Now, as I said in my testimony before, I have confidence in you people that you can protect and conserve the rights of those few people who are hesitating to ratify this, at the same time continuing your work, because the water is flowing on, to serve those people who are in such desperate needs, and at a later date adjudicate and apportion to these people who have not come in whatever rights they have.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Does your organization think the rights of the lower basin are any more sacred than the rights of the upper basin?

Doctor WALKER. That was not discussed, but speaking for myself, I would say no, that the rights of the lower basin are no more sacred than the rights of the upper basin, but the lower people's rights should not be put in jeopardy.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Should not be jeopardized in what way?

Doctor WALKER. The danger of the overflow, stopping the irrigation, failure of water, high interest rates, lack of drainage all of that stuff goes in to make it a hazardous occupation to live in the Imperial Valley under this deferred hope.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What do you mean by saying the upper States only represent a minority of the people in this question?

Doctor WALKER. I think there are as many people interested up there this is just a guess--I think that most of the people will be served, and most of the people have, as I understand it, ratified or are willing to ratify it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. My State was one of the first to ratify it. But one State has failed to ratify it up to the present time.

Doctor WALKER. Six have, have they not? Well, I think it would be just perfectly within the good judgment and power of you people to preserve and conserve the interests of that one State while you are serving the six that have ratified it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. It has an able representative here, and we are helping him to conserve its rights. But coming back again to this question that the interests of the upper basin are in the minority, I would like to know just what you base that on?

Doctor WALKER. I am saying the upper basin-the one State that has not ratified.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is a lower basin State.

Doctor WALKER. I am speaking of the minority that has not ratified or are not willing to ratify as a minority. I am not mathematically dividing it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is Arizona. All of the upper States have promptly ratified it, and we feel that we have rights which, as a matter of law would be jeopardized by the development of the lower river without some sort of a compact. Now, is it the position of yourself and your organization that Congress can by legislation here allocate the waters of the Colorado River as between the several States irrespective of any compact?

Doctor WALKER. Do you want me to pass on that as a doctor as a point of law?

Mr. SWING. The witness is not a doctor of law but a doctor of medicine.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I did not limit it to any particular class of doctor.

Doctor WALKER. If you want my opinion on that I will authorized you to go ahead and complete it and serve the great group of people down there who are in dire distress and then trust to your ability to adjudicate and give these people their rights if they see fit to come in at a later day, or you can adjust that later on with them.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I would be only too glad to do so, but I am put in this position, Doctor: Suppose we go ahead and consent to the development of the river without any sort of compact and later we discover that there have been rights vested in the lower river which are inimical to these rights, and that under the law as administratered in the appropriation of water we must permit the water which should go to our future development to run on down the river, do you think we ought to sit idly by here and not assert our rights here at this time merely because there may be an urgent need for some development in the lower basin?

Doctor WALKER. I would state it just as I stated it before. I would complete this project and settle these minor disputes at a later day, that are necessary to be settled.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Let us see. What do you mean by a minor dispute?

Doctor WALKER. I think the great thing is the completion of those works and getting that dam, and getting your works moving to make your works completed, then any of these disputes or allotment of water rights may be considered later.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. But right now, 500,000 people inform be that our future economic development is not secondary to Boulder Dam or any other dam and we are not going to let it be secondary or minor to the development of any other dam. Now, with that in view, do you think we should sit idly by and not assert our rights at this time, and permit the development to go on that might take from us the right of future development agriculturally an economically?

Doctor WALKER. Well, talking as a physician, and you as a lawyer, it would not make much difference what I thought about it. It would have no effect on the final settlement. But I say, complete your project and do not hold up that project on some litigation. That is the trick in every project I have ever seen, to delay by some litigation, and I do not care how plausible it is or unplausible. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I hold no brief for lawyers, although I plead guilty to having practiced for 25 years. They are not so bad as people represent them, however, because in the last analysis when people get intro trouble they usually come to us.

But suppose the upper basin States go ahead and ignore this matter and permit the development of the Lower River, and later, Doctor, we want to develop some of our country up the river, and the people of the lower basin then come and say, "Here, we have vested rights in the waters of that river. You must let the waters come down here." And the courts come in and say that they have priority over us by virtue of works constructed and useful application made of the waters of the river, where are we industrially?" Mr. SWING. But, Mr. Leatherwood

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Just a moment.

92265-24-PT 4—17

Mr. SWING. I want to make an observation.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You will have an opportunity to make observations later.

Mr. SWING. If the people are willing to concede you the right-
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. He has not yielded.
Mr. SWING. I merely want to say-

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I want to know if the rights of the spectators are superior to those of the members of the committee?

Mr. SWING. No; they are not.

The CHAIRMAN. He has desisted.

Doctor WALKER. Mr. Silver is giving the testimony. I merely answered a question for him. If you want me to answer that question before you adjourn.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If it is convenient for you to be here later.
Doctor WALKER. I can come back.

The CHAIRMAN. You might just wait here and we will go and answer and then come back.

(Whereupon a brief recess was taken while the committee answered a call to the floor.)

When the committee reconvened, the question was read to Doctor Walker.

Doctor WALKER. That question was addressed to me. As I said. I do not know anything about the phases of the law, and I would not presume to answer. I do state on this that since this is a Government project and I understand it will remain a Government project, that these points could be conserved in the bill and your rights could be protected without jeopardizing your rights and let the construction go on to serve these people who are in a dangerous situation down there at the present time.

