When this original company, which laid this system out, went bankrupt and the farmers and the settlers in the Imperial Valley organized a district and bid it in, paying $3,000,000 for what was there on the ground, both in the United States and Mexico, they inherited this dual system of one company in Mexico and another in the United States, and it being the only thing they could do—they took over the stock of this Mexican company and now hold it in order to effect some kind of harmony of operation. Any day, my belief is that Mexico could raise the question that this Mexican company is violating its charter and could declare its concession forfeited, and then you would have a situation like two mules on a team, one of them going in one direction and the other going in another direction, without any control over the situation at all.

Mr. BARBOUR. Is this Mexican canal company different from the Mexicao land company?

Mr. SWING. Yes. This Mexican canal company owns no land except the rights of way and is not engaged in any land cultivation at all.

Mr. BARBOUR. The company that you referred to a few moments ago as having a charter from the Mexican Government containing these provisions you

Mr. SWING (interposing). It is simply an operating company in Mexico, but the Mexican Government controls it.

Mr. BARBOUR. Is it in any way connected with the land company?

Mr. SWING. No; that is separate. As I have said, this Mexican company is responsible to Mexican officials at Mexico City. The Imperial irrigation district is responsible to the State officials at Sacramento, Calif. Even now it is difficult to get the two Governments to agree to the same proposed improvement. For instance, we wanted to put in a cut-off in Mexico to increase the grade of our main canal, as was recommended to us by our consulting engineers. The California State authorities approved it but the Mexican authorities have never permitted us to use it. Under the State law of California if the district wants to make any prominent improvement, it must prepare plans, send them up to Sacramento; the State engineer and the bonding commission must investigate and approve or disapprove them; on the other hand, if the proposed work happens to be in Mexico, we must also send a duplicate of such plans down to Mexico City, and they look at it from the Mexican point of view.

It is possible and it has happened that the American supervising power said, "This is a good thing, do it"; while the Mexican Government said, "This is not a good thing; it will interfere with getting water out for Mexican lands. We disapprove it."

So it is almost an impossible situation, and points to the necessity of getting our irrigation system out of Mexico.

Mr. LINEBERGER. Mr. Swing, is it not also a fact that according to this concession which the Mexican company has that they actually control 50 per cent of all the water that passes through that canal, irrespective of the fact of whether they may contribute to its upkeep or not?

Mr. SWING. Oh, yes.

Mr. LINEBERGER. And by virtue of the physical conditions can take the water before it gets into the valley?

Mr. SWING. They control it all. The concession reads somewhat to this affecta full copy of the concession is set out in the hearings before this committee in 1919one half of the water which this company secures, whether diverted in the United States or in Mexico, must on demand of Mexican lands be supplied to Mexican lands; the other half may be disposed of elsewhere. There is no obligation to return any of it to the United States.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The Imperial Valley at the present time gets its water from this canal after it goes through Mexican territory?

Mr. SWING. Yes; all of it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And under the propositions contained in your bill, if the Boulder Dam be constructed there would be a new canal to the Imperial Valley, no part of which canal would be in Mexican territory?

Mr. SWING. That is it exactly; and, as outlined in the bill, that canal would be, I might say, a joint investment for the United States and the Imperial irrigation district to supply a great tract of land which the United States itself is the proprietor of, as well as the lands now within the district.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Would that be upon the theory that the Mexicans have no vested rights in the water?

Mr. SWING. I think that is a correct statement. In the hearings in 1919 that was gone into very fully. I filed with the committee the opinion of the former Attorney General, Judson Harmon, in which he said there was no such thing as international water rights in adjudicating the Rio Grande River conflict.

The Secretary of State also filed with the committee an opinion that there was nothing in the international law or any of our treaties with Mexico which would

prevent the United States from taking out in the United States and using in the United States water of an American stream while it flowed on American soil.

Mr. BARBOUR. As I recall it, Secretary Lansing approved the plan for building the all-American canal. He said there was no international treaty against it.

Mr. SWING. Yes. In frankness, I will add that he said he thought when the time came to take the matter up with Mexico or Mexico took it up with us-that he would favor a recognition to some extent of their moral claims, but it was not what can be termed a legal claim under any treaty or international law.

Mr. HUDSPETH. They claimed 20 per cent of the water from the Elephant Butte and never contributed a dollar.

Mr. SWING. Mr. Hudspeth, you know as well as I do that many people-many people in New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado-think the giving away of the water of the Rio Grande to Mexico was something our Government ought not to have done. Senator Thomas, in a powerful speech in the Senate covering two days, said absolutely that our Government had been fooled, and he even charged fraud in the making of that treaty, and he closed his speech by saying that "while it is too late to save the waters of the Rio Grande, because the treaty has now been ratified, yet I say this is a warning that it may not happen again on the Colorado.”

