Now, I do not want to go into the engineering part of it; but I just want to say this: That in the Southwest, there is no coal and the oil supply is fast diminishing. To-day there happens to be a temporary surplus of oil, but I spent three days in the oil regions, and what I was told was this: That the three greatest producing oil fields in the world at the time, Huntington Beach, in my district; Santa Fe Springs, which adjoins my district; and Signal Hill, just over the line from my district-these three oil fields were destined to begin to show signs of exhaustion within one year. Since I have been here I have been advised that at Santa Fe Springs water is beginning to come into the wells-and any oil man knows what that

means.

But the point is this-and we have the geologist's report, based upon the survey of some of the best geologists in the countrythat. if you could get oil out as fast as our country is using it to-day, the oil supply would be exhausted in 20 years. But suppose they are wrong, by 100 per cent, and it is 40 years: What is 40 years in the life of a country?

The people of the United States, from all parts of the country, are flocking to the Southwest. I do not undertake to explain why they want to come to our country but they are coming. They have to be taken care of; they have to be supplied with the ordinary comforts to which they were accustomed in the States from which they came. The growth of the country has resulted, according to the engineers engaged in electrical work, in a steady increase in the consumption of electricity of at least 20 per cent a year. Twenty per cent a year, compounded, will amount to a very considerable amount of power at the end of 10 years and they estimate that they are 100,000 horsepower short to-day.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. In order that I may know just your position in this matter, I would like to ask a question: As I understand it, the urgent necessity of the Government proceeding along the line suggested in your bill is to protect the people of the Imperial Valley from the menace of the river?

Mr. SWING. Yes, sir; that is the urgency.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is the paramount object to be attained? Mr. SWING. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If the Government, then, should take charge of the Colorado River and control it so that you would not be menaced by this flood, you are not primarily concerned then as to how they control it, are you?

Mr. SWING. We will leave that to the engineers of the United States Government.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I want to know what your position is? Mr. SWING. I say I am willing to leave it to the engineers of the Government to work out the best and most businesslike plan.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, if you get protection from the floods, are you satisfied. If the Government protects you now from the flood menace, are you satisfied?

Mr. SWING. I will answer that in this way. As the Colorado River is to-day, it is a menace-a liability. That menace or liability can be converted into an asset and made to produce revenue. If my Government is to assume the burden of the liability, to wit, flood

control, I want to make sure that it also gets the asset which is power and which is a necessary incident to the flood-control dam. I do not believe that it is a business proposition for Congress to expend twenty or twenty-five millions dollars to construct a dam merely for flood control, and which will not have in itself the means of repayment to the Treasury of the money which it is called upon to expend. I could not agree to the Government assuming the liability and then turn the asset over to the private-power corporations. I do not believe we would have much chance of getting a proposition like that through Congress. What we must be able to show if we expect to get the support of this committee and of Congress is that we have a proposition whereby the United States Government can do this thing which it ought to do, remove the menace of flood danger on the Lower Colorado River, and at the same time get back every dollar that it will have to expend in the doing of the work. We must show that, or we will fail.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Let me ask you another question: If Congress should decide to take control of the river and protect you from the menace of the flood season, would that be satisfactory to you and to the people of the Imperial Valley?

Mr. SWING. I have this much confidence in this committee and in this Congress-in its wisdom; in its foresight; in its statesmanlike qualities and ability, that I believe that, when the facts are all presented to it, the plan and method which it adopts will be one which I can heartily approve.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Then, if they should adopt some other method of controlling the flood waters, you would be satisfied?

Mr. SWING. Well, I represent more than Imperial Valley; I am a representative of the country at large as well. I hope to see I shall work to see I expect to see this project handled, not only in a businesslike way, but in a statesmanlike way. Here is an opportunity not merely to remove a liability, but to turn that liability into national asset, which will not only repay the cost to remove the liability; and not only that, but it will for generations to come pay a revenue and earn a dividend for the American people, just like the Panama Canal is doing. I want to be sure the American people get the benefits that will come from this project and not the private power companies.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, if Congress, in its wisdom should devise some plan for taking care of the flood water, so that none of the people in the area you have described should be menaced by the flood, then the object that you seek would be attained, would it not? Mr. SWING. One of the objects would.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What other object is there?

