Mr. SINNOTT. Is the telegram we have just heard this morning in conflict with that? Mr. SWING. