to get something out of it, and, if possible, I think he would prefer to finance it himself.

Mr. SINNOTT. The Secretary finds that on a certain project 80 acres should be the farm unit, and a man holding 160 acres must dispose of the surplus 80 acres at a price fixed.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I understand. I was just asking the extent of it. That is the present market value.

Mr. SINNOTT. Without taking into consideration the possible enhanced value due to water.

Mr. HUDSPETH. From your knowledge of the people who own the land, Mr. Gray, do you think they will be prepared to meet any limitation which the Government might impose upon this matter? Mr. GRAY. That would be my personal opinion at this time, that they would meet those conditions.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Anything the Government might require?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEAVITT. That is in the general law now.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes.

Mr. LEAVITT. I just wondered if that was fully understood. I consider this witness a large landowner.

Mr. GRAY. I would say personally, so far as the land I own is concerned, I would be glad to comply with the requirements along this line.

The CHAIRMAN What portion of your land is irrigated now?
Mr. GRAY. Practically all of that 600 acres.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Your tract of land seems to be illustrative of the general condition. I have no desire to inquire into your private affairs, but I would like to ask you the amount of mortgage indebtedness on your land.

Mr. GRAY. That project has some school land.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am talking about the mortgage indebtedness. Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir. It is bought on terms made by the State of Texas, which is 40 years' time at 3 per cent interest, and one-fortieth paid down. They very rarely take up that balance in advance, because it is 3 per cent money. That is against the land, and would be what we call a mortgage.

Mr. HILL. Is the title in the State of Texas?

Mr. GRAY. They pass title by contract. It is regarded as a title. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Does that apply generally to land there in your section?

Mr. GRAY. No, sir; every other section is State land in our project on the Zimmerman. The even numbered sections are State lands, and the odd numbered sections are railroad lands. We get conveyances from the railroad company for that land, and from the State for the other.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is sold on 40 years' time?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Covering about half of that 38,000 acres?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. How many years' time have you on it?
Mr. GRAY. About 30 or 33 years.

!

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Was that land in cultivation when you bought it? Mr. GRAY. No, sir; the land was bought about 1907, from the State.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is all new territory, comparatively speaking?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir; that Zimmerman project was established in 1907 or 1908. At that time the land had either been bought prior to that and then sold to the settlers, or some of them had bought it from the State. They sell the title that comes from the State. I own 600 acres I bought from the State on the terms just mentioned. I can sell it to you.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I understand.

acres?

Mr. GRAY. In 1916.

When did you buy your 600

Mr. WHITTINGTON. At what price, generally?

Mr. GRAY. At that time about $50 an acre for the raw land with no improvements on it.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. What did it cost you to put that in cultivation? Mr. GRAY. About $20 an acre to grub it and put it in cultivation. Mr. WHITTINGTON. They sold it to you at $50 an acre, and you have 40 years to pay for it at 3 per cent?

Mr. GRAY. No, sir; the original purchase from the State was less than that. I bought it after that.

Mr. ARENTZ. Was it $1.25?

Mr. GRAY. No, sir; most of that land on project was purchased from State at $5 to $8 an acre.

Mr. ARENTZ. The increase to $50 an acre came through the various owners, perhaps three or four owners?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ARENTZ. Each one increasing the price?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. When did the man who sold to you buy it from the State?

Mr. GRAY. About 1907.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. It was in private ownership for several years? Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I have not been able to attend the hearings until to-day, and I do not know just what is contained in the record. It is evident there must be some delay until New Mexico can be heard. I want to commend to the advocates of the bill the idea of taking up the reports that have been made by the Reclamation Service on a number of proposed projects in which there is an analysis of the conditons of the project showing the altitude above sea level, the duty of water, climatic conditions, value of land for irrigating purposes, transportation and market facilities, crops produced, and matters of that kind. It seems to me that to follow the general plan outlined by the Reclamation Service and gather similar data for this project it would be very helpful to the committee.

Mr. BURGES. I will be glad very to do that. We did ask Doctor Mead about the soil and climate conditions, etc. He went over the land. They discontinued their examination on account of the ques

tion of the leaky reservoir, but he stated to the committee the other day that the conditions were satisfactory outside of that matter.

Mr. HAYDEN. Information is obtainable from the Weather Bureau as to the climate. You will find that a general scheme of reporting upon projects has been outlined by the Reclamation Service. Mr. HUDSPETH. That was made by the fact-finding committee. Mr. HAYDEN. Yes.

Mr. HUDSPETH. That committee was at Carlsbad.

(Whereupon, the committee adjourned.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE OF IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION,

Washington, D. C., February 8, 1922.

The committee met pursuant to call at 10 o'clock, room in the House Office Building, Hon. Addison T. Smith presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we will proceed without a quorum this morning, as this is a hearing and the proceedings are being recorded.

This is an adjourned meeting for the consideration of a bill introduced by Mr. Hudspeth, of Texas, a bill to provide for the storage of waters of the Pecos River, H. R. 3862. Mr. Hudspeth will indicate the order in which the speakers will address us.

Mr. HUDSPETH. At the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Morrow, of New Mexico, asked that it be continued until certain gentlemen from his State could be heard. I have conferred with the Congressman, and these gentlemen are here, so I suggest that we hear from Congressman Morrow, or his constituents who desire to be heard this morning.

Mr. MORROW. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I understand that practically the parties had agreed that the compact shall be verified in the future, the compact that was originally entered into between New Mexico and Texas which failed on account of the governor refusing to sign the same at the last session of the legislature. Their minds have practically met upon that proposition and we thought that we were only to put on the State engineer from New Mexico to state really what the compact was, and if that is the understanding between your Texas gentleman and the New Mexico parties now, I think it can be made very brief.

