the West. I have been over Mr. Swing's wonderful project in the Imperial Valley, and it is wonderful. Nothing can compete with it. But when I come back to the Northwest, and go through the little towns, Yakima and Wenatchee, and I see the farmers in overalls and shirt sleeves coming out to work, they are white men; because it is a white man's country. The summers are not too hot for white men to do their work.

And following right along that line, I want to file the Government statistics on illiteracy, issued in 1930, showing the rank of States. It places Iowa first; Washington and Oregon, second.

All that is because, as I tell you, this is a white man's country. It is a land where white men like to get out and do the manual work. Mr. SMITH. You are offering this testimony as an argument

Mr. GILL (interposing). To show that this is an outstanding project, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; but to show the possibilities of building up the northwestern country and making it possible to provide a market for the water power that will be developed as the years go on.

Mr. GILL. That is right.

Mr. SWING. I thought he was offering it to get the southern California citizens to move up there.

Mr. GILL. We will welcome you.

Mr. LOOFBOURow. I thought he was stealing California's thunder all the time.

Mr. GILL. Now, gentlemen, we out on the Pacific coast feel this way. We like to go to California in the wintertime. There is no place that equals it. But in the summer time we like to get up into the Green playgrounds of the Northwest.

Mr. CROSS. There are a whole lot of members of this committee from way down South.

Mr. GILL. We invite you out there; and if we get you out there, we think you will stay.

This Government record of B. E. Hayden says further:

The Columbia Basin project within its boundaries contains recreational advantages provided by its citizens, such as churches, movie houses, and swimming pools; but within a day's drive in any direction the mountains may be reached, where hunting and fishing, together with all the pleasures of camp life, may be enjoyed.

In one day, from the heart of this project into the Rockies, the Bitter Roots, the Selkirks, and the Cascades, where unexcelled big game hunting and trout and salmon fishing may be had. [Continues reading:]

For those who prefer to spend their vacation in the city or at the seaside, excellent highways are provided to Seattle, Portland, and the coast. One day's time enables one to reach the most distant of these points.

Mr. GILL. I want to tell you about the size of the Columbia River. It drains 259,000 square miles of territory. This watershed extends from Glacier and Yellowstone Parks to the Pacific and from the Fraser River on the north to the Klamath on the south. At The Dalles, away down below, on the river, the Columbia River has a run-off equal to that of the St. Lawrence or the Danube. At Pasco, before it receives the waters of the Snake River, it is larger than the Fraser, the Missouri or the Nile. At Trail,

way up in British Columbia, it carries more water than the Yukon, and the Clark Fork alone discharges more water into the Columbia-probably 800 miles from the mouth-than the Colorado River carries at the site of the great Hoover Dam.

A member of this committee asked what could be raised on this project. The soil and climate are so similar to Yakima-the principal difference being that the Columbia Basin has a two weeks longer growing season-that a report from the superintendent of the Yakima project to Doctor Mead, giving the carload shipments from Yakima for the year 1928, would, I think, be a good answer. This is the list of carload shipments from Yakima for 1928:

A grand total of 22,132 cars out of the Yakima Valley in the year 1928; and not one carload of wheat or corn.

Mr. SWING. Any cotton?

Mr. GILL. No cotton, Mr. Swing.

Mr. HILL. The nights are too cold for cotton.

Mr. GILL. There is a feeling that irrigation projects and the products of irrigation projects compete with the Middle West. I am not going to tire you with statistics, but I will put them in the record. I will just give you a record of the Bureau of Reclamation for the production of 1929 and 1930, giving the entire production of competitive crops on irrigation projects as against total crops.

I will mention wheat.

Wheat, on all of the irrigation projects, in 1929 was 0.48 per cent— a little over four-tenths of 1 per cent of the total crop of the United States.

Corn was 0.5 per cent in 1929.

Cotton, 1.2 per cent in 1929.

And the rest of the items will be put in the record.

(The statement by Judge P. W. Dent, Assistant Commissioner of Reclamation, is as follows:)

SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF WESTERN FEDERAL IRRIGATION

(By Porter W. Dent, Assistant Commissioner Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior)

OVERPRODUCTION NOT INCREASED BY FEDERAL RECLAMATION

The assertion is often made that the crops grown upon Federal irrigation projects add to the surplus of agricultural products and thus aggravate the problem of overproduction. It is submitted that crops grown upon Federal irrigation projects have no appreciable effect on the regulation of prices generally for the following reasons:

First. The total cropped area on Federal reclamation projects constitutes only about four-tenths of 1 per cent of the total area in cultivation in the United States. The value of crops produced on such projects is only about 1 per cent of the total value of agricultural products in the United States.

