strained, of course, if we do not get the water, the need for a potable water supply is right along with that of electric energy, Mr. Leatherwood; it has assumed an importance that we did not even imagine a year and a half ago, when Mr. Hoodenpyle testified.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is there any shortage in the city of Long Beach for domestic purposes?

Mr. LINEBERGER. Yes; we have a very low pressure there for fire protection now, and there is a shortage of water.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is there a shortage in Los Angeles?

Mr. LINEBERGER. No; I do not believe there is.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. There is not any contest now, is there, as to whether Los Angeles shall take Long Beach in or whether Long Beach shall take Los Angeles in? [Laughter.]

Mr. LINEBERGER. Well, Los Angeles a few years ago was much more desirous of taking us in than they are now. They realize now that with the territory already in the city of Los Angeles and the development that has taken place in a very short time that they will soon not have enough water to take care of those who will live in the present confines of the city; and they are not as interested in taking in outside communities now as they were a few years ago. The water supply has assumed an immense importance in the last two years; by this I mean the potable water supply.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Mr. Lin berger, have you seen in the last year any report that purported to have been gotten out or made by anyone in authority in or about Los Angeles, and which has been used very extensively among prospective purchasers of real estate there, setting forth as a fact that the present supply of water now owned and controlled by the city of Los Angeles from the Owens River and the Owens River Basin is sufficient to take care of a city of 5,000,000 people?

Mr. LINEBERGER. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You have not seen that report?

Mr. LINEBERGER. No; I have not. I have heard it said that it was sufficient to take care of 2,000,000 people, provided, of course, we should take away the present supply for agricultural purposes in the San Fernandino Valley. That would mean, of course, that the agricultural section within the city, those that use Owens River water for agricultural purposes, will have to be eliminated.

Mr. SWING. That was said, however, before the present period of shortage.

Mr. LINEBERGER. For 5,000,000? No; I never heard that said.
Mr. SWING. No; I mean the 2,000,000.

Mr. LINEBERGER. The 2,000,000 was the most I ever heard.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have you heard anything about the report which has been circulated largely among the prospective purchasers of real estate in and about Los Angeles, that by the purchase of agricultural rights in the Owens River Basin sufficient water can be stored to take care of a city of 10,000,000 people in and about Los Angeles?

Mr. LINEBERGER. No; and I do not believe that is possible.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I was just asking if you knew anything about it.

Mr. LINEBERGER. No; I do not know anything about it; and I have been up in the Owens River Valley, and I have been all over that country, and I do not believe that is possible.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And do you know, or have you heard, anything about a report which sets forth, among other things, that there will be no need of going to the enormous expense of going to the Colorado River for water until a population of 10,000,000 has been obtained in and about the city of Los Angeles?

Mr. LINEBERGER. No; I have not heard that, except that I have heard that those who are opposing the proposition out there have compiled statistics which contained proof that it is not necessary to go that far. But I have not seen the report. I have only heard the rumors. I know that there is some opposition, and I have heard it comes from the power companies; but this is only hearsay, so far as I am concerned, and I don't attach importance to mere rumors any

more.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, as I understand your attitude at the present moment, Mr. Lineberger, it is this: That you coincide with the attitude expressed by Secretary Hoover that it is highly desirable and necessary that the compact between the States of the Colorado Basin be ratified by all of the States and accepted by the Federal Government?

Mr. LINEBERGER. With the exception that I, not being a lawyer, would not use the word "necessary"; I do not know whether it is necessary or not; it is certainly highly desirable from every viewpoint. Of course, the committee knows that I indorse the views of Mr. Hoover, generally, in this proposition.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If from a legal standpoint it would in any way jeopardize the rights of the upper basin States, then you think this legislation should be held in abeyance until the compact is ratified?

