The above statute was enacted as a result of an exhaustive investigation of all reclamation projects made by a committee of eminent men, not in Federal employment, selected by Hon. Hubert Work, the then Secretary of the Interior, of which Thomas E. Campbell, former Governor of Arizona, was the chairman. What became known as the Fact Finders Report was transmitted to Congress by President Coolidge on April 21, 1924, and was printed as Senate Document 92 of the Sixty-eighth Congress. The following are extracts from it:

"The provision for reclamation implies that the lands of the arid and semiarid region shall be made susceptible for larger public use, especially by making possible upon these lands the maintenance of homesteads. In fact the family with its life and requirements, is the chief concern of the original reclamation act.

"Moreover, the act aimed to provide a method by which thousands of families with a love for the land, but with little capital, might find opportunity to establish homesteads upon the land and to live the wholesome life of the open country, and to increase the number of the important home-owning, land-owning, homeloving, and land-loving men and women of the Republic.

"When, however, the locations for projects came under consideration, the advantages of those where the land was in private ownership were vigorously pressed, and it was found in some instances that a project where the land was in private ownership afforded greater opportunities for development and better settlement conditions than could be found on the public domain. As a result, some of the projects include only privately owned land, and on nearly all the projects a considerable percentage of the land was privately owned. Although the Reclamation Service attempted to compel the subdivision of these privately owned lands into the units fixed by law, yet the legal enforcement was found difficult; and what was still worse, in many cases the owners of the land capitalized the Government expenditures and the liberality of its terms of repayment by selling the lands to the settlers at much higher prices than could otherwise have been obtained. The benefits of the Reclamation Act, therefore, went in such cases almost entirely to these speculative owners, and an obligation of paying interest on inflated land prices was imposed upon the settler, in addition to his other burdens.

"Attention is called to this matter, not to criticize the inclusion of private land because agricultural results have justified this action, but to point out the need for new legislation that will ensure that desirable social and economic results of the Reclamation Act shall go to settlers. This means that the act should be amended to prevent the activity of speculators which has marred its operation in the past. Where land was held in large tracts or where speculators acquired options on large areas before the projects were settled, it gave an opportunity of inflating the unirrigated value at which the land could be brought before the Government entered the field, to prices based on irrigated values, under the generous terms of the act."

Under existing law, as above quoted, reclamation project water is available to any landowner regardless of the size of his holdings provided that he agrees to sell any irrigable land in excess of 160 acres when and if an opportunity occurs at a price not in excess of its fair appraisal value. This law has been in effect for 18 years on more than 60 reclamation projects and there is excellent proof that it operates in a reasonable and equitable manner and is achieving the purpose for which it was intended. It does not require sudden or precipitate breaking up of real-estate holdings but, in an orderly and gradual way, it prevents land monopoly and speculation in benefits created by the expenditure of Federal funds. Most of all, it assures that there will be opportunities for men to secure farms and make homes and livelihood for themselves and their families without incurring a ruinous debt because of the wild gambling of land speculators.

Under these circumstances the committee is of the opinion that the Kings River project should be constructed as now authorized under the reclamation law.

Mr. BASHORE. With regard to the Table Mountain Dam, our position is that you may not wish to authorize now the dam in the manner proposed in this bill. The storage presently proposed might be obtained on tributaries. It would be a mistake to preempt the site on the Sacramento River with a low dam that could not be

raised, if ultimately a high dam should be needed at Table Mountain in order to provide the maximum conservation of the waters of the Central Valley.

I recognize the urgent need for the flood protection to be provided by the construction authorized in section 7. The testimony of the Bureau of Reclamation does not, of course, refer in any way to works which have only flood protection functions. There is no objection to their authorization now. The authorization for the multiple-purpose reservoirs provides for deferment of construction operations until conclusion of the war or until adequate manpower, equipment, and materials become available. Insofar as the multiple-purpose reservoirs are concerned the Bureau's plans are sufficiently advanced to insure prompt and expeditious construction when existing restrictions are removed.

With your permission, more specific testimony will be presented by Mr. R. S. Calland, assistant regional director, Mr. S. A. Kerr, acting chief regional project planning, and Mr. R. P. Bryan of the Bureau's project planning staff located at Sacramento, Calif.

