which were navigable in fact when Utah was admitted to the Union as a State, and explaining and interpreting paragraph (a) of article 4 of the Colorado River compact as set forth in chapter 5 of the laws of Utah, 1927, the effect of which we claim is a modification to some extent, at least, of the original Colorado River seven-State compact.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, these articles will be inserted in the appendix.

Mr. SWING. I have agreed with Mr. Morrow to yield time to Mr. Wilson, who represents the State of New Mexico as a Colorado River commissioner. I am not calling Mr. Wilson. He is not my witness, but I am glad that I have the time so that I can extend to him and Mr. Morrow this courtesy.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS C. WILSON, SANTA FE, N. MEX.

Mr. WILSON. My name is Francis C. Wilson, Santa Fe, N. Mex. I have been in Santa Fe for 21 years, practicing law there. At the present time, by virtue of appointment by Governor Dillon, I am representing him personally in the matter of our interstate rivers, and in that capacity I am here.

It was not my intention when I came here to participate in the discussions before this committee, for the reason that I felt that the upper-basin States might do better to watch what went on here and listen to Arizona and California and Nevada, the lower-basin States, in this connection, feeling that in our capacity as mediators it would be far better for us not to mingle at this time, at least, and to only make ourselves heard in the event we felt that there would be anything in the Swing-Johnson bill which would be dangerous to our interests. However, in the light of the paper read yesterday by Governor Dern, I feel it important, if not essential, at this time that New Mexico should state its position in connection with several of the propositions advanced by him.

First, it may not be out of place for me to state very briefly the interest of New Mexico in the Colorado River, because, if my memory serves me correctly, that interest has not been spread at large upon the records of the various proceedings before the committees in this matter in previous years, and more recent investigation of those interests have developed something which at this time I would like to see in the record. New Mexico's interest consists primarily in the San Juan River, which has a mean annual flow at Shiprock, which is in the northwest corner of New Mexico, of nearly 3,000,000 acrefeet, which is twice the mean annual flow of the Rio Grande at Buckman, 20 miles north of Santa Fe, and quite a little greater than the total capacity of the Elephant Butte Dam. This water resource is available in New Mexico to the extent that, according to a very recent report made by our State engineer, at least 550,000 acres can be feasibly irrigated by gravity with storage, and 700,000 acre-feet, 150,000 extra, by a pump lift of 150 feet.

There are some power potentialities in the Gila River which may prove valuable to the State. At the present time we have probably all or nearly all of the irrigable area under the Gila River actually in irrigation in the State. We have also some unexamined possi

bilities as yet in the upper reaches of the Little Colorado River, principally in the Rio Puercos.

Those are the three things which New Mexico has involved in this controversy. The committee can readily see that any water resource which is capable of being used and can be feasibly constructed, at least the impounding part of it, to the extent of the irrigation of 600,000 acres, is a very large resource indeed and spells very much to us for the future. It is not likely that that particular development can be undertaken for some years to come some people say 25 years, some 50 years but it is unquestionably going to come, for the reason that the land under this river on the south side is very fertile with water, and for the further reason that it is close to the present transportation facilities, or fairly so, the transcontinental line of the Santa Fe Railroad passing a bit south of it. And for all these reasons, as regards this particular project, New Mexico needs protection for the future, and that protection we have found in the compact, and by no other means can we obtain it.

That, briefly, is the interest of our State in the Colorado River. Mr. ALLGOOD. You mean the six-State compact or the seven? Mr. WILSON. I will come to that in a moment. I want to first take up, as logically as I may, the matter discussed by Governor Dern, so that I may explain clearly our position; and then take up those general matters which I assume the committee is interested in, to the extent that I may be helpful to this committee. In December we had a meeting, as he states, of the upper basin States in Denver. The purpose of it was to clarify our future policies and to bring ourselves in accord, if possible, upon those policies, not only here but in future meetings of the entire conference. The resolution which Governor Dern read is what we adopted, and I want to draw the committee's attention to the phraseology employed, and to explain that at that meeting there were some divergent views upon the subject of what position we should take here. On the one hand some of the governors believed that we should oppose all legislation until the seven-State compact should be ratified; on the other hand, some of us could not accept that position because it seemed to us that that closed the door to a possible situation which we might be required to subscribe for or to in the event we were to get the protection which we think we must have. I am speaking now of New Mexico. The phraseology employed finally, and which we all unanimously adopted, was this:

It is the firm belief of the representatives of the aforesaid upper basin States assembled at Denver, Colo., this 13th day of December, 1927. that no legislation proposing the construction of any project upon the Colorado River be enacted by Congress or otherwise authorized by any Federal agency before the negotiations now in progress have been completed and every reasonable effort exhausted to reach such agreement between the seven States.

