Mr. NEEL. I think it should be shown fully in the bill that the proceedings under it will not be in conflict with the terms of the compact. That would be my idea.

Major BURGES. I believe Congressman Hudspeth, however, rewrote the language which covers that, which brings it clearly within the terms of the compact.

Mr. HUDSPETH. The amended bill that I have submitted?

Major BURGES. Yes. It is practically redrafted without material variation, except that it does embody that idea.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes.

Mr. MORROW. Well, I think that is as far as I desire to state the matter this morning, and if you will just let the engineer take the stand and make a statement as to the water rights of New Mexico and the terms of the compact that we would like to be carried out, possibly with a reservation in the bill, that will suffice.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, we will hear the gentleman.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. NEEL, STATE ENGINEER, NEW MEXICO

Mr. NEEL. I will not be very long, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Just give your name and position, please.
Mr. NEEL. George M. Neel; State engineer, New Mexico.

The compact which was drawn between the States of Texas and New Mexico was the result of a great many conferences and the giving up on both sides of things that they would like to have had, and is a final result of give and take, and the fact that the commissioner for the State of New Mexico signed, is, I believe, evidence that he considered it a very reasonable proposition for the State, and I feel that on the bill that is before this committee, the State of New Mexico has no objection so long as it is entirely in conformity to the terms of that compact.

I understand that there has been placed in the bill such clauses as would insure its conforming to that compact.

Mr. MORROW. You have not seen the bill as amended, have you, as to the proposed changes?

Mr. NEEL. No; I have not. I do not know just what that clause consists of.

Mr. MORROW. You would want this to conform to the compact? Mr. NEEL. That is so. So long as it does assure New Mexico of its rights, the State, as far as I am concerned, would have no objection. If there are any questions that any one cares to ask, I would be glad to try to answer them.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. New Mexico is a prior appropriation State? That is, it adheres to the doctrine of prior appropriations, does it not?

Mr. NEEL. Yes, sir, entirely.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think I have already asked this question, but, Texas is a riprarian-right State, is it not?

Major BURGES. We have the doctrine of riprarian rights with the doctrine of appropriation grafted onto it. It makes a rather anomalous situation, but at the same time that is what we have. Mr. HUDSPETH. Are you through, Mr. Neel?

Mr. NEEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUDSPETH. I will read you gentlemen the bill which we would ask the committee to adopt as a substitute bill, which I think does, in the fullest terms, comply with the compact; not only comply with it, but asks for much less than the agreement gives.

(The amended bill was read and is printed, as follows:)

A BILL To provide for the construction of the Red Bluff Federal irrigation project on the Pecos River

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in accordance with the provisions of the act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, except as the same are modified herein, the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and empowered to construct the Red Bluff Federal irrigation project, consisting of a reservoir upon the Pecos River, sufficient in size for the irrigation of not exceeding forty thousand acres of land in the State of Texas, which reservoir shall be located at a point where it will impound the flood waters of Delaware Creek and Black River, and shall be provided with all necessary incidental works for the operation of the same.

SEC. 2. That no expenditure for construction shall be made under this act until an appropriate contract or contracts in form approved by the Secretary of the Interior, providing for the payment to the United States as provided herein of the costs incurred on account of said project, shall have been properly executed by a district or districts organized under State law and embracing property to be benefited by said project, and such execution shall have been confirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction: Provided, That expenditures may be made hereunder at any time to cover necessary expenses incurred by the United States on account of preliminary investigations and negotiations in connection with the execution of the contract or contracts provided for by this section.

SEC. 3. That the total cost to the United States of the construction of said project shall be repaid to the United States in twenty annual installments, without interest, as follows: Five per centùm thereof on March first of the second year following the year in which water becomes first avaialble from said reservoir for irrigation, and five per centum thereof annually thereafter until the whole amount is paid: Provided, That if any installment shall not be paid when due there shall be added at once to such installment a penalty of one per centum thereof and thereafter on the first day of each month a like penalty so long as the default continues.

SEC. 4. That the cost to the United States of operating and maintaining said project shall be paid to the United States in advance upon annual estimates made by the Secretary of the Interior, and upon a day to be fixed by him: Provided, That the cost of operating and maintaining the project the year water is first available therefrom for irrigation, shall be merged with and made a part of the construction cost. If the estimate for any one year shall be either more or less than the actual cost, an appropriate adjustment shall be made in the estimate for the next succeeding year.

