Mr. RAKER. Now, you have not read the statement made by Mr. Bannister before this committee, have you, the last time?

Mr. BACON. Yes; I heard it.

Mr. RAKER. His statement, as I gathered it, as made to this committee, is diametrically opposite to this which you have read, is it not?

Mr. BACON. I do not think that Mr. Bannister made an absolutely straight-out statement before this committee. The impression which he made with me was that he raised the question but did not answer it. I think he has given the answer right there.

Mr. LEATHWOOD. I submit that Mr. Bannister made no statement before this committee recently that is inconsistent with the statement that you have just read.

Mr. BACON. I think you are absolutely right. I think he just raised the question.

Mr. LEATHWOOD. I will take the antithesis of that, and say that he made no statement as reported before Senator Fall, which is inconsistent with the attitude that he took before this committee the other day.

Mr. RAKER. I understood Mr. Bannister to say that Congress would not be able to place a provision in this bill that would protect the rights of the other States. Well, let that go for what it is worth. When Mr. Bannister's testimony is transcribed, it will be demonstrated.

Mr. LITTLE. Does he quote the authority of any court decisions, or is he the original source of legal information on this?

Mr. RAKER. Practically so..

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Since the gentleman from Kansas seems to question the standing of Mr. Bannister, I will say that he is recognized as an authority on water law, and at the present time is lecturing before the law school of Harvard University.

Mr. LITTLE. I concede that.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And I want to say for the information of the gentleman from Kansas also, that, irrespective of what Mr. Bannister or any other lawyer says about it. the right of my State to contest this in court would not be affected.

Mr. LITTLE. The gentleman has misfired a little. I conceded that Mr. Bannister was so recognized. I merely questioned, in a humble way, whether he cited the decisions of courts to support his contention, or whether he was the original source of legal authority himself. Blackstone was.

Mr. BACON. Now, gentlemen, the situation as it sizes itself up seems to be about like this: The need for protection of the Imperial Valley is imperative; it is not theoretical; it is not academic; it actually exists to-day. It is shown in dozens of different ways. They must have protection or abandon the valley. There is no way out excepting those two-either protection or abandonment.

It is possible to afford this protection, the recommended protection there, in regard to the silt. It is possible to relieve this intolerable foreign situation, where a foreign nation controls the actual lifeblood of these people; and it is possible, by putting up this proj ect which has been proposed, to pay for the whole thing. The objection seems to come, and I think it is legitimate, largely from people

who are afraid for a public power development to go in on that river. There is too much profit in it. It is a regular river of gold flowing down.

Mr. RAKER. How can you consider that legitimate, if that is the fact?

Mr. BACON. Because a man protects his own possessions.

Mr. RAKER. He has not got the possession yet. At the present time this belongs to the Government?

Mr. BACON. I believe it does.

Mr. RAKER. Why would it be legitimate for a man to hold up a legitimate project of the Government with the expectation and hope solely that he might profit out of a Government property?

Mr. BACON. Because that is the way it has been done before. I think that is the way they look upon it. I think they look upon it as their private preserve, and think that it should not be infringed. When I say" legitimate" I mean this: I do not think any bribes have been offered or that they have been going around trying to use any improper influence; but they look upon it as a business project which they are, in the eyes of Divine Providence, peculiarly and particularly fitted to develop.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Were you present and did you hear a statement made by Senator Ashurst, of Arizona, at a meeting a short time ago?

Mr. BACON. No, sir.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. With reference to the influence of private power companies?

Mr. BACON. No, sir; I have not heard Senator Ashurst talk on this for two years.

Mr. LITTLE. They think they are entitled to the use of this flood water that drowns these people, if the people prevent it from flooding; is that it?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Mr. LITTLE. That is not the law, is it?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. How is that?

Mr. LITTLE. There has been a flood drowning these people every year or two. These water-power people figure that if these people should stop the flood from running over them, they, the water-power people, are entitled by God's right to use the power. Are they wrong? If we can stop the flood from drowning us is it their flood? Mr. RAKER. I think you have got the nub of it.

Mr. BACON. Here is one other point I want to make. By putting in this dam you are holding off the flood which is to-day a menace. and putting that water to a useful work, and you are saving the normal flow of the upper river so that the people on the upper river can use it. You have this excess water which has come down in the flood season and which can be used in the valley and in the lower district. You are storing the water which is now doing damage and putting it to a useful work, and releasing the water where it is most needed in the upper States. There does not seem to be a single objection, from an engineering standpoint, to that plan.

Mr. RAKER. How would the construction of a dam at Needles or thereabouts, or at Copeck, go with your idea of the handling of the Colorado River?

Mr. BACON. I do not believe that it is the most logical place for I think you should depend for those things upon the best engineers you can get. Mr. Herbert Hoover, before this committee, made the statement that he considered and believed that it was the consensus of opinion of the Colorado River Commission, that drew up the compact, that the logical and feasible point for the first dam was at Boulder Conyon. That is given in his hearing before this committee. I have it here but will not read it.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Mr. Bacon, you state that you are not a lawyer, but I take it that you have a pretty fair knowledge of law on these matters. You have talked to attorneys. Is it your judgment that this legislation can be enacted now without this compact being ratified, and I have a personal interest in asking you that question? Mr. BACON. Yes; I believe it can.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Have you heard able attorneys render that kind of an opinion?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir; and I can back it up with this statement. 1 have read very carefully Mr. Bannister's statement, and he seems to have had that same opinion in the hearing before Secretary Fall. Mr. HUDSPETH. If my recollection has not played me false, I asked him the direct question, and he said, "Not until the compact is ratified."

