Mr. YAGER. The high-line canal? Possibly in the neighborhood of $10,000,000. That would irrigate something over 200,000 acres on the east side mesa, known as the east side of the Imperial irrigation district, and the additional body of land north and west of that; also about 150,000 acres or more in the Coachella Valley..

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I understood you a moment ago to say that the estimated cost of construction for the canal, from the point where you' divert the water out of the all-American canal to the Coachella lands would be about $30,000,000?

Mr. YAGER. No; that was the entire cost.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Including your pro rata share of the construction of the all-American canal proper?

Mr. YAGER. I think so.

Mr. RAKER. What is the attitude of the private land owners on the high-line canal or the all-American canal, which would cover the use of it by the Coachella Valley as to the construction of the allAmerican canal?

Mr. YAGER. Do you mean within our district?

Mr. RAKER. The whole tract of land. There is a lot of privately owned land east of the high-line canal, of the Imperial irrigation district-that desert land there; some of it is owned by private individuals; some of it is Government land; and some of it is Southern Pacific land.,

Mr. YAGER. I think it is almost unanimous, Mr. Raker, in regard to that; the land without water is practically valueless; with water it is worth considerable money; and I think the sentiment is almost unanimous in favor of that development; and all landowners are willing to stand their fair proportion of the cost of that development.

The CHAIRMAN. How did the owners of land in the east niesa there [indicating on map], or the other sections around there, get title to the lands?

Mr. YAGER. In the east mesa there is very little land in private ownership; there are few school sections that were sold and are in private ownership, but there is no railroad land in that body.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there is no law under which they could acquire title to those lands, because they could not be homesteaded. Mr. YAGER. No; it has not been opened to entry.

The CHAIRMAN. And they could not take it up under the desert land law?

Mr. YAGER. No; because they have no water.

Mr. SWING. Pardon me, but it was withdrawn from entry pending the settlement of this question.

Mr. YAGER. That is correct; I believe it was withdrawn in 1920 by the Secretary of the Interior,

Mr. HAYDEN. It seems to me that you have increased your estimates of the lands irrigable under the All-American Canal. On page 32 of the report made by Director Davis, of the Reclamation Service, in regard to the development of Imperial Valley, he states. under the heading, "Lower Basin-Acreage Irrigated and Irrigable in the Future "

Imperial District, 515,000 acres: east mesa. 160,000: Dos Palmas, 5,000 neres: Coachella Valley, 72,000 acres; west side, 33,000; making a total of 785,000 acres.

Mr. YAGER. I think, Mr. Hayden, that there are 72,000 acres, with a possible 72,000 more. I think our engineers have practically determined that that possible 72,000 more is absolutely feasible of reclamation.

Mr. HAYDEN. Is it by an additional pump lift?

Mr. YAGER. No; under gravity. There is in the northern part of the valley a considerable amount of land that could be irrigated by pump lift; there is a gradual slope of the valley, so that the raising of that water 100 feet would bring under water considerably more land.

Mr. SWING. May I say that Mr. Davis's estimates for Imperial Valley are similar to his estimates for Utah, Nevada, and those other States. They have been proven to be really very conservative estimates.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. RAKER. I want to ask this: Of this whole amount of land, how much is owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad Co, that could be irrigated of the whole 500,000 acres?

Mr. YAGER. I would give it as a rough estimate, Judge Raker, as about 23,000 or 25,000 acres.

Mr. RAKER. How are you going to bring them under the system whereby they will be compelled to meet their proportion of the expenses of the construction of this canal?

Mr. YAGER. Our district includes Southern Pacific lands. We have the right to contract with the United States Government, under the authority of our district, for water supply; and that can be taxed as against that land. We can also bond that district for payments to the Government of any expenditures for water supply, so that would obligate the lands the same as any other lands.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Can you bond it whether they use the water or not?

Mr. YAGER. We can bond it for a water supply; I think that is

true.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And subject their lands to a lien!