Mr. LITTLE. May I ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. SWING. Certainly.

Mr. LITTLE. Have you stated where the stock is owned in that canal which is located in Mexico?

Mr. SWING. That is owned by a Mexican company, which was in existence when the people of the Imperial Valley through the Imperial Irrigation District bought the irrigation system and so got physical possession of the stock of that compnay at that time. Mr. LITTLE. Who did?

Mr. SWING. The directors of the Imperial Irrigation District. The stock to-day is in the vault of the Imperial Valley Irrigation District, for whatever it may be worth. It was a part of what the district got for its $3,000,000.

Mr. LITTLE. That is, the stock of the Canal Co.?

Mr. SWING. Of the Mexican Canal Co.

Mr. LITTLE. Where do the owners of the land along that ditch live mostly? Mr. SWING. They mostly live in the United States. The Southern Pacific at one time owned a large tract of land, close to 100,000 acres. The Cudahy Packing Co. has a 16,000-acre farm down there. What is known as the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, or "the Colorado River Land & Water Co.," is made up of American capitalists who owned some 800,000 acres just below the boundary in Mexico.

Mr. LITTLE. Those people own the land that takes the water that otherwise goes to your valley.

Mr. SWING. Yes, sir.

Mr. LITTLE. They are the interested parties there?

Mr. SWING. I think they are to that extent; they prefer to keep the water in their own control for their own benefit, because they can get it this way, whenever they want it, as much as they want, and can put up a pretty good argument as to what they should pay for it.

The second menace of the Imperial Valley is the Yuma Government project, and when I put it that way I am perfectly willing to turn it around and put it the other way, that the Imperial Valley menaces the Yuma reclamation project. What I mean by that is this: When Colonel Ockerson failed to close the break in the Colorado River at what is called the Bee River, the whole river started flowing down into what was originally Volcano Lake, and then working its way out into the Gulf in a roundabout way; because of the increase from the break into Volcano Lake the river bed began cutting back, and this cutting worked back up the river past our heading. Thus the lowering of the bed resulted in lowering the water in the river and made it difficult to get the water out into our canal, especially during low seasons.

The problem of getting water out of the river is ordinarily a serious one, even without the difficulty which I have just described. This river is a slow sluggish stream most of the year, and during this period it deposits a great deal of silt in its own bed gradually building it up and then when the river rises and increases in volume and velocity, the weight of the water, the pressure, and the velocity begins to scour its bed out, and nature thus sort of takes care of the flood waters by deepening its bed to accommodate the volume of the stream. After three or four weeks of this scouring process at high water the river generally drops from a flow of 150,000 second-feet to about 20,000 second-feet and as it falls it becomes an engineering problem how to get the water out of the river without some control or diversion works. We have no diversion works in the river at our in-take. We simply have a great 700-foot in-take or headgate set in the bank of the river. At the time we built it the silt was below

the low scouring point. After the break into Bee River had worked back up stream to our heading the river scoured its bed down below that. So it now becomes necessary every year to put in a diversion dam.

Mr. LITTLE. How much above the Mexican line is your intake?

Mr. SWING. It is about a mile and a half. In 1916 the settlers on the Yuma project in Arizona went to their courts and got an injunction against our rebuilding the dam in the river, because they considered it a menace to their valley, which is also liable to overflow from the Colorado. They feared with that dam in there a freshet might bring down high water before we could get the dam out to let the water go by, and it might result in the river breaking in on them and destroying their valley. Mr. LITTLE. That is just across the river from your intake?

Mr. SWING. Yes. It is the Yuma reclamation project.

Mr. LITTLE. How high above your intake is the place where you would have the intake for the All-American canal?

Mr. SWING. About 25 miles upstream at the Laguna Dam built by the United States Government and originally intended, as I am informed, to irriga te lands in California, as well as in Arizona, but which is now used practically entirely for Arizona lands.

Mr. LITTLE. That is where the intake for the All-American would be?

Mr. SWING. That is where it ought to be, in our opinion.

Mr. LITTLE. Is that your plan?

Mr. SWING. That is our plan. We have a contract which we signed with Secretary Lane when he was in office, with the consent and approval of the Yuma people, to pay $1,600,000 for the privilege of going up there and using that dam jointly with the Yuma reclamation project. We have paid, I think, $96,000 on that according to the contract; we have met all our payments as they fell due.

Mr. BARBOUR. Do you have to take out that loose-rock dam every time there is flood water?

Mr. SWING. Yes; absolutely.

Mr. BARBOUR. How do you get it out?

