PECOS RIVER-RED BLUFF RESERVOIR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION, Monday, January 11, 1926. The committee this day met, Hon. Addison T. Smith (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. This meeting has been called for consideration of H. R. 3892, which was introduced by Mr. Hudspeth on December 7, 1925, and referred to the committee. It says: A BILL To provide for the storage of the waters of the Pecos River Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of conserving the flood waters of the Pecos River and its tributaries, and controlling the floods therein, providing storage of water for irrigation and other beneficial uses, and securing the development of electrical power, the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and empowered to construct a reservoir and incidental works upon the Pecos River, for the purpose of providing for the storage of the waters of said river, which reservoir shall be located at a point upon the Pecos River where it will conserve the flood waters of Delaware Creek and Black River, and to acquire, by proceedings in eminent domain or otherwise, all lands and rights of way necessary for the said reservoir and incidental works: Provided, however, That no expenditures for the construction of dams, reservoirs, canals, or appurtenant structures authorized hereunder shall be made until the lands to be irrigated thereby shall have first been legally obligated to pay their proper portion, as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interior, of the total cost thereof to the United States, in accordance with the terms of repayment prescribed in the act of Congress approved June 17, 1902, entitled "An act appropriating the receipts from the sale and disposal of public lands in certain States and Territories to the construction of irrigation works for the reclamation of arid lands," and acts amendatory thereof, or supplementary thereto, hereinafter referred to as "The reclamation law." The title to said dams and incidental works and reservoir sites shall forever remain in the United States, unless Congress shall otherwise provide. SEC. 2. For the purpose of constructing said dams and incidental works, canals and appurtenant structures, and acquiring lands and rights of way therefor, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated from any moneys in the reclamation fund, not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act, not exceeding in the aggregate, the sum of $3,000,000, to be appropriated from time to time upon estimates made by the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act, moneys may be appropriated from any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, but all moneys so transferred from the General Treasury to the reclamation fund, and used for the construction of any dam, reservoir, canal, or appurtenant structures authorized under this act, shall be repaid by the districts, communities, and lands benefited thereby, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby empowered, after a full hearing of all concerned, to allocate the cost of any such dams, canals, or appurtenant structures, among the various districts, communities, and lands served thereby, according to the benefits derived therefrom. 1 The CHAIRMAN. Following the usual custom, the chairman referred this bill to the Secretary of the Interior on December 16, 1925, and under date of January 9, 1926, received the following reply: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. ADDISON T. SMITH, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. SMITH: I have received your letter of December 16 inclosing copy of H. R. 3862, entitled, "A bill to provide for the storage of the waters of the Pecos River," with request for report. The bill authorizes an appropriation of not to exceed $3,000,000 to be made from the reclamation fund, or, as an alternative, from the General Treasury, for the construction of a storage reservoir on the Pecos River below Delaware Creek and Black River, with necessary incidental works, for the irrigation of lands in the Pecos Valley, the funds to be reimbursed under the act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat 388), and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto. The location of the mouth of the Delaware Creek is immediately above the Texas-New Mexico State line. From this it follows that the dam would, of necessity, be constructed at or below the State line, and the water impounded would be available for the irrigation of lands in Texas. No specific storage reservoir is designated, nor is the location of the irrigable lands fixed, except as determined by the physical conditions already stated; therefore, no data are available by which the estimated cost, or the amount of appropriation needed for this purpose, may be determined. During 1913 and 1914, 'the Bureau of Reclamation made a reconnoissance from the confluence of the Pecos River with the Rio Grande, upstream, to ascertain the possibility for storage sites to be used for impounding water to irrigate lands in Texas and New Mexico. This resulted in a report by Engineer P. M. Fogg, of the Bureau of Reclamation, made in 1914, indicating that the only storage site discovered below the Carlsbad project in New Mexico is the Red Bluff site near the New Mexico-Texas line. During 1923 and 1924 several sites for dams for this reservoir were drilled, and examination of the reservoir site was subsequently