As I understand, the statement was made by the parties representing this project that all the water that they would ask for is the water that can be acquired below the Avalon Dam. Is that correct?

Mr. HUDSPETH. I think Major Burges has been conferring with the gentlemen. I think that is the understanding; is it not?

Major BURGES. I beg your pardon; I did not understand the inquiry.

Mr. MORROw. As I understand the conference between the State engineer of New Mexico and yourself, all that you are asking for is what waters you could acquire below the Avalon Dam.

Major BURGES. Well, it is not what waters we would acquire below the Avalon Dam, but it is primarily within the terms of the compact. Some water would reach us that comes from above the Avalon Dam, inevitably.

Mr. MORROW. Naturally.

Major BURGES. The first statement, however, is absolutely correct; that is, that we are not seeking on either side a departure from the terms of the compact.

Mr. MORROW. Now, I presented this view to my people, that we take sufficient time to get an expression from the Governor of New Mexico and the Governor of the State of Texas, as to whether personally they would be willing to ratify the compact and have the legislatures in turn again ratify it as to their position at this time.

Major BURGES. I feel sure I can say from personal conversation with the Governor of Texas, that the Governor of Texas still stands by the compact as submitted to the legislature, and as it passed the legislature, and if it was submitted again, as far as a man can see in advance, there is not a bit of doubt that it will be ratified again.

Mr. SWING. The legal status at present is that as far as Texas is concerned, it is ratified and will stay ratified in the absence of any opposite action by the legislature.

Major BURGES. That is true, except it would finally fail without ratification all around, but there is no time limit on it. In other words, ratification by New Mexico and approval by Congress will put it in effect to-day.

Mr. MORROW. I think the compact would have to be presented again to the legislature and be ratified, in turn, and then signed by the governor. That would be my view of it.

Major BURGES. I never have tried to decide, because it has never been necessary to decide, as I see it, whether it would be necessary to have another vote in the Legislature or not. In fact, I am inclined to believe that it stands just like an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Unless there is a time limit placed on it, ratification by a sufficient number of States has been held to make a constitutional amendment effective, and therefore, recently Congress has been fixing a time limit of a certain number of years, otherwise it stood and it became valid whenever it was ratified. There is no time limit in this and unless a State withdrew, and I believe there has been some doubt in the mind of the United States Supreme Court as to whether a State could do that on a constitutional amendment that unless it was withdrawn, however, it would be ratified. But, if it were submitted again, I think there is no question but what the next legislature would ratify it again.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. There is no question but what it would have to be reenacted as far as New Mexico is concerned.

Mr. MORROW. That is the view I take. It would have to be reenacted on the part of New Mexico.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Because the action of your governor amounted to a veto.

Major BURGES. He did veto it, in express terms.

Mr. RICHARDSON. When does the term of the governor expire? Major BURGES. The governor's term expires in January before the next legislature meets.

Mr. RICHARDSON. After the next legislature convenes but before the matter might be finally acted upon?

Major BURGES. The present governor of the State of Texas may be out of office.

Mr. RICHARDSON. They go out of office next January.

Major BURGES. But, before any action is taken by the next legislature.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Probably before any action will be taken.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think before you know whether the action of Texas might be binding or not would depend upon whether or not New Mexico reenacted it in exactly the same form as the resolution which failed of ratification or failed to be signed by the governor.

Major BURGES. That is probably true. It would not be legally binding on the State of Texas unless it was adopted in its original form by New Mexico.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Here would be the status before the Legislature of Texas: All parties in Texas affected had agreed, and the legislature, as I understand, simply ratified that agreement, and of course no one else being concerned in the matter except those parties, there would be no question, of course, about the action of the Legislature of the State of Texas. They just simply followed an agreement that was presented to them by the people of the portion of this project affected in Texas.

Major BURGES. That is true.

Mr. HUDSPETH. And they would, of course, follow that again? Mr. SWING. There would be no objection to having the bill carry a provision not to take effect, or work not to be begun, until this compact is ratified?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Well, I think this, Mr. Swing: I do not think there is any question, from the statement made by the governor in his message to the legislature when he submitted this matter and in the letter of Mr. Neel, the engineer, to the Governor of New Mexico. There was an amendment placed on the bill which affected the upper basin that caused the governor to veto the bill.

Nothing that affected Texas in the original compact. We are asking in this bill for less water than the compact gave us-the agreement between the two States.

Mr. SWING. There was an argument between two factions in the State of New Mexico?

Mr. HUDSPETH. That is it. The Texas portion did not enter into it, because the governor states specifically in his veto message that he vetoed it at the request of the Pecos Water Users' Association in New Mexico, and not our people.

Mr. MORROW. Now, gentlemen of the committee, our intention this morning was to put the State engineer of New Mexico on to just make a statement and refer to this compact and to say to you, then allow us a day or two in which to submit the matter to the governor,. and we will see if we can not agree upon a tentative agreement that this original compact will be ratified and withdraw any further opposition on the part of New Mexico to this project.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you expect to simply protect your rights. by agreement, rather than by reservation in the bill?

Mr. MORROW. Largely so, and possibly by reservation in the bill, too.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If your governor indicates that he will sign a resolution ratifying the compact, are you willing to proceed without any reservation in this legislation, authorizing the project in Texas? Mr. MORROW. I presume that your desire is a reservation in the bill too, is it not, Mr. Neel?