Mr. SWING. We had to demolish it; blow it up with dynamite. The War Depart ment is absolutely in control of this river. We have to get their permission to construct the dam. They name such terms as they think proper, and they tell us when the dam must go out; in fact, we have two authorities to tell us-Yuma, while consenting from year to year to our building this dam, keep their injunction alive and require us to meet all their terms and conditions. We agreed that whenever they tell us to take it out we will take it out.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. May I ask a question? Does the land served by the present canal, which, as I understand, runs through Mexican territory, or, in other words, do the lands served both in Mexico and in southern California utilize all of the waters of the Colorado at all times except flood stages?

Mr. SWING. Not quite as strong as that. There have been times when, during low years, all of the water was diverted at our heading.

Mr. RAKER. You may have stated it to the committee already. But what is the approximate number of acres now irrigated and could be irrigated on the California side and the amount that is now irrigated and can be irrigated on the American side? Mr. SWING. In Mr. Davis's report he gives over 2,000,000 acres below the Boulder Canyon-in Nevada, Arizona, California, and Mexico and says about 60 per cent of that, I believe, is in the United States.

Mr. RAKER. Right there, you say 60 per cent of it is in the United States and 40 per cent is in Mexico. If you have the all-American canal, how will you divide the water between Mexico and the United States?

Mr. SWING. That would be a matter for agreement or treaty.

Mr. RAKER. Would that be the same with the canal now that is there? Suppose the canal was to continue where it is now and be enlarged, would that same condition apply as to the agreement or treaty?

Mr. SWING. There would be this difference: If the canal is enlarged and left in Mexico where it is now, then we would be the ones who would be asking Mexico to consent to put a limitation on the amount of water she would use, while if an allAmerican canal were built, then Mexico will be the one who would be requesting the United States to agree to put a limitation on the amount of water Americans would use in the United States. In one case Mexico would hold all the trump cards; in the other we would.

Mr. RAKER. Just amplify that, if you will.

Mr. SWING. Ever since Mr. Taft was President, and while he was President, various interests have urged upon the Government to take up with Mexico and to adjudicate a treaty that would determine what the rights were. Personally I will say that I feel that every year we put it off Mexico is getting more and more land in cultivation

and a broader basis for a moral claim to water. I understand that Mr. Taft actually selected the American commissioners, although they were not publicly named. Then nothing came of it. The matter was presented to President Wilson while he was President. I talked to Secretary Lane about it, but it was impossible to get Mexico to agree to anything our Government wanted. I think down on the Rio Grande there are some islands in the river. There is a treaty in existence already that says that the representatives of the two Governments must meet and adjudicate their respective rights to these islands. We can not even get a meeting with the Mexican officials under that treaty, which is already in existence.

Mr. HUDSPETH. We never did negotiate; we just took the island.

Mr. SWING. I think that was a proper procedure under the circumstances.

Mr. RAKER. Would that be the procedure if we get the All-American Canal if they would not come through? I am just trying to get at how we are going to get this finally adjudicated. Take the water as much as needed, and then let them come through? Mr. SWING. That is the way God planned it, when he put Mexico on the lower end of the river, that Mexico should get what water was left after we got through using it. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Under your bill, is it contemplated that additional lands would be reclaimed?

Mr. SWING. Yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Aside from those now being served?

Mr. SWING. Yes. The United States Government itself has 170,000 acres of land adjoining the Imperial irrigation district, which is worthless now, but which will be immensely valuable if water is put on it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you estimate that with the plan and scheme in view that it would require all of the waters of the river?

Mr. SWING. No, oh, no. You mean the flood waters?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Yes.

Mr. SWING. Oh, no. Mr. Davis gives a little over 2,000,000 acres of land in the United States and Mexico below Bowlder Canyon Dam. Three acre-feet is the duty of water per acre per year; three times 2,000,000 would be 6,000,000 acre-feet annually of water. The average annual run-off of the river at Bowlder Canyon is 17,500,000 acre-feet. This dam would have a storage capacity of anywhere from 21,000,000 acre-feet to 31,000,000 acre-feet, the idea being to have it big enough so as to equate the flow not only between months in the same years but between years, so as to take a reasonable span of six or seven years in order to carry the surplus of the wet years over for the benefit of the dry years. Thus the maximum of down-stream development would probably not use in excess of 6,000,000 acre-feet, leaving 11,500,000 acre-feet for up-stream development.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. During the dry season would you require all of the natural flow of the stream in addition

Mr. SWING (interposing). If this new dam was not put in?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Yes.

Mr. SWING. Frankly, yes, if there was no storage.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Then if there are large agricultural areas up the river for which no provision has been yet made to take care of, they would be left dry would they

not?