As I look at it aside from the law, it is a future hope as weighed against a present emergency, and I think the present emergency ought to be speedily taken care of and something put in that bill by which you people can protect the rights of those people in the future.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Doctor, in asking the question before the recess I beg to assure you I had no desire to embarrass any witness who might not be learned in the law, so to speak. Of course, though, many people come here and urge a method of procedure ignoring what might be legal questions to be determined with reference to fixing our rights, and of necessity we have to discuss those. What I was trying to get at, and the only thing I am concerned in, is whether or not irrespective of any legal question involved here, either you or your great organization is urging the development of the river wholly aside from any question that might be involved as to the legal rights of the various States upon the river. And may I say parenthetically that there is not a member of this commitee who would more joyfully or will more joyfully join in anything that will tend to develop the country and protect you down there than your humble servant, whenever I am assured that the country I represent and the people I represent are protected in their legal rights. Now, that is our position.

Doctor WALKER. May I just say
Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Certainly.

Doctor WALKER. Hypothetically, suppose one State would refuse absolutely to ratify this, that would mean blocking the work in perpetuity practically, until you have an harmonious concord and agreement with them.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I do not think so. I think the question between the States would be settled as the Constitution now says it has to be determined, by judicial decree.

While we are on this subject, so you and I and your great organization may understand where we are at, I deny that Congress has the right to allocate the waters between these seven States in the Colorado basin; that if there has to be an adjudication of their rights outside of the purview of the terms of the so-called Colorado River Basin compact it will have to be done where the Constitution says it will have to be done, that controversies between the States must be settled in the judicial department of the Government.

Mr. RAKER. But then the distinguished gentleman, Doctor, overlooks this fact, that before the compact was thought about the waterpower act had been enacted, and if it had not been for the Waterpower Commission holding up the permits on the river, these private concerns, individuals or corporations, could have gone in there, obtained the right to build a dam, and then they would have been in the attitude and position and under the law of the case of Colorado v. Wyoming, decided by the Supreme Court, they would have obtained such rights as had been given to them by virtue of their prior construction of the dam, their prior applications, and then the appropriation to follow it, if they used due diligence after they had made application up to the time they diverted the water, and then the conditions would have been in that attitude that they would have had to have the court adjudicate it. But now, while it has not been discussed under the compact, and it will be thoroughly threshed out before we are through somewhere and some way, with the contract ratified by the seven States as it is now written, the Federal Government is practically down and out and the whole concern will be between the seven States. So you see we have a very complicated question.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, of course, Doctor, the distinguished gentleman and jurist of California in delivering himself here of some obiter dicta has not properly construed the Federal power act or the rights of the State under the Federal power act. We are not concerned in presenting that discussion, but I want you to understand that we deny that the interpretation of the distinguished gentleman from California is any such an interpretation as a court of competent jurisdiction would put upon the Federal power act and the rights of the several States on the Colorado River.

Mr. RAKER. It is just as well to let the matter be before the committee and the public to be considered, so we will not overlook the right the Federal Government has over the Colorado River and the effect it might have on the States and the Federal Government relative to abandoning any saying that we will quit, take nothing in the Colorado River, and waive our rights as far as navigability is concerned. And it is worthy of the greatest consideration even by my distinguished learned friend from Utah and what we are trying to get here is some action so that this development may proceed for the five reasons named without even injuring or even putting it in

the shape that Utah or its citizens will be in a position to claim that they have lost anything by virtue of the construction of the dam. Mr. WALKER. May I just say in closing that as far as our organization is concerned we represent Utah as well as Colorado and all those States, and we would do no injustice to any group of those individuals. Our desire is to give aid to those people who are in immediate distress and, as I have said before, we believe that in the incorporation of this bill you can protect those people whose rights are possibly in the future sufficiently to give them all that is their due and at the same time meeting the emergency that is pending now. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, that is fine, Doctor. We fully appreciate the friendship of your great organization because a good many of us are a part of it and know the great work it is in. As I understand your position now it is simply this, that if there is any legal.way to protect the rights of the upper basin States and proceed with the Boulder Dam you want it done, but you are not asking us to sacrifice our rights if we would have to do so in order to get power on the lower river.

Doctor WALKER. I would not think you would need to sacrifice it, but I am not for holding up a great project for some academic hypothetical question which might be discussed for years.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Right there is where we take issue with you. This is not an academic question. This is a question that has challenged the attention of the best jurists of the country and the best courts of the country, so it is not a mere academic question. It is a problem that has received very careful consideration by the ablest jurists of the country. Of course, if it was merely Judge Raker's and my opinion we would submit to having it branded as academic. Mr. RAKER. If you will just complete that, Doctor. This grows out of the pronunciamento rendered by our Supreme Court in the case of Colorado v. Wyoming. Now, let me ask this: What does your organization mean when it asks that this legislation should be expedited?

Doctor WALKER. What do we mean?

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Doctor WALKER. Well, I did not draw the resolution. I heard it argued. I suppose they mean with as much haste as possible to complete the project and get these plans consummated, or whatever legislation-they did not know the intricacies of this. That point you discussed was not brought up before the committee.

Mr. RAKER. I suppose they mean by that that after the committees have thoroughly gone into and obtained the evidence from all sides, pro and con, relative to the practicability and feasibility, then the matter should not be delayed. You know there are still people who have not been heards as yet, engineers, and those who have given the matter a great deal of consideration, and before one can act we ought to get all that bears upon the question to know that you have got something upon which to act before you act. You would not want to rush it so that you could not get a foundation to stand on. would you?

Doctor WALKER. I think our attitude on all legislation in the past has been to give a fair hearing before any big project was started. That would be starting without due consideration.