SEC. 5. That no classification by the Secretary of the Interior of the irrigable lands of said project shall be required, nor shall he issue any public notice relating to construction charges against said lands: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior shall determine the cost of said project, including the cost of operating and maintaining it the first season water is available therefrom for irrigation, and shall furnish a statement of such cost to the contracting district or districts.

SEC. 6. That there is hereby authorized to be appropriated from any moneys not otherwise appropriated, either in the reclamation fund or in the General Treasury, such an aggregate amount as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act, not exceeding the sum of $2,000,000: Provided, That any amount appropriated from the General Treasury shall be returned thereto from the reclamation fund in five equal annual installments commencing on the July 1st first following the year the said project is completed.

Mr. HUDSPETH. We asked in the original bill for the sum of $3,000,000, but from the statement of Doctor Mead before the committee relative to building a safe dam site and cutting down the size of the dam site to where it would, without doubt be a safe dam site, it was thought by myself and others interested in the matter that

$3,000,000 would not be necessary, and that probably we could get along with $2,000,000.

Now, gentlemen, that is the bill that we will ask the committee to adopt in lieu of the original bill.

Now, I would take it from the statement made by the Governor of New Mexico at the time he submitted the bill to the legislature, and the statement by Mr. Neel, the engineer, which I will read to the committee, that there would be no question about the action of the New Mexico Legislature in the future, as far as Texas and her proposed project is concerned.

On February 14, 1925, Governor Hannett-I am reading from the house journal of the seventh State Legislature of the State of New Mexico-Governor Hannett submitted this compact. That is, he wrote a letter to Governor Ferguson, of Texas, as follows:

Hon. MIRIAM FERGUSON,

Governor of Texas, Austin, Tex.

The Pecos River compact as amended is satisfactory so far as I can learn, to New Mexico water users. I desire to submit it to the legislature for approval, provided I am assured by you that it has your approval and will be submitted with your recommendation that it be adopted. Please advise.

Yours truly,

A. T. HANNETT, Governor.

Here is the reply from the Governor of Texas:

Gov. A. T. HANNETT,

Santa Fe, N. Mex.:

AUSTIN, TEX., February 18, 1925.

When your

I have no objection to the Pecos River compact as amended. I am submitting it to our legislature for such consideration as it deems proper. State has acted upon this, please advise.

MIRIAM FERGUSON, Governor.

Here is a telegram from Mr. Tracy, who represents the Carlsbad water users, dated February 15, 1925, to the Governor of New Mexico:

Have carefully considered revised Pecos River compact in consideration with directors Pecos Water Users, Association, and Fullen and Richardson, of Roswell. We believe it better form, probably more liberal, to New Mexico than original compact. Beneficial both States and should be adopted. Your courtesy in requesting opinion appreciated.

FRANCIS G. TRACY.

Mr. SWING. Which compact did the Texas Legislature and the Governor of Arizona approve the original or the modified one? Major BURGES. The modification that is referred to there was in the language of the draft, and it is not the amendment which has. been referred to here as having been subsequently put on in the New Mexico Legislature. The specific language of the draft as agreed on by the commissioners-they saw fit, after they started, to make a slight verbal change in it, and also-Mr. Tracy or Judge Richardson can correct me if I am wrong in this-they agreed to make the storage 10,000 instead of 5,000. I think that was referred to in that. In any event it was changed as to the verbage of it, and was an amendment subsequently put on affecting the upper basin, which caused the disagreement in New Mexico.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Here is a letter also in connection with the transmission of this to the State legislature by Mr. Neel:

Hon. A. T. HANNETT,

Governor of New Mexico, Santa Fe, N. Mex.

FEBRUARY 14, 1925.

DEAR GOVERNOR: Judge Hanna has requested me to address you a letter outlining the benefits to New Mexico which will result from the adoption of the proposed compact between New Mexico and Texas, allotting the surplus waters of the Pecos River.

Because of New Mexico's geographical position above Texas the people of our State can not be expected to nor do they realize the great importance of a compact which divides the surplus water. Because of that position, we have held a decided advantage during all the negotiations, and will continue to hold that advantage in the future division of the waters.

However, if a compact should fail to be ratified it is quite generally conceded that an interstate suit would be filed within a very few months. Such a suit would require many thousands of dollars to fight on the part of New Mexico, and we could not hope to get a decision in less than 10 and possibly 15 years.

Besides the tremendous expense and lost time in litigation we must ask ourselves what the decision in such a suit would finally be, and whether we might not get even less for our State than the proposed compact gives us. In order that you may get a perspective of the situation between the two States I will say that in Texas there are 196,000 acres of land under constructed ditches. It is needless to say that this is a large overdevelopment, and that they have never found water enough for anything like that amount of land. However, they claim, and I see no reason to doubt it, that they have irrigated indifferently at least from 30,000 to 40,000 acres.