Mr. SWING. If Boulder Canyon Dam or some other dam is not built these upriver areas must remain dry because all the low flow of the natural stream has now been appropriated and to undertake any considerable upstream development which would substantially diminish the flow of the river to the down stream communities would of course result in litigation.

With Boulder Dam constructed these areas in the upper States could safely be developed because as I have already pointed out the total that could be used in the lower Colorado, taking the average use which is about three acre feet of water per year, would be 6,000,000 acre-feet at the outside when all of this land in the United States and Mexico has been put under cultivation, and the probabilities are that all of that land will not be put under cultivation.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What I am trying to get at is this: Would this scheme in any way interfere with the taking out of water above the Boulder Dam along the course of the Colorado River during the ordinary irrigation season, if you have conserved the flood waters by your dam.

Mr. SWING. Absolutely not. Mr. Davis and Secretary Fall, as I read their report, say "no."

Mr. RAKER. How much more land can be irrigated by the American canal than through the present dam which they now have?

Mr. SWING. About 400,000 acres.

Mr. RAKER. On the California side?

Mr. SWING. On the California side. I want to finish up this Yuma situation. Our district directors went over there just a few weeks ago to secure permission to put this weir in as is necessary, if the people in the Imperial Valley are to get even domestic water, and they said they would take the matter under advisement and see what steps we are taking to really get away from our present difficulties. It has been on condition that we get away from our present heading and go up to Laguna Dam that we have received permission in the past and their injunctions are in effect against us every year. We have to put up a half million dollars bond each year and in addition we sign an agreement that we will be responsible to Yuma and their citizens for every dollar's worth of damage that might result from a break in that river. So I say Yuma is a menace to us because we never know when they are going to refuse us permission to construct the dam; and we are a menace to them for the reason which I have already stated.

Mr. LITTLE. May I ask you a question?

Mr. SWING. Yes, sir.

Mr. LITTLE. When did you last tear that dam down?

Mr. SWING. It is always taken out just before the high water comes down; this year about a month ago.

Mr. HUDSPETH. How long does it take to get permission from Yuma to put it back? Mr. SWING. This year we have not obtained permission yet.

Mr. HAYDEN. The flood season is not yet over.

Mr. SWING. When we see the sun rise we know that it is going to set, and when we see the floods coming, we know that it is going to be followed by a low river and very quickly, and we are very anxious.

Mr. RAKER (interposing). What interests do these people represent who have obtained this injunction?

Mr. SWING. It is the farmers and settlers on the Government project in the Yuma Valley, which is just across the river from where we have our dam.

I think if I myself was in the Yuma Valley I might feel somewhat exercised about the matter-I want to speak frankly about that. Secretary Lane at the time when I was here before I expect to file data before the hearings are through to show that these injunctions are alive and that we are tied up as tight as it is possible to be tied with the situation now-Secretary Lane said referring to this dam:

"This dam is such a menace to the safety of the Yuma Valley that it can only be permitted as a temporary expedient, pending some adequate provision for forestalling its necessity, such as this contract provides for"-that is, the contract for connecting with the Laguna Dam-"and unless the Imperial district takes immediate steps to secure a satisfactory and permanent method to divert the water of the Colorado River, I will not again favor the placing of such a structure in the river.

The acting Secretary of War, Benedict Crowell, at the same time wrote us a letter, in granting us the permit. He said:

"That dam," referring to the diversion dam, "is regarded as a serious menace to the Yuma project, the further toleration of which can be justified by this department only in connection with convincing proof, such as ratification of the proposed agreement and diligence in carrying out the provisions of a definite and dependable plan of diversion."

Mr. RAKER. That is the dam which you maintain at the head of the Imperial Valley now?

Mr. SWING. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. How will those people get the water out of the dam if the American side do not use it any more down on the Mexican side?

Mr. SWING. I do not know.

Mr. RAKER. I am seeking information on that. Will they have to get it through the same ditch and dam?

Mr. SWING. Most of the time they could get some water out of the river through this heading which we will virtually abandon.

Mr. LITTLE. They could not if Yuma objected?

Mr. SWING. They could get it out except in low season. Or they could make a contract with the district or with the Secretary of the Interior or the Government, and get their water in that way.

Mr. LITTLE. May I ask this question, Judge Swing: If you abandon that heading, could not the Yuma people make it impossible for anybody in Mexico to get water out of it?

Mr. SWING. Oh, yes, certainly; and they would object, of course, to putting in any more dams.

Mr. LITTLE. It does not really deprive the Mexicans of anything they have got? Mr. SWING. No; I think they would have the property that costs us very close to $3,000,000.