Senator OVERTON. I want a comparison in reference to each of these dams and reservoirs as to what proportion would be used for irrigation and what proportion for flood control. Are you in a position to supply that information?

Mr. BASHORE. One of my assistants will supply that information. Senator OVERTON. Which one?

Mr. BASHORE. Well, I think I have three assistants here. Any one of the three could supply the information, particularly Mr. Kerr. Senator OVERTON. You say the Kings River project has already been authorized for construction?

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. In other words, that has already been authorized for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. Is that by an act of Congress?

Mr. BASHORE. That is in accordance with the laws enacted by Congress. It was authorized under the 1939 Reclamation Act, under which the Secretary of the Interior makes a planning of feasibility on the project, and the project is then sent to the President and is by him submitted to the Congress. I think that is feasible, and it is authorized under the Reclamation Act of 1939.

Senator OVERTON. Has a planning of feasibility been made?
Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir. That is on the Kings River project.
Senator OVERTON. And it was by the Congress?

Mr. BASHORE. Not by the Congress, but the Congress provided machinery through which the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, makes a planning of feasibility of the project. That is the elastic machinery under which we proceed.

Senator OVERTON. But it still has to be submitted to the Congress. Mr. BASHORE. The finding is submitted to the Congress, and it has been submitted, being transmitted by the President.

Senator OVERTON. But no action has been taken by the Congress? Mr. BASHORE. There has been no request for an appropriation for the construction of the project, but I referred in my testimony to a request for money to undertake preconstruction plans on the Kings River project, and that money has been voted by the Senate.

Senator OVERTON. What was the date of the report that recommended the Kings River Dam be constructed?

Mr. BASHORE. I think it was in 1940. I have forgotten the exact date. I will supply that for the record.

Senator BURTON. Do you contemplate it will be necessary to have any action by the Congress authorizing the construction of the Kings River project by the Reclamation Service?

Mr. BASHORE, No, sir.

Senator BURTON. Or is that covered by the general procedure?
Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. And all you need is an appropriation?

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir. The Congress has laid down a rather adequate procedure for the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, undertaking these projects. You have to certify that the project has a water supply; that it meets certain standards of reimbursability under the reclamation laws. When you make that conservation, if you make it, then you can transmit the report to the Bureau of the Budget, and the President transmits it to the Congress, the planning and the report.

Senator BURTON. Is it for that reason that you feel this provision under the heading "San Joaquin River" on page 21 of the bill as passed by the House, which provides that

The project for the Isabella Reservoir on the Kern River for flood control and other purposes in the San Joaquin Valley, California, is hereby authorizedwould be in conflict with procedure already taken?

Mr. BASHORE. Well, it would supersede it at least. I think it would be lack of recognition of the procedure already followed. Senator BURTON. It is the same site and the same dam?

Mr. BASHORE. It is the same site.

Senator BURTON. And under the procedure followed it would be built by the Reclamation Service, while under this bill it would be built by the Army engineers.

Mr. BASHORE. That is right.

Senator BURTON. And you are recommending that it be done by the Bureau of Reclamation?

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. And that it be left out of this bill?

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. In that connection the full committee in its consideration of the river and harbor bill has recommended that all irrigation projects be submitted by the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, to the Congress for authorization.

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir; I think that is correct. And so far as the projects authorized in the bill are concerned, we do not object to that. Senator OVERTON. That is reversed in the case of rivers and harbors. Mr. BASHORE. I think that clears up the question you asked me in the beginning. I did not recall exactly what that provision is, but we do not object to that provision so far as the projects authorized in the bill are concerned.

Senator BURTON. Why do you object to the section in the bill which would permit the Army engineers to build the project?

Mr. BASHORE. We think it is predominantly an irrigation project. It is a part of the over-all plan in the great Central Valley develop

ment in California, and, furthermore, it has already been authorized to be done by us. Why should we go through all this formality again? Senator BURTON. Does this differ from the other paragraphs that you ask to have stricken out, the Kings River project? Is that in a different status than the Kern River project?

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir; that is in a different status, because the Kern River report has not been submitted and no finding of feasibility has been made in the case of the Kern River project. However, the Kern River project involves irrigation, and it is a part of the comprehensive plan of the Central Valley project and falls in the same category in our opinion that the Kings River falls.