Mr. SWING. If you will just permit me I will go right on. Here is a stream in a country where, as I undertook to point out, there was a great shortage of power and fuel. It contains within its borders the means of furnishing those; and that is one of the integral parts of our proof in this hearing, to show where the Government can get its money back. You, Mr. Leatherwood, and every one of you gentlemen will be asked on the floor of the House, when this bill gets there: How will this Government get back its money? You must be able to point out the means of return or recapture of the money that the Government invests.

And that return lies in the fact that there exists a great market for the power that will be developed as a by-product of the floodcontrol dam; and the Government can either sell the power, or get a royalty on the power that is sold, and in that way get revenue enough to return the entire cost of the project in 30 years. That will be shown to the satisfaction of this committee as the testimony goes on. I will not undertake to handle that, because I am not an expert on that subejct.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, if the Government should determine to put a dam at Black Canyon, but not so high as you desire; or if it should put another one up the river farther a series of damsand should determine to develop power at all of those dams upon a basis that would repay the Government and at the same time control the flood waters, would you have any objection to that?

Mr. SWING. Mr. Leatherwood, you and I have practiced law a good many years; and it is my custom to present my case to the jury; and when the jury returns its verdict, and it is the voice of the people, I bow to their wisdom; and I shall do that in this case. And in the meantime, I want to present what I deem to be the facts, in an unbiased way, for consideration by this committee and by Congress; and when they have spoken, I will bow to their decision in the

matter.

Mr. RAKER. You would not bow to it if you thought they were wrong, would you?

Mr. SWING. You bow when the jury brings in its verdict.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You proceed upon the other hypothesis also, that this work should be done so that the greatest good will result to the greatest number, do you?

Mr. SWING. Absolutely.

Now, as to what can be made of this as an asset in this country, where there is a great shortage of power, and where the shortage will continue to increase at compound interest at a rate of 20 per cent: At this dam site. at a height of 605 feet, there can be developed in excess of what was suggested to this committee at the former hearing. We have been too conservative in stating that it would produce 600,000 horsepower. The latest information, compiled by the Reclamation Service, show that it will be between 800,000 and 1,000,000 horsepower.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What area will be served by that?

Mr. SWING. Any area that desires to be served, within a radius of 500 miles. Your country, if it desires to have service from that dam, can have it; because a large part of Utah will be within the 500-mile circle; and if the developments from the genius of American inventors goes on, along the lines of perfection of a process of longdistance transmission, it will be only a period of a few years-and I believe it will be before this dam will be completed-when the radius of service will be 1,000 miles; because they have already shown, in laboratory tests, that they can send electric power up to 1,000,000 volts over a wire; and to-day in actual commercial work they are sending electricity a distance of 500 to 600 miles.

That 1,000,000 horsepower would represent the equivalent of 35.000.000 barrels of oil a year, according to an estimate which has been given me. So that here is, to use a figure of speech, a river of

oil running to waste, in a country where fuel and power are badly needed, and where oil ought to be conserved. And I think that of itself would be reason enough for undertaking this project.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now, let me ask you this question: The power would be valuable for that purpose, would it not?

Mr. SWING. Yes, sir; for all purposes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If it should develop that we have a possible 8,000,000,000 barrels of oil above the junction of the Green and Grand Rivers, would it be important to have a little power up there?

Mr. SWING. Yes, sir; believe me, when I say that I approach this subject of the Colorado River in no narrow, local or partisan manner. I hope to see the time come when it will be the proud boast of the American people that they have so developed this stream that every ounce of energy and every drop of water has been put to beneficial use for all the people from one end of the stream to the other.