All present rights in New Mexico are recognized and protected and the point at which the terms of the treaty will begin to be felt is sometime in the future. True enough we much dislike to have our freedom of development curtailed in any way but the users in Texas have some undeniable rights which we can neither morally nor legally disregard.

The Supreme Court of the United States would finally decree the rights on the Pecos River strictly in accordance with prior appropriation and use, obliterating the State line, and without doubt whatever, such a procedure would leave some rights in New Mexico junior to some in Texas. This at once brings out a disadvantage of the manner of settlement aside from the delay and expense.

Further than this, there is but one restriction placed on the upper basin, that is that the aggregate increased storage capacity will not exceed 10,000 acre-feet. It may be many years before such an increase is even desired, and meantime that area can proceed without restraint from the compact. It is hardly possible that a Federal decree could be so little felt.

In the middle basin the restraint comes only after a total of 76,000 acres of land have been put under irrigation, and under the terms of the compact no portion of the area in Texas is held as prior to any portion of that 76,000 acres in New Mexico. It becomes very evident that the distribution and allotment of water between the two States is very greatly simplified, and Texas' only concern is whether or not we are irrigating more than our allotted area.

All surplus water over and above that necessary to supply all domestic use and 78,000 and 40,000 acres in New Mexico and Texas respectively is to be divided equally between the two States. This holds out an incentive to both States to work toward a higher duty and more economical use of water in order that each may eventually extend its acreage through the use of the water thus saved.

When the compact becomes effective both States are in a position to go forward immediately under its terms, while an interstate suit must hold all development in abeyance for years to come. Its administration should be along clearcut and greatly simplified lines, and should require but little expense on the part of either State. The entire upper basin is practically eliminated, as also is the troublesome question of lost waters in the river itself. On the whole, the contract is advantageous not only to Texas but also to New Mexico because of the strife and uncertainty which it should eliminate.

I regret the fact that I have not had the opportunity to analyze more fully its different phases and its effect, but assure you that I stand ready and willing to give you any specific information you may desire.

Very respectfully,

GEORGE NEEL, Deputy State Engineer.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I take it that following that, the State of Texas passed the resolution ratifying the compact?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you have that here?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Well, Major Burges was present at the time it was passed.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, I understand that the resolution passed by the State of New Mexico was identical to that, save and except

Mr. HUDSPETH. Save and except the amendment which will be put into the record.

Mr. NEEL. So long as we have gone that far, I think that the compact itself ought to go in and we will then give each member a copy of it so that in discussing the bill and making up the bill you will have it right before you.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes. I have the compact here. It is quite lengthy. It is too long to read it this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the compact will be inserted in the record.

(The compact is printed herewith as follows:)

PECOS RIVER COMPACT

The State of Texas and the State of New Mexico having resolved to enter into a compact, under the acts of their respective_legislatures, have, through their governors, appointed as their commissioners: R. E. Thomason for the State of Texas, Richard H. Hanna for the State of New Mexico, who, after_negotiations participated in by C. T. Pease, representative of the Bureau of Reclamation, have agreed upon the following articles:

ARTICLE I

Present rights to the beneficial use of the water of the Pecos River and its tributaries are unimpaired by this compact, the major purposes of which are to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the unappropriated and flood waters of the Pecos River system; to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies and to secure the expeditious agricultural development of the Pecos River Basin by the conservation and economical destribution of the waters therein.

In this compact:

ARTICLE II

(a) The State of New Mexico and the State of Texas are designated respectively as "New Mexico" and "Texas" and these terms include the citizens and corporations of each State.

(b) The term "Pecos River system" means the Pecos River and all of its tributaries, including springs and swamps, from its sources in New Mexico to the Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad as now constructed between the towns of Alpine and Sherwood in Texas.

(c) The term "Pecos River Basin" means all of the drainage area of the Pecos River system.

(d) The term "upper basin" means that part of the Pecos River Basin above and north from a due east and west line crossing the Pecos River on the boundary between townships 6 and 7 north, range 22 east of the New Mexico principal meridian.

(e) The term "middle basin" means that part of the Pecos River Basin below and south from a prolongation of the boundary line between townships 6 and 7 north, range 22 east of the New Mexico principal meridian to the Texas-New Mexico State line.

(f) The term "lower basin" means that part of the Pecos River Basin within the State of Texas lying above and northwest of the Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railroad.