Mr. YAGER. Yes, sir; for that bonded indebtedness.

Mr. RAKER. Does that cover practically all of their lands?

Mr. YAGER. I think so, in that area.

Mr. RAKER. How much higher would be the end of the AllAmerican Canal-the west end-if any, above the present canal that takes water into the Imperial Valley?

Mr. YAGER. Well, if I understand your question correctly

Mr. RAKER (interposing). I possibly ought not to be going into that: you have not made any study of that, have you?

Mr. YAGER. Only from the engineering records. We take water out at about 138 feet at that point [indicating on map].

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Mr. YAGER. And I think there is a gradual drop

Mr. SWING (interposing). I think Judge Raker means this point here [indicating on map].

Mr. RAKER. I mean the most westerly point of the All-American Canal, as Mr. Swing pointed it out on the map.

92265-24-PT 4- -2

Mr. YAGER. I think that would run to about sea level. There are several drops between the point where it would be diverted on east side mesa-between that point and the end of the canal.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Does not the Southern Pacific Railroad own large tracts of land along the Sand Hills and throughout the territory that this canal would traverse-more than along the line of the All-American Canal proper?

Mr. YAGER. I believe there is no land on the east side mesa proper owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad south of this lateral. I can not see the number or name of it on that map [indicating]; but south of that lateral there is no Southern Pacific land owned in there. Are there any further questions?

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM J. CARR, OF PASADENA, CALIF.— Resumed

Mr. CARR. I want to speak to the committee this morning in regard to the compact phase of this matter, that has received a considerable amount of attention.

It was suggested by Mr. Swing at various times that it was the purpose of the proponents of the measure to suggest to the committee some appropriate provision that would protect the interests of the Northern States.

I think it would possibly be helpful to outline the theory upon which we believe that it is entirely within the power and jurisdiction of the Congress to adequately protect by law these States in their water rights.

In order that you may understand what I am going to say it may be well for me to summarize in a word or two the physical situation that exists.

At the present time all of the normal low-water flow of the river is. in some years at least, consumed. But there is a tremendous volume of flood water that comes down in the period of the annual floods, and in some years, of course, the flow is much heavier than in others. This water comes down, is wasted, and does a great deal of damage, and is a source of very great danger to the lower basin.

Now, the physical conservation and use of that flood water as contemplated by this bill, namely, for the lower basin to catch that surplus water as it comes down, is going to work no physical encroachment upon the rights of the upper States.

As a matter of fact they do not use it; they just let it run off and come down and cause damage. And all that this project contemplates in a physical way-and I am not speaking of its legal aspect-is to catch that water and put it to use and prevent it from doing damage by flood in the lower basin.

The best evidence we have is to the effect that if these flood waters are conserved and put to beneficial use there will be all of the water that can possibly be used. Mr. Hoover gave that as his opinion, and he was in a good position to form an opinion. He was chairman of the Colorado River Compact Commission, and was familiar with the conditions in the different States and familiar with the situation as it affects the Government.

I think Mayor Bacon, of San Diego, stated the situation in his testimony very well when he said that, as far as his city was con

cerned, it would be willing to take the water at the last place or the lowest place, and that regardless of how much water was used in the upper basin.

The fear of the upper basin States, however, is this: That if this water is stopped by a big dam at Boulder Canyon and is allowed to run through the turbines and water wheels of power plants, that use of water being a beneficial use, a legal priority will be created under the doctrine of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Colorado . Wyoming, which will stand in the way perhaps 15 or 20 or 30 or 40 years from now-in the way of the upper States conserving and using water up there, flood waters--holding it back and putting it to a beneficial use.

Now, we recognize their position and see the justice of it, and have never at any time had any desire to create a situation that would not fully protect that very distant anticipated right which the upper basin States think they may want to utilize.

And it is our position-and I will come to that in a minute--that this can be done in this measure and that they will be given full protection.