Now, my reasons, representing New Mexico, for opposing this form which some desired to have this resolution take, to wit, that we should oppose all legislation until the seven-State compact should be ratified, was because the act of the Legislature of New Mexico ratifying a six-State compact still stands upon our statute books unrescinded and unaltered. In that case the chief executive of my State, and myself representing him in this connection, must consider that to be a legislative mandate that we must preserve and

observe, in which event we could not bind ourselves and put ourselves in a position which might result in our acting contrary to the intentions of our legislature indicated by this particular act.

That is in explanation of the fact that this resolution was adopted in the form that it now stands, because with that situation confronting New Mexico and, as I view it, Colorado and Wyoming as wellbecause their legislatures have also acted and have not rescinded that action-I thought that we could not do otherwise, and that we could not bind ourselves to such an extreme point of view as that advanced in connection with the seven-State compact idea.

Now we come down to the question here of the present situation which has transpired, in a sense, or has been brought to a head since our meeting in December. This committee will not misunderstand me when I say that New Mexico desires the protection, the full protection, which would be afforded by a seven-State compact and the incorporation of that compact into legislation here; but if that is impossible and has been made so by the parties who are representing them, or by the States in the lower basin, then we are confronted with the question as to how, for our own protection, we will then proceed.

I view the letter from Governor Hunt, which has been read here, a copy of which I had before I came to Washington, as postponing the renewal of these negotiations until such time as the present legislation before Congress shall either be defeated or passed. That may take two years. I construe this resolution not to commit the upper basin States to a period of time indefinite, but to a reasonable period of time, and if one of the lower basin States has already, through its chief executive, postponed that period to an unreasonable time, then, so far as New Mexico is concerned I shall seek here such protection as I may get by the support of such legislation as may afford that protection, and I deem that to be a duty to my State, because I was not sent here nor have I been appointed by the Governor of New Mexico to fight anybody's battles except those of New Mexico. And that does not mean that New Mexico is not willing now to resume those negotiations and to continue in the capacity whereby it has tried to serve as mediator between the lower basin States, but if the date of those negotiations has been indefinitely postponed, I am here to say for New Mexico that we shall seek such protection as we may obtain here, and in view of the fact that our legislature has adopted or ratified a six-State compact, I shall pursue that course which will permit us to be included in such a compact if Congress so authorizes.

I have felt it necessary to make this very clear, because it seemed to me that Governor Dern's exposition, which was most excellent, and which in the main I can heartily agree with, purported to commit all of the upper basin States to the attitude expressed by him in that excellent paper concerning the necessity of a seven-State compact and its ratification.

With that brief explanation in this particular connection I want to take up two or three other statements made by Governor Dern, which I can not feel that New Mexico can support, and which, however much I dislike to disagree with him, I can not help feeling that, so far as New Mexico is concerned, we must correct the record. There were several points that he made that seemed to me to be contra

dictory to the fact that the Utah Legislature has ratified the sevenState compact, somewhat modified, as Congressman Swing has indicated, by the act they passed last year, in which there was an attempted interpretation of one section of the compact. In his paper Governor Dern said, you will remember, that according to all the rights and equities of the situation, because California, acting through the Imperial Valley Irrigation District or some other such organization, had made a contract with Mexico whereby Mexico was to have a certain proportion of the water passing through the canal in exchange for the right of way through Mexico, that that should come out of California's share. I am not certain that the members of the committee have clearly in mind, although undoubtedly you have all studied it, the provisions of the compact in that connection. Paragraph (c) of article 3 reads:

"If, as a matter of international comity, the United States of America shall hereafter recognize in the United States of Mexico any right to the use of any water of the Colorado River system, such waters shall be supplied, first, from the waters which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantity spec fied in paragraphs (a) and (b) "-which contain the allocations—“ and if such surplus shall prove insufficient for this purpose, then the burden of such deficiency shall be equally borne by the upper basin and the lower basin, and whenever necessary the States of the upper basin shall deliver at Lea Ferry water to supply one-half of the deficiency so recognized, in addition to that provided in paragraph (c)."