Mr. LINEBERGER. Well, I rather incline to the suggestion which my friend Mr. Sinnott put into my mouth-it is very proper if you can do so to pass this legislation subject to the ratification of Arizona: it would, I believe, have a moral effect in bringing about the ratification.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And provided it could be done without in any way jeopardizing the legal rights of the upper basin States? Mr. LINDBERGER. Certainly there should be no jeopardizing of the rights of the upper States. I think the upper States ought to be protected. I think they have shown a very fine spirit in this matter, and I do not think they ought to be penalized because they have shown this fine spirit. I think they ought to have their rights reserved to them in the bill even if Arizona refuses to ratify.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Of course, they could not be penalized unless they should be in jeopardy of losing vested rights?

Mr. LINEBERGER. Well, I would say that they would be penalized if the dam were built and Arizona were left outside of the compact and they were held to it without writing into the bill the necessary reservation of rights. I believe the compact itself provides that unless it is unanimous the compact is nonexistent, so it appears there can be no compact at all without unanimity.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think it is agreed, and no one disputes the fact, that all must unite before it is binding.

Would you think it desirable and to the best interests of the people of southern California, assuming that Congress is ready and willing to immediately pass the Swing-Johnson bill and assuming that after authority is given the appropriations committee would be willing to make a suppemental appropriation to take care of the expense of constructing a dam at or near Boulder Canyon, but assuming that such action would immediately cause legal steps to be taken that might tie up the question of the final allocation of the waters of the Colorado River for several years would you think it advisable to just go blindly ahead and precipitate a law suit at this time?

Mr. LINEBERGER. Well, if you are going to build this dam, and Arizona does not ultimately ratify the pact, you are going to have a lawsuit anyhow, are you not? Either this or no dam will be built. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Yes.

Mr. LINEBERGER. Then the quicker you have it the further it will Le behind you and the nearer you will be to the actual construction of the dam.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. But the point I want to make is this: Is it not advisable to give a reasonable time to the State of Arizona to ratify the compact rather than do something that would precipitate litigation that would run over a period of years?

Mr. LINEBERGER. Well, I can see that there is a serious question of policy involved there, but it seems to me that could be taken care of by passing a bill reserving and protecting the rights of all the States up stream and otherwise.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think you will agree with me, Mr. Linberger, that taking the history of such litigation into consideration in the past you can reasonably figure on six years before there would be any adjudication?

Mr. LINEBERGER. Of course, it is only five or six months before the compact would come up again for consideration in Arizona, and it might be a fair thing to give them an opportunity. I was thinking, on the other hand, that if this bill was passed conditionally they would still have the opportunity, but they would be convinced of the seriousness of the committee and of Congress in this matter. They would be convinced of the fact that we look at this as being a broad. national proposition; and I think there might be a little more disposition on their part to waive their local ambitions and set their views aside for a reasonable compromise in order that the greatest number of people might be served, and that this great project might go forward at the earliest possible moment. However, I am not here to tell the committee what they ought to do. I am only here to express a deep and abiding interest in the necessity of getting this proposition started. We grow so fast out there in this western country that long before the project is completed we will be ready to receive the power, and it is not like putting a proposition through in other sections of the country. We are growing very rapidly out there.

Mr. WINTER. Do you think the objects of the Swing-Johnson bill are more likely to be accomplished at an earlier date by centering our efforts on the conclusion and ratification of the compact rather than by proceeding with the possibility of litigation ahead of us for years?

Mr. LINEBERGER. Well, that is the point that has been under discussion here, whether or not it will be better to delay action on the part of the committee until Arizona has had a further opportunity to pass on this thing-I understand it is an issue out there-or whether it would be the better proposition to pass the bill conditionally, depending on the ratification of the compact. There are substantial arguments on both sides of the question, and I think the committee is perfectly capable of deciding what is the best thing to do to get the thing going as soon as possible. I do not know; I may be a little blunt in my methods, but my idea is to force the issue; if the thing is right, force the issue.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Force the the issue, Mr. Lineberger: with whom?

Mr. LINEBERGER. And, of course, that might not be forcing it: sometimes you think you are forcing an issue and you are doing just the opposite.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. By that, Mr. Lineberger, do you mean force the issue with Arizona, or do you mean force the issue with my State, the State of Utah?

