plied for the Delta-Mendota pumps. There is quite a mileage which affects the situation. Mr. D'EWART. The rate to an irrigation project is about half of what it would be to a private project for public irrigation? Mr. ABEL. No. Mr. D'EWART. You gave us 212 and 4. Mr. ABEL. Two and one-half mills is the arbitrary figure assumed, as I understand it, by the Bureau of Reclamation, in estimating the cost of pumping water at the Delta-Mendota Canal. Mr. D'EWART. I asked what the cost of power would be. Mr. ABEL. That is a purely arbitrary figure. Mr. D'EWART. You do not know what it is? Mr. ABEL. I do not know what the basis is, but 22 mills is the estimated cost to be paid for power at that location. Mr. D'EWART. That is all. Mr. ROCKWELL. Mr. Sanborn? Mr. ROCKWELL. Mr. Dawson? Mr. DAWSON. No questions. Mr. ROCKWELL. If I might be a little facetious, Mr. Abel, you have been a very able witness on behalf of California. . Mr. ABEL. Mr. Chairman, I blame it all on the cause which I rep resent. Mr. ROCKWELL. I think you have a very good cause. May I ask: You are working with the men on an amendment to the bill that will cover the point you have in mind? Mr. ABEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The amendments which I have suggested to date are to be found in exhibits B and C, attached to my statement, which I would like to have included in the record, but in the pursuit of the democratic process it may be I will have to yield somewhere along the line on these points. Mr. ROCKWELL. Yes. I wish you would. The exhibits will be made a part of the record. (The exhibits are as follows:) EXHIBIT B PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SECTION 9 (D) OF RECLAMATION PROJECT ACT 9 (d). The Secretary is authorized and, when any of the lands to be irrigated are included within the boundaries of any organization, is directed with respect to all such lands to enter into repayment contracts either with water users or their organizations, if such exist, for the furnishing of water for irrigation. After the expiration of any development period fixed for any new project, new division of a project, or supplemental works on a project, no water may be delivered to any lands within such project, or new division of a project, until repayment contracts have been executed covering all lands to be benefited. Such contracts may be with water users or water users' organizations legally empowered to perform and insure the performance of the contractual obligations assumed and shall provide for— 1. Annual repayments over a period not exceeding forty years, exclusive of any development period authorized by law, so calculated as to return to the United States, without interest, the portion of the cost of construction of the project allocated by Congress to its irrigation phases. 2. Sated separately, annual payments to cover a proportionate share of the operating and maintenance costs applicable to the project. 3. The quantities and classes of water to be delivered and the times and places agreed upon for such deliveries. 4. The irrigable lands to which the water rights assigned under any such contract become appurtenant. 5. The time at which and the portion of the project facilities which will be turned over for operation and maintenance to the contracting organization. 6. Any other provisions specifically authorized by law. No water user or water users' association shall be required to assume any obligations other than those specifically provided for by law. The Secretary shall have no authority under any provisions of law to deliver any water appropriated for the irrigation of project lands to any areas outside the project boundaries except after all current irrigation requirements of lands within the project boundaries have been satisfied. EXHIBIT C PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SECTION 9 (E) OF RECLAMATION PROJECT ACT SEC. 9 (e). During the development period of a project and not otherwise, the Secretary may enter into interim contracts to furnish water for irrigation purposes. Each such contract shall provide for 1. Annual payments for the delivery of water which will return to the United States without interest an appropriate share of that part of the cost of construction of the project allocated by the Congress to irrigation within a period of not to exceed forty years, exclusive of any development period fixed by law. 2. Stated separately, payments which will cover an appropriate share of the annual operation and maintenance cost of the project. 3. The quantities and classes of water delivered and the times and places agreed upon for such deliveries. 4. Any other obligations specifically authorized by law. Contracting organizations shall not be required to assume any obligations other than those specifically provided for herein. The Secretary shall have no authority under any provision of law to deliver any water appropriated for the irrigation of project lands to any areas outside the project boundaries except at such times and in such quantities as the water cannot be used within the project area. Mr. ROCKWELL. We will see if we cannot work out something on this. Mr. ABEL. Yes. Mr. ROCKWELL. If there is nothing more, we will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Thereupon, at 4:55 p. m., an adjournment was taken until 10 a. m., Friday, March 21, 1947.) TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION PROJECT ACT OF 1939 FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1947 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the committee room of the House Committee on Public Lands, the Honorable Robert F. Rockwell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. ROCKWELL. Gentlemen, the committee will please come to order. We shall continue the hearings on H. R. 1886 and H. R. 1977. The Honorable Homer D. Angell, from the State of Oregon, has requested permission to make a statement at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. HOMER D. ANGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Chairman, I should like to be heard for just a moment on the question of the right of people in the Northwest to have a hearing at a later date. My district is the Third Oregon District, which is the Bonneville district, and the Columbia River is on the boundary line of the district. I have had a great many telegrams from various people in that area-the whole Northwest, Oregon and Washington-who are with different organizations such as the Grange, power people, irrigation, reclamation, who want to be heard on this problem before you close it. It is, as Mr. Welch, the chairman, has said, one of the most important questions that we face in the West, the