Page images
PDF
EPUB

your theories or discredit your statements at all; I hope you don't so understand me.

Mr FRISBIE. No.

Senator Phipps. But my mind is working a little on these possibilities in this great problem, and if I should by some accident manage to point out some feature that has not been given full consideration by you engineers on the ground, why, I would feel very gratified.

The_CHAIRMAN. Have you concluded your statement?
Mr FRISBIE. No, I have not.

Senator Ashurst. Before you proceed, I would just like to clear away the brush and the underbrush a minute. Isn't the situation is this: Under the present situation when you give a thirsty acre in the United States a drink of water you have got to give a like thirsty acre a drink of water in Mexico?

Mr. FRISBIE. Absolutely.

Senator ASHURST. Before you get any water in the American canal you have got to pass it through a Mexican premise?

Mr. FRISBIE. Absolutely, and that is the big reason for the AllAmerican Canal. Some of the men representing a small minority in this valley claim that there is no good reason for the All-American Canal. This All-American Canal would absolutely relieve the situation that now exists. It would not only guarantee the waters to these American lands in California, but be a benefit to the State of Arizona. I think that covers everything that I wanted to cover in my statement.

Tle CHAIRMAN. Any question? Thank you, Mr. Frisbie. Mr. T. R. Goodwin.

STATEMENT OF T. R. GOODWIN, ENGINEER OF THE STATE

HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goodwin, for the record, will you state your residence ?

Mr. Goodwin. My residence is in Winterhaven, Calif., Imperial County.

The CHAIRMAN. What experience have you had as an engineer? Mr. Goodwin. In the West, with the Reclamation Service from 1915 until 1920, and in this basin ever since.

The CHAIRMAN. What phase of this important subject do you desire to discuss?

Mr. Goodwin. I was asked to present our observations on the building of the new State highway through the California sand dunes-the Yuma sand dunes.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that take practically the same course as this contemplated canal would take?

Mr. Goodwin. Very close.
The CHAIRMAN. It encountered the same difficulties and obstacles?
Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And you met practically the same problems?

Mr. Goodwin. Practically the same. The only difference is the roadway is built on an embankment and the canal is not.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the difference in the elevation of the flood canal and the surface of the road?

Mr. GOODWIN. Well, we follow the contour more or less with the road, and the canal has to go at a constantly reducing grade.

The CHAIRMAN. Very weli, just make your statement. Mr. Goodwin. The highway commission, as has already been publicly announced, is about ready to let contracts to construct a road through these sand hills. It has long been considered an impossibility for the construction through that soil. And the observations were entrusted to me leading up to the building of the road. I spent possibly two years, and of that two years at least 90 days in the entire study of the proposition in the sand hills themselves, and have covered the sand hills through the route of the All-American Canal all the way for a matter of six miles north and south and 20 miles east and west. And we have come back to the same route as the All-American Canal every time, parctically the same route. The fact seems to be overlooked largely in considering the building through there that we are building on stable ground that is covered with drifts. Those drifts, as far as the drifts themselves are concerned, if they are of any size, I mean any drifts from 40 to 250 feet, as some of them are don't move to any extent. The only motion that they have is a slight drift, a spilling over the top and on to the lee side of the hill, and it is the opinion of the road engineers that as far as our problems are concerned that can be stopped by an oiling of the windward slopes.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be north and northwest slopes?
Mr. GOODWIN. North and northwest slopes.
Senator DILL. How often?

Mr. Goodwin. Why, if you used a light oil the chances are that one or two oilings would last you for maybe two or three years. It is a question of penetration; you have got to get a penetration of from 4 to 6 inches so that any local disturbance in the sand won't stir the dry sand out from underneath.

The CHAIRMAN. What distance would you oil ?

Mr. Goodwin. We figure on oiling it on the slope maybe a matter of 10 feet to the road bed. Just to keep the drift from overwhelming the roadbed.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you an estimate of the cost of oiling?

Mr. Goodwin. We have a figure of $55,000 for oiling our 6 miles of embankment there. That is only approximate.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that for one oiling?
Mr. Goodwin. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And you would want to oil every two years?

Mr. Goodwin. I would think that after two oilings the first year it would require very little oiling after you have got that penetration.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't there be a great deal more oiling required than there would in the highway?

Mr. GOODWIN. I don't think it would require as much. One proposition that is largely overlooked is the small amount of wind hours that actually move the sand out there. The Reclamation Service in Yuma have a complete record of wind hours, and it is my recollection that the wind that does the most damage is the wind from 13 to 20 miles an hour from the north and west quarters and over a very small percentage of the year; in March and April are the greatest number of them; but when you come to consider and actually figure down the number of wind hours from the record in Yuma it is very, very small compared to the number of wind hours in the year. We have a strip of 8 feet of planks that we have maintained. This particular strip we have maintained since 1914. Previous to that there was another strip, from 1911. Four teams over the majority of the year keep that track open on that road. The actual amount of drifting sand on to that road is very, very much smaller than people have any idea of.

Senator Johnson: Did I understand you to say you were in the Reclamation Service at one time, Mr. Goodwin?

Mr. Goodwin. I was in the Yuma office, in the engineering forces there.

Senator Johnson. How long, please?
Mr. Goodwin. From 1915 until just previous to 1920.

Senator JOHNSON. And your studies in this particular territory have been made recently, have they not?

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir; when I was with the reclamation I was only interested in there in Yuma. My studies in it have come since I was interested in road matters. I live within very few miles of the sand hills, and probably spend more time there than any man living.

Senator JOHNSON. In your opinion the building of the All-American Canal in a perfectly feasible proposition?

Mr. Goodwin. It is merely a question of detail.

Senator PHIPPs. Have you made an estimate of the cost of the proposed highway through that section?