Therefore, New Mexico can not indorse an idea of that sort, because the compact which we have ratified twice, once as a sevenState compact and once as a six-State compact, settles that question and settles it, in my view, equitably. I hardly think it is fair to charge against California something which the compact settles and which we have all agreed to, in so far as it has been ratified, either as a seven-State compact or a six-State compact.

Governor Dern's conception of the six-State compact was that it did not afford protection to Utah. True, it does not afford that complete protection which a seven-State compact would supply, but the legislature of my State has declared for a six-State compact, and in my opinion if you take the compact you will find within its terms sufficient protection for all practical purposes if California ratifies, and thereby, as I view it, underwrite the upper-basin States in so far as Arizona's efforts to acquire rights are concerned.

Personally, I do not want to see Arizona coerced, if that is a term which can be used, by this legislation or any legislation in Congress. Mr. MORROW. Will you permit an interruption there, Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MORROW. Supposing the six-State compact is agreed to by six States, and Arizona stays outside and continues to appropriate water which the upper-basin States can not use, as you say, for 25 or 50 years, won't they acquire rights to that water under the laws of our State?

Mr. WILSON. My viewpoint of that is that it will be California's duty, and a legal duty, to make good to the upper-basin States out of the allocation to the lower-basin States any deficiency which might occur from Arizona's effort to acquire water rights outside of the compact terms.

Mr. MORROW. Even though it runs over a period of years?

Mr. WILSON. I don't think it makes any difference. I think California has that duty and I believe it to be a legal duty under the terms of the compact, if California ratifies it, to supply such deficiencies.

Mr. MORROW. In other words, then, New Mexico would hold California responsible for her loss of water?

Mr. WILSON. In the broadest sense, yes; that is about what would occur. In other words, we would not have to let down water at Lees Ferry, Mr. Morrow, any more than the compact says we must let down, and if during a period of years when it was going down beyond that quantity Arizona used it while outside the compact, I don't think there is any question but what in the years to come we could make California give up enough to supply whatever Arizona had acquired during that period.

Mr. MORROW. Right while you are on that point, what has been the attitude of Arizona as to acquiring water and utilizing it during this period in which the compact has been in force up to this time?

Mr. WILSON. Arizona has gone right ahead with its development, and that is to be expected. I think we have two places in the upperbasin States where there has been development. I think no one has suspended any development by reason of the impending possibility of the compact.

Mr. MORROW. But there has been large development in Arizona? Mr. WILSON. Yes; there has been. In fact, Arizona, to my mind, is developing faster than any other southwestern State at the present time from the irrigation standpoint, which we are heartily glad to see, so long as it doesn't hurt us.

Ás to the conference in Denver, I have felt that there was a little confusion over exactly what we did there, which resulted, perhaps, from the fact that written documents hardly convey a very good impression of what occurs in connection with them. I mean to say you can not put into a written document the atmosphere and the work which was actually done in order to make that document possible.

I want to say first and foremost that during the nearly two months that were occupied there in Denver upon the conference I had the conviction that both Arizona and California were anxiously willing and desirous of reaching an agreement. I think they came there with their minds rather made up to the probability that it was a mere gesture and would not be successful; that they could not afford to stay away, because that attitude would not reflect any credit upon them; but they arrived there, and the atmosphere of the meeting, the attitude of the upper-basin States in the matter, convinced them, I believe, very shortly that we were in earnest and that we meant to bring about an agreement between them if it was possible to do so. We had evidence of that conviction, and I was very glad to see it. It happens that Utah and New Mexico are both lower-basin States as well as upper-basin States, Utah, by virtue of the Virgin River, which flows into the Colorado River below Lees Ferry, and New Mexico, because of its interest in the Gila and the Little Colorado, both of which flow into the river below Lees Ferry. Therefore it behooved Utah and New Mexico to step lightly and carefully. But we took the position that, as regards the 75,000,000 acre-feet which the upper-basin States are obligated under the compact to let go