Second. The crops so produced are of particular or specialized kinds, of which for the most part no surplus exists, or they are seasonal in character, and are not competitive with those crops grown elsewhere. A large portion of the areas of these projects is given over to the production of alfalfa and other forage crops consumed locally. These crops comprise 31 per cent of the cropped area of the Federal projects, and constitute 18 per cent of the total crop value, but they amount to only somewhat less than 4 per cent of the total national production. Alfalfa, because of its bulk and of the freight rates applicable, can not be shipped long distances. It is accordingly consumed largely on the farms where raised or in the locality, in the feeding of livestock and in other ways. Alfalfa and other forage crops are necessary to support the ranges tributary to the projects. The range country and the projects are complementary each to the other and both are indispensable to the development and welfare of the West.

Five and one-tenth per cent of the project areas are planted to sugar beets. The Western States produce the greater part of the total tonnage of this crop. Large quantities of sugar are imported annually. Hence it can not be said either that there is an overproduction of sugar beets in the United States or that this product of the Federal projects operates to the prejudice of the humid sections.

Wheat is the crop of which an overproduction is perhaps more accentuated than any other. Of this commodity Federal projects produced in 1919 only 3,910,000 bushels, just under one-half of 1 per cent of the total. The United States is a wheat-exporting country, and normally it must be assumed that the price of this product is taxed by the word supply and demand. Certainly no one can seriously contend that the quantity of wheat grown on Government projects could have any material effect on the agricultural situation. It is likely that there will always be some wheat grown on the projects, largely to supply local markets. But the constant trend is toward lesser production. In 1930 the production dropped to 3,614,000 bushels. Of this amount 75 per cent is produced on projects located west of the Rocky Mountains. The Montana projects produce almost entirely hard spring wheat, for which there is a steady demand and which sells at a premium based on the protein content. The production of barley and oats shows a slight increase on the projects, partly in substitution for wheat. These crops, which constitute less than 1 per cent of the total production, are fed largely to livestock on the farm and do not come into competition with production in the humid sections. The basic industry of Federal projects is the production of forage crops to be fed to livestock.

Cotton is produced only on those projects situate in the Southwest. These projects are the Carlsbad in New Mexico, the Rio Grande in Texas and New Mexico, and the Yuma and Salt River projects in Arizona. It is only in recent years that this staple has been produced on the Rio Grande. It is quite likely that this project will revert to the raising of alfalfa and diversified crops after the manner of the former practice. The cotton raised on these projects is of the long and medium staple variety. Accordingly they do not come into sharp competition with the short-staple production, of which the surplus or overproduction is the most acute.

Vegetables produced on the southwestern projects, such as winter lettuce, cabbage, cantaloupes, strawberries, and other small fruits, reach the early markets and furnish a very desirable variety of food at a price within the reach of all. They are in general not competitive in character, but they do fulfill a real demand which could not be supplied from other sources at prices the average consumer can afford to pay.

The foregoing is a general statement merely concerning the chief crops produced. For the information of those who may desire to have a more complete statement the following tabulation is appended showing the agricultural production on Federal reclamation projects as compared with the entire production for the United States for 1929 and 1930:

125965-32-15

Mr. GILL. I will not read, but I want to file for the record resolutions by the Washington State Grange and other granges favoring this project.

Mr. SWING. What is the date of that?

Mr. GILL. June 1 to 5, 1931.

Mr. SWING. I am glad to see that they have gotten daylight.
Mr. GILL. Yes.

I want to quote just one more thing about this soil report of Mr. Hayden to which I referred. They sent out questionnaires to all owners of land within the entire project asking many questions. One was, "Are you in favor of irrigation of the Columbia Basin project?" Of the replies received, 91 per cent were "yes"; 4 per cent were "no"; unanswered, 5 per cent. That shows that the farmers of that country are pressing for this project.

Gentlemen, that concludes my testimony, and I thank you very much for your attention.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your attendance and your state

ment.

0.8

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

(The matter submitted by Mr. McGill is here printed in full as

follows:)

1. Iowa.

2. Oregon

ILLITERACY STATISTICS FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1930

3. Washington_

4. Idaho

5. Kansas_.

6. Nebraska____

Rank of States, 1930-percentage of illiteracy

The CHAIRMAN. Does this conclude the hearing, gentlemen? Mr. HILL. This concludes our testimony. If I may make a brief statement, I should like to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you.

Mr. HILL. I would like to call to the attention of the committee again that a redraft of this bill was submitted by the Secretary of the Interior in his report to the committee on the bill. It follows generally, of course, the line of the original bill, but there were a number of changes, and it was more convenient simply to make a redraft than to write in the suggested amendments in the original bill; and I ask that the committee, when it goes into executive session to consider the bill, consider the redraft with the view of offering it as a committee amendment to the original bill, striking out all after the enacting clause of the original bill and substituting this for it.

I just want to call that to your attention once more.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you have no objection to that suggestion?

Mr. HILL. We are for it.

Mr. SWING. You request the committee to report the bill as suggested by the department?

Mr. HILL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, I will call you again to consider this matter.