Senator BURTON. Then you would recommend that the same position be taken in the matter of Kern River as in the matter of Kings River? Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. Is that true of the Terminus and Success Reservoirs?

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir; that is the same.

Senator BURTON. And is the same contention true on page 22, lines 17 to 24, having to do with the Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries, including the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers?

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. They are all the same type of project are they? Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir. There is no question but what flood control is involved in them, but it is flood control for either irrigated land or land potentially irrigable, and it involves conservation of water for potentially irrigated land.

Senator BURTON. You expressly do not ask to have striken out the paragraph on page 22, lines 11 to 16, being a plan of improvement for local flood protection on various streams in the Merced County stream group in the San Joaquin Valley. What is it that distinguishes that situation from the rest of them?

Mr. BASHORE. There are very little conservation benefits in connection with that, so we do not object to that.

Senator BURTON. Does it turn on the question of probable benefits as to whether flood control or irrigation?

Mr. BASHORE. It turns on the proposition whether or not the projects affect materially the ultimate plan of conservation and regulation of water for the great Central Valley project. These projects do not themselves in the Merced County stream group, in our opinion.

Senator BURTON. In the case of Littlejohn Creek and Calaveras River, that we had under consideration the other day, that separate group of streams does not affect the general project much, does it?

Mr. BASHORE. I think not. In the ultimate development of this project I think there is considerable benefit in the way of conservation; perhaps not in the plan now submitted by the corps but in the ultimate need for development.

Senator BURTON. I may not have the figures accurate but you have a summary in my notes that indicates the probable flood-control benefits are $365,000 and irrigation benfits $315,000.

Mr. BASHORE. I think I will leave that question to be gone into more fully by one of my assistants.

Senator BURTON. If it is a fact that irrigation is but a minor feature of it and if it is not therefore integrally being considered a part of the ultimate irrigation, then this Littlejohn Creek and Calaveras matter would fall in the same group as the Merced County stream group.

Mr. BASHORE. That is true providing that is the situation with the ultimate development of these streams. I am not just sure whether the plan proposed by the corps is the maximum requirement for irrigation in that group. But I would say that if the construction and operation of these reservoirs as necessary in their ultimate design do not affect the conservation of water, or the regulation of water, for the great Central Valley to any material extent, then we have no objection. But I am not sure of the ultimate support of that. Senator BURTON. You are not claiming the entire support theory. Mr. BASHORE. That is possible, but the plan as now submitted by the corps may not encompass the ultimate requirements in the complete beneficial use of the water in the Central Valley.

Senator BURTON. Have there been many conferences between the Army engineers and representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation as to getting together on this?

Mr. BASHORE. Yes, sir. We work together on these things. We are on good terms with the corps. I would like to say at this pointSenator BURTON. But you do come out with diametrically opposed

recommendations.

Mr. BASHORE. Not exactly. The corps is provided with responsibility for flood control, and Reclamation is charged with conservation of water.

I would like to say for the record at this point that there is no question about our recognition of the ability of the Corps of Engineers. We know that they are preeminent in their field of flood control and navigation improvement. It has been my privilege to visit some of the great works constructed by the Corps of Engineers and personally I am proud of that work. We recognize the ability of the Corps of Engineers in our legislation. We have a provision in the reclamation laws where we can turn to the services of retired officers of the Army for certain work.

At the same time we feel that in the field of conservation the Bureau of Reclamation is very well qualified to handle that matter. One of our distinguished engineers, Mr. John Savage, is now carrying out an assignment for the Chinese Government. He just completed one for the British Government; and he has carried out assignments in Australia and Mexico. The assignments to India and to China required special legislation by the Congress.

So we feel there is a field for each of us to operate in, and we are cooperating, I think, to the fullest extent in the preparation of our plans. These problems are by no means simple. They are complex. They involve a great amount of study, and I think both the corps and the Bureau approach them in a cooperative way, with a desire on the part of the corps and the Bureau to simply work out the best plan possible for the people of this country.

Senator BURTON. Of course, our committee, and myself in particular, approach these matters as laymen, and we have the responsibility