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir.
Senator PHIPPS. What would it run?
Mr. GOODWIN. $50,000, 20 feet wide.
Senator PHIPPS. That would be complete?
Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir.

Senator PHIPPs. Does that $50,000 include the first oiling or any part of the oiling?

Mr. GOODWIN. Just the first oiling.

Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Goodwin, there seems to be some discrepancy in the statements made to the committee as to the distance through this territory known as the sand hills. What would be your estimate of the distance traversed by this canal that would properly be called sand hill territory?

Mr. Goodwin. Not over 5 miles; you can probably lessen that. You would have about 2 miles of low sand hills on the north and east of the Government gap that contain a great amount of small drifting dunes, but in a project the size of the All-American Canal they wouldn't be as dangerous to you as they would to a highway. On this side, on the south and west side of the so-called Government gap you have about 2 miles of larger hills, possibly 22 miles and if your canal location, center line, was somewhere near the center line of the drift your menace would be materially lessened. It is when you cross at approximately 90 degrees or at right angles to the drift of the sand where the greatest menace comes.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Goodwin.

STATEMENT OF D. R. CRAWFORD, FARMER

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crawford, what is your name and occupation?

Mr. CRAWFORD. D. R. Crawford, farmer.
The CHAIRMAN. In the Imperial Valley?
Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. What acreage do you farm?
Mr. CRAWFORD. I would have to count up-quite a large acreage.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you irrigate?
Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir; have done so since 1901.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Mr. Crawford, the committee would like to hear your statement.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Well, we came here in 1900 and made our filing. In 1901 and 1902-the office was then out at Blue Lake; Blue Lake was about 160 acres of a lake at that time before the Colorado River broke in. And since that time I have been a strong advocate for the All-American Canal.

Senator Dill. Do you have land under the present Mexican ditch?

Mr. CRAWFORD. We are all under the Mexican ditch on the American side.

Senator Dill. You are under that ditch?
Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, everybody is here.

Senator Dill. You think your land would be benefited to the extent of $40 an acre ?

Mr. CRAWFORD. By being under the Mexican ditch?
Senator DILL. No, under the All-American Canal ?

Mr. CRAWFORD. No question about it. As I say, since 1901, when I first discovered the situation that we were in here in the Imperial Valley: I found out that interests across the line were determined to keep the water on the Mexican side, because they owned that land and they wanted the water over there. In fact, when we came down here they offered us 15,000 acres of land-one body right down below Calexico, in one body, fine land-for $15 an acre, and that included water; and we paid for the first five years; we only paid 5 per cent interest on that, which was $75 an acre; they put the water to our lands; we had free water, and then the last 15 years we paid a dollar an acre for that land we had free water; $15 an acre for that land, and they guaranteed us free water. That opened my eyes, what the people on the American side of the line had to do. Gentlemen, it simply means this, that if we have to take our water through Mexico we are simply peons to those Mexican interests, and that is all we are, we Americans on this side.

Senator Dill. The reason I asked you this, Mr. Crawford: We had representatives this morning who claimed they should not be forced to pay the added cost on the land because they would not get added benefits; and you being a landowner and willing to pay the added burden of expense, I wanted to get your viewpoint and your reason.

Mr. CRAWFORD. There isn't any question about that. If we have to take water through Mexican interests our water rights are not worth that.

Senator DILL. Will it increase the value of your land?

Mr. CRAWFORD. It will increase the value of our land 200 per cent. Land to-day right around El Centro, good land, is going begging at a hundred dollars an acre.

Senator Dill. Why?

Mr. CRAWFORD. Simply because you haven't got a water right that you can call your own; you are depending on a foreign Government, and you know the Mexican Government-whenever they want water they take it.

Senator DILL. Why, then, are they able to come in here and say that the owners of 270,000 acres are opposed to this?

Mr. CRAWFORD. They came to me—we represent, I suppose, about 3,000 acres—and they came to me and told me that they were in favor of the All-American Canal and the Boulder Dam. I says, “If you are, I will sign your petition.” After I signed the petition I found that they had-well, no matter what they did I demanded it be taken off, and I guess they did, I don't know, I have been told to-day that they haven't taken it off yet, but I rather think they better if they haven't no Now, that is how they got my name on there.

Senator Dill. Well, do you mean, then, that the list that is to be submitted to the committee as being the list of owners of 270,000 acres of land was secured as yours was secured?

Mr. CRAWFORD. I don't know; that is the way they secured mine, and I think they unsecured it; I don't know, though; I am going to find out. Senator JOHNSON. You see, Senator Dill, when the document is

, presented it never mentions the All-American Canal, to which they now say they are opposed. I will demonstrate that to you as we proceed.

Senator DILL. My point was that it is an untrue representation?

Senator Johnson. With this gentleman it was, as you suggest, untrue; with many others likewise, as will be demonstrated to you before we conclude.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you experienced a shortage of water for the purpose of irrigation?

Mr. CRAWFORD. Why, last year one of my renters, W. S. Harris, had in 240 acres; he had it in corn and cotton, and a fine crop of corn he had, but the water shortage came and instead of having about a ton and a half or so to the acre he didn't have much over half a ton, simply because he couldn't get water.

The CHAIRMAN. I am referring to your own experience.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Well, that is my own experience.
The CHAIRMAN. You said your neighbor?
Mr. CRAWFORD. No, he was my farmer, my renter.

Senator Phipps. Do we understand that your land would figure up about 3,000 acres in all?

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.
Senator PHIPPS. That you work or have tenants work for you?
Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Crawford, could you inform the committee reliably as to the proportionate number of actual landholders in the Imperial Valley who are receiving water from the present Imperial irrigation district who would be willing to assume the additional expense in order to have the water from the All-American Canal? Do

« PreviousContinue »