proper and full utilization of water. The Columbia River is the second largest river in the United States, and the power development and the use of the water for reclamation and irrigation, as well as navigation, is our major issue. These men feel that the legislation which you are considering will vitally concern them in the procedures that have been in force there for a number of years, upon which their whole economy is now based. Personally, I do not believe that the committee would want to close the hearings without giving those people an opportunity to be heard. I realize that notice was given to some that these hearings were going to be held, but legislation that may appear clear to the Congress here is difficult for people 3,000 miles away to know just what is taking place. Some of these bills have been pending ever since I have been here 8 years. My people back home do not know the effort being made to bring such bills out. Mr. MILLER. Is there any reason why they could not be heard next Wednesday? Mr. ANGELL. They would like 10 days. There is a great number of different organizations, reputable organizations, that are insisting that they be given at least 10 days in which to appear and make their presentation. Mr. MILLER. They have been given 3 weeks, I understand. Mr. ANGELL. Some may have been notified. There is no way of knowing whether all are notified or not. Mr. MILLER. I think I can see the power lobby trying to stop these hearings. I am inclined to think we ought to go ahead with these hearings; if they want to be heard, fine; if they do not, send a statement. That is the same tactics we have used in this committee ever since I have been on it. Mr. ANGELL. Sometimes it might be better to kill legislation than to kill industry, kill the whole economy of a district. I think no committee has the right to do that, to deny people the opportunity to be heard on legislation. I think the suggestion made by Chairman Welch is an ideal one, that the committee have hearings on the coast in the Columbia River area and the California area, so that they may learn first-hand some of these problems. It is one of the biggest problems that confronts us. You cannot act upon it and take snap judgment. It involves our whole way of living out there on the coast. Mr. LEMKE. Mr. Angell, may I ask you this question. Of course, as to these witnesses, it requires some stirring up and propaganda, perhaps, on both sides. I think we ought to hear both sides of the question. I do not know who the witnesses are. Suppose they do come in here, can we divide them up so that they can have spokesmen for the group? Mr. ANGELL. I think so. If you fix the time, they will govern themselves accordingly and make their presentation, but I do feel they ought to have an opportunity to be heard. I am a Member of the Congress, my office is just three or four doors down the hall. I do not know what you are doing, I did not know you were going to take this up. It vitally affects my district. Mr. CARROLL. Has anybody ever notified these people? Mr. ANGELL. I have never heard of it. These things percolate very slowly. You do not know whether there is a real effort to put legislation over or not. For example, the Hawaiian legislation, which has been pending for 10 or 15 years. We have never been able to make any headway on it. Now, all of a sudden, in 3 weeks we put it through the committee. It is a grand bill; I am glad it is through. We can never tell when legislation is going to be brought up and acted upon. That is why, with so much expense involved by being 3,000 miles away, these people cannot run up to Washington every day on every bill that concerns them. They come when they think it is vitally necessary, when legislation is being put across that will affect them adversely. Then they want to be heard. Mr. POULSON. Mr. Angell, do you know how these parties heard about this legislation? Mr. ANGELL. Probably through the newspapers, the AP and UP. It is not from the notices sent out by this committee. You do not know who they are. Mr. D'EWART. Did you say the information that this particular legislation was going to affect them adversely? Mr. ANGELL. They are wise enough to know that. Mr. POULSON. If you feel that way, should you not be presenting the information here before this committee? Mr. ANGELL. I will ask an opportunity to be heard on it later, yes. Mr. MURDOCK. I do not want to interrupt, Congressman Angell, but if you had finished, for a moment? Mr. ANGELL. I have finished. Mr. MURDOCK. I would like to say a word on this. As chairman of this committee during the past 2 years, I do know the effectiveness of delaying tactics to kill legislation. I do not want to see needed legislation killed by drawing things out too much. I have a sympathetic feeling toward the statement made by our chairman. However, I like the statement made by Chairman Welch that we can conserve time and permit some of these people to be heard who would not otherwise be heard by sending a small subcommittee out to the west coast. During the past two or three years, I have visited the great projects of the West, so that I feel that I am 90 percent informed, but we have so many new men on both sides of this committee that ought to have the opportunity to study this thing on the ground. I agree with Congressman Angell that this matter is of tremendous significance to the whole West. Mr. ANGELL. To both sides, both those in favor and those who are against it. It is of immense importance to both sides of the question. Mr. MURDOCK. I do hope that we can give the fullest possible hearings. Mr. D'EWART. May I ask a question? Mr. ROCKWELL. Yes. Mr. D'EWART. Perhaps Mr. Warne can answer it for me. What does this legislation apply to? Does it apply to all those projects in the Missouri Basin that have been presently authorized under H. R. 191? Does it apply to Columbia Basin, Bonneville, that have already been built, does it apply to Central Valley projects that have been authoriz.1, or does it apply only to projects that have not yet been authorized? Mr. WARNE. The bill applies both to the existing projects, those authorized, and the ones that may in the future be authorized. It provides for a rewriting of power contracts as existing contracts terminate. Mr. D'EWART. Yes, but it does not apply to any contracts that are in existence on authorized projects to date, does it? Mr. WARNE. Yes, it does. Mr. D'EWART. To those in 191 that have been authorized? Mr. WARNE. I believe it does, Mr. D'Ewart, that is our interpretation of it. As soon as any one of those contracts comes up for renewal or extension; in the Missouri Basin, there are no contracts, so it applies to all of them. |