The compact that has been spoken about had for its purpose the determination of those future rights and the protection of the northern States when there was full development of the river.

The compact, as has been pointed out, has been ratified by six of the seven States. The Legislature of Arizona has not ratified it, and, as I remember the testimony, it missed ratification by only one vote. If that compact was ratified by all the States there would be no argument here in regard to water rights of the upper basin States.

Now, I do not pretend to predict what Arizona is going to do, but I have listened to the evidence presented before the committee, and I think that everyone that has ventured to give an opinion has expressed the belief that Arizona was going to act and ratify this compact some time within the next year.

The position of the northern States, as suggested by Mr. Bannister, is that this legislation should be deferred; that nothing should be done until the compact is ratified by Arizona, and that in that way their rights are protected.

I think the committee should have in mind just what the acceptance of that contention is going to mean.

In the first place, if our evidence has shown anything it has shown an urgent situation, an urgent need of relief against the flood menace, and of course all of you know that legislation moves slowly; that if this measure is passed it means no draft upon the Treasury until an appropriation is made in the annual Budget bills, and that if this bill is passed at this session of Congress it will be some time before work starts, and of course all delay means a constantly increasing danger in the Imperial Valley.

But there is another result that will follow from the acceptance of the position taken by the Northern Staes, which I think the committee has come to understand, particularly since the very illuminating testimony of Mr. Ballard on Wednesday last.

And that is this: That if action is deferred now until the compact is ratified by Arizona, it means that the development and control of

the Colorado River is going to be turned over to private companies; because Mr. Bannister's testimony, and Mr. Ballard's testimony. shows that there are applications by private companies on the river-applications for major projects.

There is the Girand application, which is of long standing. There are the applications of the Southern California Edison Co.; and those are being held up, just held back, until Arizona ratifies the compact that the minute Arizona ratifies the compact, then those applications will be granted; and if there is one major project by a private company in the river, this in all probability means that the whole river will be developed and utilized by private companies. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If it will not interrupt you, I will be glad to have you elaborate on your last statement, that that is going to happen.

Mr. CARR. Well, I was going to read, for instance, as indicating the attitude of the Federal Power Commission, from their second annual report, being the report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1922, a report on the Colorado River power development by Colonel Kelly, chief engineer, and Mr. Merrill, executive secretary. I will read now from page 187 of the second annual report of the Federal Power Commission, where they speak of the Girand project: They say:

There seems to be no sufficient reason to justify further delay in granting Girand's license for Diamond Creek, unless the commission considers the need for immediate flood relief so great that it will be justified in requiring Girand to change his project to Black Canyon instead of Diamond Creek.

I think that indicates clearly the attitude of the Federal Power Commission, and their intention to grant the Girand application just as soon as Arizona acts. And Mr. Ballard, I think, showed very clearly from his statement that his company expects that its appli cations will be acted upon at once as soon as Arizona ratifies the compact.

Mr. HAYDEN. Let us see if I understand you: It is your theory that that is within the authority of the Federal Power Commission to grant all of the pending applications immediately after the compact is ratified?

Mr. CARR. They have the authority now.

Mr. HAYDEN. They have, provided the applicant has complied with the laws of the States.

Mr. CARR. Oh, yes.

Mr. HAYDEN. And the Girand application is the only application on the Colorado River where the requisite State authority has been secured?

Mr. CARR. Yes; that is the most advanced application.

Mr. HAYDEN. The Federal water power act, in paragraph b of section 9, provides:

*

That each applicant for a license hereunder shall submit to the commission

(b) Satisfactory evidence that the applicant has complied with the re quirements of the laws of the State or States within which the proposed proj ect is to be located with respect to bed and banks and to the appropriation diversion, and use of water for power purposes and with respect to the right to engage in the business of deveolping, transmitting, and distributing power. and in any other business necessary to effect the purposes of a license under this act.