Now, I want to come down to this point: That, having stored this immense amount of water in a country where water is immensely valuable, should we then turn it loose again? It seems to me that it follows as naturally as day follows night that, in an arid country, if the Government is called upon, as a protective proposition, to store this water, it would then be exceedingly unbusinesslike and unstatesmanlike to turn the water loose to run to waste again. But worse for us than running to waste, the water would flow down to Mexico and there be used on Mexican lands, and because of that fact I believe that no legislation can pass Congress that does not contain within itself some declaration of the intention on the part of our Government to put this water, which falls on American soil, to use on Amercian soil, and not let it run down to be used in Mexico. Because we are charged with the knowledge of the country and with the fact that it will not be permitted to run to waste but will be put to a beneficial use in Mexico. We are simply indirectly delivering it to the Mexican lands to be used by the people of that country in building a great agricultural empire there. It is not merely that they are going to develop their lands; but in putting it to a beneficial use, they are laying the foundation for a moral claim in a treaty with our Government for an adverse water right which would prevent us from using it in the future on the American side.

Mr. HAYDEN. Do you mean that such a declaration should be made in general terms, or specifically locating the water on the areas of land where it is to be applied?

Mr. SWING. Specifically, so far as we have projects where it is to be applied; generally, as to those which will have to be worked out in detail.

Mr. HAYDEN. Then, would you agree to an amendment to this bill to the effect that the United States reserves the right to use all the flood waters of the Colorado River stored within the United States to irrigate such lands as may hereafter be found possible of irrigation, and thereby serve notice upon the Mexicans that any use of the water that they might make, if it interfered with our subsequent use, would not be recognized by the American Government?

Mr. SWING. Yes; something of that kind. In one way or another that idea must be expressed in the bill.

Mr. RAKER. If you take that view of it-either one of you gentlemen-why put it "flood waters "?

Mr. HAYDEN. Because the minimum flow of the Colorado River is now divided equally between the lands within the United States and the lands within Mexico, so far as the diversion at the Imperial heading is concerned, by a contract between the Imperial irrigation district and the Mexican landowners. The lands in both countries have been irrigated under that contract, and it is recognized by both parties to it. The quantity of water, on the other hand, is very small; I doubt whether it is more than 1,500 second-feet to each country.

Mr. RAKER. What I am wondering is, if you are going to legislate, whether you are going to recognize a private contract between those people as to the division of this water and have the Government pay all the expenses of the erection of the dam and the maintenance of it.

Mr. HAYDEN. No. My thought is that if the United States Government, or any citizen of the United States, stores any water wholly within the United States-although there may not be any immediate opportunity to use it-we should specifically declare our intention to use it, and thereby estop Mexico, or any interests in Mexico, from any claim to the water, because they will be put upon notice that their use is only temporary and subject to our right to use the waters when we see fit.

Mr. SWING. Now, let me correct that. I do not want to seem to quibble over legal technicalities. There exists no contract, no agreement, and no obligation of any kind which requires the Imperial irrigation district to deliver half of the water to any Mexican lands. The physical layout of the country compels us to deliver all the water to Mexico and accept back what they can't use. The irrigation system was put into Mexico to get around a low range of sand hills which runs down between the Colorado River and the Imperial Valley and noses across into this corner of Mexico. The capitalists who first undertook the reclamation of Imperial Valley found themselves in the situation of having 60 miles of their main canal in Mexico; and they formed a Mexican corporation, because required by the Mexican Government, which refused to recognize an American corporation. for operating any irrigation system in Mexico. This Mexican company is a private Mexican corporation, which has a charter from the Mexican Government, and in that charter this Mexican corporation is authorized to divert from the river, or to receive water elsewhere diverted from the river, up to 10,000 second-feet of water, one half of which-so the Mexican Government tells the Mexican private corporation-must be used, on demand, in Mexico; the other half may be disposed of elsewhere.

You were too favorable to our farmers in the Imperial Valley. We have not any choice in the matter. The physical situation requires us to deliver the water across the boundary line into Mexico. When we do so deliver the water into Mexico we lose all legal and physical control over it. Thereafter, we get back such quantity of water as may not be used in Mexico, at the boundary line near Calexico, 60 miles west from the river.