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Assuming an attempt would be made by the old riparian water-right States to fall back upon riparian rights. Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes. I know that I asked him the direct question. I am sure I did.

Mr. LITTLE. Did you get the idea that he thought these people in the Imperial Valley could not protect themselves against a flood until they had arranged with him and his clients for the disposition of the water? That is what it amounts to.

Mr. HUDSPETH. I have had experience in a matter similar to this, and have had the adverse advice, and the record will show, I am sure, that I asked him the direct question. I asked him if we could not go ahead and enact this legislation legally so that it will not be stopped by injunction of the vested rights until this compact is ratified, and my recollection is that he thought that you could not.

Mr. LITTLE. Do you think that these people have no right to build a dam to keep the flood off of them without agreeing with somebody up above as to what is to become of the water?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes.

Mr. LITTLE. If they do not build a dam the water will all run away anyhow.

Mr. HUDSPETH. I have had a similar matter in which I asked legal advice, and the advice that I had was that we could not proceed. Mr. RAKER. That you could not?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. I would like to get that lawyer's opinion down in writing to see what he based it on.

Mr. HUDSPETH. At the time he was a very high Government official. He said he thought we would be enjoined promptly.

Mr. LITTLE. The Mexicans below have no rights that we need regard.

Mr. HUDSPETH. No: I would not respect the Mexican rights for a second, for I don't believe they have any legal or moral rights.

Mr. LITTLE. I do not think they have any rights. When we first got into that I went and looked up the Supreme Court decisions and have been working on that idea ever since. The Supreme Court said that the people of Mexico had no right to the water that runs through our territory. If we took all of it they would have no right to complain. And right now I think the only right they have is through that treaty that we foolishly entered into in 1906.

Mr. RAKER. Would it be a breach of confidence if you should give the name of that high Government official who holds that the Govermnent could not construct a dam on the Colorado River with all the rights incident thereto until that compact was adopted? Mr. HUDSPETH. He was not speaking about the Colorado. Mr. RAKER. Well, any river?

Mr. HUDSPETH. He was speaking with regard to another river, and he said to me, 66 I am very doubtful whether or not you could proceed to impound those waters until you got an agreement with the water users above you, and I think you would be promptly enjoined."

So that upon that assumption I proceeded to get an agreement. Mr. LITTLE. You thought he meant that you would have to sit there and see the Rio Grande run by to the sea and run all over you, and could not do anything?

Mr. HUDSPETH. This was in regard to the Pecos. He is not in the Government service now, but he was then. He said to me that he thought it was doubtful whether we could impound that water without the consent of the water users above us.

Mr. RAKER. Above you?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes.

Mr. LITTLE. What right did they have as to the water that runs by you in a flood?

Mr. HUDSPETH. I do not think they had any.

Mr. LITTLE. I do not think they have any.

Mr. RAKER. We agree on that. It is so unreasonable that I do not think it ought to go in the record.

Mr. BACON. I have been sent out here, over 3,000 miles, just to make one request. We believe that a menace exists out there to-day which can be turned into great big national asset, and I was sent on here to ask this committee if they would not do everything in their power to report out this bill. Attach to it, if you please, anything that will protect anybody's interests that are in doubt, but give us the protection and give us that water and give us the power we need to-day and that we are going to need ten times worse next year, and a hundred times worse the year after. Our whole salvation, our very existence out there, depends on something being done on the Colorado River; and we believe that the proposition was fairly put up to the Government departments that were perfectly competent to report on it, and they have made a report, and now we want to know if we can not have action to bring about this relief which is so eminently necessary. I thank you very much for the kidnesss you have accorded me in letting me appear here.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your statement.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Did you individually favor California ratifying the compact?

Mr. BACON. Yes.

Mr. SIMMONS. May I ask the witness a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SIMMONS. You say you can pay for this project out of the power, etc., that you use. After that is paid for, who do you suppost would own the dam, or would you expect to turn it over to the Gov

ernment?

Mr. BACON. I think that the United States Government should own the thing in perpetuity.

Mr. SIMMONS. What would be your idea as to what should be paid after you have paid back the principal used by the Government?

Mr. BACON. I think the users should only pay the necessary cost of operation, including in that depreciation and maintenance.

Mr. SIMMONS. You would not feel that interest should be paid on the principal charges; that the rate paid should repay principal and interest?

Mr. BACON. No interest should be paid after Government has been repaid original investment but rates fixed in first instance should be such as to repay original investment to Government.

COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, March 7, 1924.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Addison T. Smith (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Swing, whom do you desire to present first this morning?

Mr. SWING. Mr. Carr, of Pasadena, is our first witness.

Mr. RAKER. Before Mr. Carr begins, I understand from the chairman that the witnesses who were requested to appear here have all responded to the chairman's letters, and will be here: that is, you have responses, Mr. Chairman, from all of them except Mr. Chandler?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. When will they be here to testify?

The CHAIRMAN. The first one will be on the 12th; and the last one, General Goethals, will be here on the 21st.

Mr. SWING. The 21st of March, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SWING. I would like to make this suggestion-of course, that is all I can do with the committee-that if any members of the committee have witnesses that they expect to call, that ought to be disclosed and an effort ought to be made to get them here, so that the hearings can be brought to a seasonable close. A bill can be killed by being dragged to death, as well as by being voted against; and I hope that everybody will cooperate to have all the witnesses who can contribute anything to the fund of information brought here within a reasonable season. Do you not think, as a mater of policy, that we can all cooperate to that end?

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are planning to do.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think so. I have been wondering, Mr. Chairman-this is not my party at all-but I have been wondering