that she wants and everything that she asks for at the expense of the other States, and as long as that condition prevails she will not agree. I think that once she is given to understand that the passage of the Swing-Johnson bill or any other legislation for the development of the Colorado River rests upon the ratification of the sevenState compact by seven States, there will not be 24 hours lost until California and Arizona are actively engaged in writing a compact that will be ratified by those States. That is my personal opinion.

Mr. SWING. And the primary object in the fight now is to defeat the Swing-Johnson bill here so that you can get better terms out of California later on?

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. No; the primary object of this opposition here is that our objection may be registered to California pressing this legislation, maintaining a lobby here to pass it while we were in actual conference trying to arrive at some sort of an understanding between the States. All we are asking is that you let this legislation lay on the table; tell California to get together with Arizona and make a compact ratified by seven States and bring it here, and that your legislation will then receive consideration. Holding this matter in abeyance does not mean its defeat.

Mr. SWING. It means that the committee or Congress would say to California, "you have got to surrender to Arizona's demands whether you think they are exorbitant, extortionate or not."

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. Would that be any more outrageous than for the Congress of the United States to accept and fasten upon Arizona the terms of the Santa Fe compact in spite of our objections?

Mr. SWING. The two States are not in identical position so as to be able to negotiate freely and on terms of equity. You can wait 10 years without being hurt; Imperial Valley and part of your country in Yuma must have relief and must have it at the earliest possible date, and you know that, and that is the pressure, that is the compulsion, that is the duress that you expect will operate on California and make her give up, whatever your demands may be, if you can kill any hope that Congress will aid in saving the lives and property

of these American citizens.

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. You say that part of State is threatened by floods? When you say that, we think you are overemphasizing the menace. You have a telegram there from one of our communities that says they need flood protection. If they need that flood protection, we are jeopardizing our own citizens, according to your own argument, by asking delay on this legislation. The two States, according to your own argument, have an identity of interest.

Mr. SWING. No; the flood menace, as you have stated, is much greater on the Imperial Valley, because it is 250 feet below sea level, than it is on Yuma Valley, which is above sea level, and you are hoping and you are thinking and counting on California giving up on account of the greater menace to California.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Swing, California could be given flood control for a little more than one-tenth the cost involved in the construction of the Bowlder Canyon project, and could get it infinitely quicker. The CHAIRMAN. Why do you seem to feel so sure that Congress would pass an appropriation bill of $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 for flood control on the Colorado River?

Mr. DOUGLAS. If the need is as urgent as it is claimed to be, Congress will recognize its responsibility in protecting the property of its citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is purely a surmise.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Just as this is a surmise; and in addition, Mr. Chairman, to the difference in length of time of construction of the two projects, this bill is going to have to go through the courts for a good many years in all probability before any construction work is begun. So if flood control is the real impelling motive behind it, I am afraid they have taken the longest way home.

Mr. DOUGLAS. In any compact there should be an allocation of water always. The only stipulation that should be attached to a flood-control project-flood-control project only-is that it should not carry with it any protection of water rights to water in addition to rights already in existence.

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. We have been under this pressure of Congress for five or six years and we believe it would be not any more than fair to have the pressure the other way.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe you people have been under pressure any worse than this committee. We have been working on this for five or six years and we are reaching a stage at least I amwhere we are going to get some sort of action. We are going ahead or backward, one or the other, pretty soon, I think.

Mr. MCCLUSKEY. I would like to file the Jakobsen for the information of the committee. It indicates how this flood control can be had for $19,000,000 and the Government eventually get all its money repaid to it, and if the committee wants to give it wider circulation, so that all the members may get it and others who are interested-it is rather brief as far as its detail is concerned-I would suggest that it be inserted in the record.

Mr. SWING. I suggest that it be filed with other offers that will be presented to the committee, and the committee then determine how much of it it wants to present to Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. The document will be filed and considered later. Mr. MCCLUSKEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I have gone at this thing rather haphazard. I did not follow the line of argument that I had planned, but I want to thank you members of the committee for the attention you have given me.

The CHAIRMAN. We will meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock to consider an Oregon proposition.

(Whereupon, at 5.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Tuesday, January 10, 1928.)

X

LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION 15. Congress. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEVENTIETH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H. R. 5773

By MR. SWING

A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOWER
COLORADO RIVER BASIN

PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOWER

COLORADO RIVER BASIN

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION,

Wednesday, January 11, 1928.

The committee this day met, Hon. Addison T. Smith (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order and resume consideration of H. R. 5773, which is the bill to provide for the construction of works for the protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin, for the approval of the Colorado River compact, and for other purposes.

At the beginning of these hearings we attempted to divide the time between the proponents and the opponents of this bill. The proponents have now used 3 hours and 38 minutes and the opponents of the bill have used 7 hours and 37 minutes.

This morning Mr. Swing, who is author of H. R. 5773, will be accorded 30 minutes and he will be followed by the Hon. George H. Dern, Governor of the State of Utah, who is here to address the committee on this legislation, as well as others who desire to be heard.

For the present we will hear Mr. Swing.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, to get this matter straight in the record, let me say that it was decided at the beginning of the hearings that there should be a 50-50 split of time between the proponents and the opponents of the pending measure, and that the opponents of the measure on the committee should have control of their time. There are now about to appear before the committee witnesses, witnesses that I shall be very glad to hear, who come not at the request of the opponents of the bill, but at the request of the committee itself.

The CHAIRMAN. No; I beg your pardon.

Mr. DOUGLAS. These witnesses to whom I have referred are not coming at the request of the opponents of the bill, but at the request of the chairman or at their own request. Certainly they do not come here at the request of the opponents of the bill. If the opponents of the bill are to have the right to control the time allotted to them, then they should have the right to control the witnesses who may appear before the committee in opposition to the bill. Otherwise, they would have no control of time. I therefore suggest that since the opponents of the bill have no control over the amount of time which will be taken up by these witnesses that the time consumed by the witnesses be charged against neither side. These witnesses shall appear as representatives of a conciliatory