Mr. LINEBERGER. I did not refer to any State-the general proposition of building this dam.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your general idea, Mr. Lineberger, that we should go ahead and gather data and have matters ready for the consideration of the bill at the next session, if Arizona elects a legislature in favor of ratification?

Mr. LINEBERGER. Yes; that or the other proposition, whichever may seem proper in the wisdom of the committee. It is not for me, a man who has not as closely followed the hearings as I should have liked to do, to come here and tell the committee what to do.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have you make that remark, because I am in hearty accord with you, if that is where you are going to stand.

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Chairman, what would happen in that event-if Arizona did not do anything about it?

The CHAIRMAN. Then we would take up for consideration the new conditions as they might be presented.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, they are the conditions that exist right now, are they not?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LITTLE. Then, would you be any better off or any worse off? The CHAIRMAN. But it seems to be the belief that Arizona will elect a legislature in November that will be heartily in favor of this compact. But I think that we should proceed with the consideration of this bill and get all the data available for Congress during the present session.

Mr. LINEBERGER. Of course, it might antagonize those interests who are now favorable in Arizona if the committee should appear to be trying to browbeat them or override them. I realize that. But this proposition is too big a proposition and too much is involved for it to be held up indefinitely because of the inability of certain minor elements, numerically, who are interested in the proposition to get together. I do not think the Federal Government should, if it can avoid it, permit anything of that kind. And if Arizona should ratify

this proposition, why, it seems to me, then, that we would have clear sailing, provided the committee is convinced of the advisability and of the necessity, as I am, of proceeding with the project. Mr. Chairman, has the committee any further questions?

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you for your statement. Major Lineberger.

Mr. LINEBERGER. I want to thank the committee for giving mo the opportunity of expressing myself on this proposition, and to assure you that the people of California, and particularly of southern California, are very vitally interested in the proposition. We have no pet ideas or hidebound theories which we wish to force on the committee.

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask leave to offer for the record a couple of paragraphs from Mr. Hoover's testimony, given before this committee last season, in view of the fact that his testimony given here a few days ago has been repeatedly referred to as expressing the opinion that the committee should do nothing until the compact is ratified. I have carefully read Secretary Hoover's corrected statement, and I find in it nothing which justifies that conclusion. I think I know what his opinion is: and in order that his view may be brought more fully before the committee I ask permission to read from his printed testimony.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). Just a moment. Mr. Chairman, if that is going to be done, I shall ask that Mr. Hoover be recalled for further examination.

Mr. SWING (interposing). I was just going to say

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). It seems to me that in any event that is something that we can take into consideration later in the proceedings.

Mr. SWING. I would like to put this in as a matter of information. And then, if there still remains a doubt in Mr. Leatherwood's mind, or in the mind of anybody else, the precise question can be propounded to Secretary Hoover.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I have an exact copy of Mr. Hoover's testimony here before this committee, and there is a very grave doubt; and what is in that pamphlet that Mr. Swing proposes to read is not going to remove that doubt in my mind. If Mr. Hoover is going to take any other position, then I want to examine him about it.

Mr. SWING. I think that is entirely proper; but I think the new members of the committee ought to know what Mr. Hoover's statement was last session:

Secretary HOOVER. The problem of the retention of the right to water of the States of the upper basin is not insoluble, because the total flow and storage possibilities of the river along its entire course are probably sufficient to irrigate all the land that can ever be brought under irrigation.

Mr. RAKER. Then, is it your view in that connection that this legislation should go forward, notwithstanding the fact that the commission has not finally determined or that the States have not acted upon whatever recommendations the commission has agreed upon?

Secretary HOOVER. I think the legislation should go forward, because the emergency situation in Imperial Valley requires almost immediate action in the control of the river, and differentiates it from any other question.

Mr. RAKER. It would not in any way affect the adjustment of the matter before the commission?

Secretary HOOVER. I do not think the States of the lower basin would raise any objection to a provision in the bill that the creation of this storage in itself

92265-24-PT 2——9