made by geologists of the United States Geological Survey, who reported unfavorably on the tightness of the proposed reservoir, on account of the large amount of soluble material in the form of gypsum and the cavernous limestone encountered. As the rights of the Carlsbad project and other prior appropriators from the Pecos River have exhausted the normal flow, storage is necessary for any further irrigation development. As the bill provides only for construction, no provision being made for further investigation, it appears that it would be impracticable to use the appropriation sought, since, so far as discovered, no satisfactory reservoir site is available. The bill has been submitted to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, who reports that it is contrary to the financial plan of the President. Very truly yours, HUBERT WORK. STATEMENT OF HON. C. B. HUDSPETH, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS The CHAIRMAN. Let us now hear from Mr. Hudspeth. Mr. HUDSPETH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I shall make only a brief preliminary statement for the reason that gentlemen are here from the project in question. Some of them are farmers who have come from 2,500 miles to tell us about this project. And I think that Senator Sheppard also is here and he would like to make a short statement to the committee. The Senator has just come over from the Senate side for that purpose. As you will observe, the report of the Secretary of the Interior on H. R. 3862 is unfavorable. I desire to say to the committee at this time that I think we will be able to show conclusively before the hearings close that conditions down there are not such that warrant a report of this kind. I say to you that we will be able to show to this committee from a report of the geologists, which I have seen, or from the statement of Mr. Lee, the geologist in the Interior Department, to me that there is a site there that would support the dam structure, but there is a probability of its leaking. We will be able to show to this committee conclusively, that the conditions surrounding this Red Bluff site are most comparable with the McMillan Reservoir above there under the Carlsbad project, and that the Carlsbad project stands fourth among the various projects throughout the Reclamation Service. We will be able to show that the Red Bluff conditions are as good-the test will show, I am sure, and the engineer, Mr. Sullivan, who was at one time the engineer of the Carlsbad project for three years and who is here this morning will say, that this site stands on a parity with the reclamation reservoir under the Carlsbad project, and that project owes the Government only $25,000 covering a period of five years and stands fourth in the list of successful projects. I am sure we will show that conclusively to the committee. As to the various subdivisions under this project, we will show that they were a success until the water was taken out above. I do not say that such contributed altogether to our misfortunes, but it did so largely. We will show that the farmers in the lower valley below the Red Bluff site were developing that country and securing water and progressing satisfactorily until the water was taken out above under the Carlsbad project. Now, there is no difference between us and the Carlsbad people. As I understand, they are not objecting to the building of this proposed reservoir to provide for the storage of the waters of the Pecos River. I will state further that commissioners were appointed by the State of New Mexico representing the people above, and commissioners were appointed by the State of Texas representing the people below. These commissioners met at El Paso, my home town, and for days discussed this subject, coming to an agreement as to the division of the waters of the Pecos. This agreement was ratified by the Legislature of the State of Texas and by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico, but, unfortunately, was vetoed by the Governor of New Mexico. That is the situation as it exists to-day. I may further state to the committee that I have what I believe to be reliable information to the effect that the Governor of New Mexico has changed his mind, and that he probably would now approve this compact if it were placed before him again. This is all I have to say in my preliminary remarks, but I shall discuss the matter further after the gentlemen who are here from Texas to testify shall have been heard. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do I understand that there is no controversy between the States of New Mexico and Texas as to the allocation of the waters? Mr. HUDSFETH. There is no controversy, as I understand it, at the present time. The people above are in thorough accord with the people below in the division of this water, so I am informed. We will show to you, I think, Mr. Leatherwood, beyond a question of doubt that we have a site there that will support the dam, and the only place we could find a reservoir is here at this Red Bluff site that would be sufficient to impound waters for irrigation and our projects below, and that is on the line between New Mexico and Texas. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What would be the capacity of the proposed dam? Mr. SULLIVAN. Eighty-six thousand acres. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Would this create any priorities on waters coming from New Mexico? Mr. HUDSPETH. Our irrigation projects were established about the same time the Carlsbad people started theirs so I am informed. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. It would only store water over which the State of Texas has priority and which are not in question. Mr. HUDSPETH. We are taking mostly the storm waters. Of course there would be a natural flow of the river we would get. The people there are raising splendid crops when they can get water. However, in the last 10 or 12 years during the growing season our water becomes exhausted and the crops have failed. Mr. ARENTZ. How many acres are there now under cultivation? Mr. HUDSPETH. There are 39,000 acres now under cultivation. Mr. ARENTZ. That would mean a cost of $100 per acre. that expenditure treble or double the acreage. Mr. HUDSPETH. It would not quite double it. Mr. ARENTZ. That would be more than $50 per acre? Would Mr. ARENTZ. If you could see into the future, you would probably do as we did under the Walker River irrigation district and not hesitate a moment about putting this in yourselves and getting away from all the harassments due to construction under the Government. We voted $980,000 of bonds and put in two reservoirs, and we are going to put in two more. Mr. HUDSPETH. I think the question why we ourselves do not put this in can be satisfactorily answered. I am sure it will be done later in these hearings. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Did I understand you to say that heretofore there had been some steps taken looking to a treaty with reference to the waters between the two States? Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes; that was ratified by the States of New Mexico and Texas, but, unfortunately was vetoed by the Governor of New Mexico. However, there is no division of sentiment between the people on the upper Pecos and in Texas, so these gentlemen here inform me. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Under the law was it necessary for the Governor of New Mexico to sign the act of the legislature? Mr. HUDSPETH. I so understand. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. So it left conditions in such a state after the governor's veto that the Congress could not ratify it. Mr. HUDSPETH. Probably so. That is the situation, and I just wanted to give you the exact situation as it exists to-day. Mr. ARENTZ. Is this the ordinary bill of this nature? Mr. HUDSPETH. I think so. Mr. ARENTZ. In the last three lines of section 1, it says: The title to said dams and incidental works and reservoir sites shall forever remain in the United States, unless Congress shall otherwise provide. Mr. HUDSPETH. I think that means until, of course, the people paid out the project. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is the fundamental reclamation lawthe title continued in the United States. Mr. HUDSPETH. I think we will show that we have of actual values that we can place under one district if necessary and float bonds upon it to the extent of something like $7,000,000 to guarantee the repayment of this money. And I am talking of actual values rather than speculative values. Mr. LEAVITT. Is the land involved in private ownership? Mr. LEAVITT. Is it in large holdings? Mr. HUDSPETH. No. Mr. LEAVITT. Has there been any attempt to divide it into proper units for irrigation purposes? Mr. HUDSPETH. The gentlemen who are here this morning from this project will be able to tell you all about that. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it proposed to dispose of the stored water under the provisions of the Warren Act? Mr. HUDSPETH. I do not know just what provisions the Warren Act grants. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That refers to the sale of water. Mr. HUDSPETH. Our idea is to proceed under the act of June 17, 1902 the reclamation act itself. The CHAIRMAN. If it all is in private ownership, the act of 1902 does not contemplate the Government's coming in. Mr. HUDSPETH. In the Rio Grande project, especially in Texas, it is all private-owned land. Mr. BURGES. I have not understood that there is any question about the legality of this. It was a question of policy, as I understood, where a large part or all the land was in private ownership. The CHAIRMAN. The only exception made was in the case of the Garden City, Kans., project which, unfortunately, was a failure, because the people would not take the land. I think that was all in private ownership. Mr. ARENTZ. According to a statement made on the floor of the House the other day, the Government does not have a first lien. The CHAIRMAN. It does. Mr. ARENTZ. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of the Interior said the Government did not have first lien. You yourself admitted it by silence. The CHAIRMAN. If my silence is going to be construed as the adoption of everything said on the floor of the House, we will have to change the rules. Mr. WINTER. But they gave him their votes. Mr. HUDSPETH. I have nothing further to say just now; I shall conclude the argument for the bill, and I would suggest that we hear Senator Sheppard. STATEMENT OF HON. MORRIS SHEPPARD, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator SHEPPARD. The matter before the committee has been so completely outlined in a preliminary way that there is little for me to add. My purpose in coming before the committee to-day is principally to express my deep interest in and profound sympathy with this project. 86344-26- -2 |