it will not be permitted to run to waste but will be put to a beneficial use in Mexico. We are simply indirectly delivering it to the Mexican lands to be used by the people of that country in building a great agricultural empire there. It is not merely that they are going to develop their lands; but in putting it to a beneficial use, they are laying the foundation for a moral claim in a treaty with our Government for an adverse water right which would prevent us from using it in the future on the American side. Mr. HAYDEN. Do you mean that such a declaration should be made in general terms, or specifically locating the water on the areas of land where it is to be applied? Mr. SWING. Specifically, so far as we have projects where it is to be applied; generally, as to those which will have to be worked out in detail. Mr. HAYDEN. Then, would you agree to an amendment to this bill to the effect that the United States reserves the right to use all the flood waters of the Colorado River stored within the United States to irrigate such lands as may hereafter be found possible of irrigation, and thereby serve notice upon the Mexicans that any use of the water that they might make, if it interfered with our subsequent use, would not be recognized by the American Government? Mr. SWING. Yes; something of that kind. In one way or another that idea must be expressed in the bill. Mr. RAKER. If you take that view of it-either one of you gentlemen-why put it flood waters "? 66 Mr. HAYDEN. Because the minimum flow of the Colorado River is now divided equally between the lands within the United States and the lands within Mexico, so far as the diversion at the Imperial heading is concerned, by a contract between the Imperial irrigation district and the Mexican landowners. The lands in both countries have been irrigated under that contract, and it is recognized by both parties to it. The quantity of water, on the other hand, is very small; I doubt whether it is more than 1,500 second-feet to each country. Mr. RAKER. What I am wondering is, if you are going to legislate, whether you are going to recognize a private contract between those people as to the division of this water and have the Government pay all the expenses of the erection of the dam and the maintenance of it. Mr. HAYDEN. No. My thought is that if the United States Government, or any citizen of the United States, stores any water wholly within the United States-although there may not be any immediate opportunity to use it-we should specifically declare our intention to use it, and thereby estop Mexico, or any interests in Mexico, from any claim to the water, because they will be put upon notice that their use is only temporary and subject to our right to use the waters when we see fit. Mr. SWING. Now, let me correct that. I do not want to seem to quibble over legal technicalities. There exists no contract, no agreement, and no obligation of any kind which requires the Imperial irrigation district to deliver half of the water to any Mexican lands. The physical layout of the country compels us to deliver all the water to Mexico and accept back what they can't use. The irrigation system was put into Mexico to get around a low range of sand hills which runs down between the Colorado River and the Imperial Valley and noses across into this corner of Mexico. The capitalists who first undertook the reclamation of Imperial Valley found themselves in the situation of having 60 miles of their main canal in Mexico; and they formed a Mexican corporation, because required by the Mexican Government, which refused to recognize an American corporation for operating any irrigation system in Mexico. This Mexican company is a private Mexican corporation, which has a charter from the Mexican Government, and in that charter this Mexican corporation is authorized to divert from the river, or to receive water elsewhere diverted from the river, up to 10,000 second-feet of water, one half of which-so the Mexican Government tells the Mexican private corporation-must be used, on demand, in Mexico; the other half may be disposed of elsewhere. You were too favorable to our farmers in the Imperial Valley. We have not any choice in the matter. The physical situation requires us to deliver the water across the boundary line into Mexico. When we do so deliver the water into Mexico we lose all legal and physical control over it. Thereafter, we get back such quantity of water as may not be used in Mexico, at the boundary line near Calexico, 60 miles west from the river. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Before you close, will you tell us what we are going to do with the rights of the Upper Basin States on the Colorado River? Mr. SWING. Yes; I will very frankly say this to you; and this is an angle of this matter that had just as well be disposed of here as elsewhere: In writing this bill, I first undertook to draw a reservation protecting the rights of the upper stream States substantially as agreed to in the Colorado River compact. It occurred to me that since the provision was to be for the benefit of the upper stream States its provisions ought to be worded around a table at which there would be representatives of both the upper stream States and the lower stream States. In fact, we went as far as to say to Secretary Work in our hearing before him that we wished that he-being from Colorado, the principal one of the upper stream States as far as activity is concerned in the river matter-that he would prepare and submit to this committee a recommendation of what he thought was a fair and just provision which would safeguard and protect the water rights of the upper stream States, at least, to the extent which is set forth in the Colorado River compact. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Why do you consider Colorado to be the principal upper stream State? Mr. SWING. It has had the leadership in activity. Its principal citizen wrote the law which created the Colorado River compact. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I misunderstood you. I thought you said it was making the principal use of the river. Mr. SWING. No; I said the principal activity in regard to river development and the river controversy. We asked the Secretary to submit in his report a fair proposition to go into this bill. That is our position. We admit that there should be such a provision. We are desirous that there should be. We would like to cooperate in the framing of such a provision. But we thought that we ourselves ought not, ex parte, to frame something for your protection without consulting you and without having you pass upon it. So that, before the hearings are over, and before the bill is reported out, we desire to cooperate with you and the other representatives of the upper stream States, in preparing a provision which will safeguard your rights in the water, as they are provided for in the Colorado River compact. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And in that way only? Mr. SWING. Well, I take it that you and I and our respective States have agreed to that. We will not now undertake to change the proportions. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. My State is not bound by that. Mr. SWING. No; it is not bound. But we accepted it in good faith. Frankly, I thought we were getting a little bit the worst of it. But my State has accepted it and that binds me individually. Mr. RAKER. Under that compact, which was approved by all the States, and if it is ratified by the Congress, what control has Congress over the Colorado River? Mr. SWING. Well, I will not undertake to explain the compact. It is a complicated matter, and administrative regulations will be worked out. Mr. RAKER. Well, will there be anyone who will present that to the committee? Mr. SWING. It contains quite a bit of machinery for undertaking to carry out its provisions. The Federal Government would only cooperate with the States. Mr. RAKER. What I am trying to get at is, if the Colorado River compact is carried out and Congres approves it, so far as I am concerned individually, I would like to have you or somebody explain to the committee what control, if any, the Federal Government would then have relative to the waters of the Colorado River? Mr. SWING. Well, I do not know that it would have a great deal of control; it would still have the right to act with representatives of the several States, the same as it acted in the negotiations leading up to the compact. Mr. RAKER. It would have the right to go to the States then for their consent? Mr. SWING. It would have control of any structures which were built under the reclamation act, or any other act of Congress. Mr. RAKER. Well, what control would the Federal Government have over the waters of the river? Mr. SWING. Judge Raker, you are as eminent a lawyer as anybody. I will sit at your feet for instruction in that matter. Mr. RAKER. Well, that is very kind of you. But I am asking, so that it will be in the record, this question: If the compact is agreed to by the States, all of them, and approved by the Federal Government, what power will the Federal Government have over the waters of the Colorado River? Mr. SWING. I am not prepared to say. Mr. RAKER, Well, you will have some one in these hearings who will go into that, will you? Mr. SWING. Secretary Hoover will be here as the second witness, and I will be very glad to have you ask him that question. Mr. RAKER. Yes: I shall do so. Well, may I ask you this question: What objection is there to the Government going ahead and putting in the dam at Boulder Canyon, irrespective of the compact now? Mr. SWING. Well, the compact recognizes the equitable rights of the upper stream States. It has been ratified by California. I desire to carry out in any legislation which is enacted for this project the spirit and intent of that compact, and desire to use the proper phraseology in this bill which will recognize the necessity, so far as any structure which is authorized by this bill to be constructed by the Government is concerned, that the spirit and the principles of the Colorado River compact shall be observed by the Government in its operation and use. Mr. RAKER. You say Mr. Hoover is going to testify; but I may as well ask this question now as any time: After that is done and the compact is agreed to, what are we going to spend our money for in building a dam in the Colorado River? Mr. SWING. Well, I do not suppose the compact will set aside all existing laws. I do not suppose it will set aside the Federal water power act, the reclamation act, or that it will set aside this bill when it is passed. It is simply that they would be interpreted in harmony with each other; so that a person who took a power project under this bill would know that the amount of water he was to use to generate power would, in the future, be subject to the limitation and subject to the rights of the upper stream States to use additional water that they are not now using up to a total of 7,500,000 acre-feet per year. Now, going back to the all-American canal; the fact that we lose all control over this water to compel its return; the fact that we lose control for sanitation-we have no way of safeguarding it; and it ought to be safeguarded, because it is the source of domestic water for 50,000 people living in the Imperial Valley. The rainfall there, according to the statistics-and I am quoting from the Soil Survey of California, issued as a Government document in 1923-it gives two stations in Imperial Valley; one at Calexico; where the total amount of precipitation for the dryest year, 1910, was .64 of an inch and the amount for the wettest year, 1905, was 9.33 inches; the other station was at Brawley, where the dryest year was 1912; the precipitation for that year being 1.55 inches; the wettest year was 1920, when the precipitation was 4.17 inches. So that there is not enough rainfall to raise a crop. There are only a dozen or so wells, and they are in a very limited area, known as the Holtville area; and the water from those wells is warm and contains a considerable solution of salt, and it is not regarded as firstclass drinking water. So that you might say that the entire Imperial Valley is not only dependent upon this river and canal for water to keep its crops growing, and water to keep its stock alive, but it is dependent upon the river for water to keep the people of the Imperial Valley alive. And the amount which could be stored in existing reservoirs in the valley would not be sufficient to last over three days. So that if anything should happen to this canal and the supply of water be interrupted, the people would have to get out of there before the three days were up, or they would never get out. For a number of years, I was chief counsel for the irrigation district; and I was put up against the problem of trying to do business-and an immense business; a business which spends about $3,000,000 a year-operating in two countries and under two flags. I will take that phase of this question up when the committee meets again. (Thereupon, at 12.10 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until Wednesday, February 13, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION, The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Addison T. Smith (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Hoover is present and will make a statement to the committee this morning. |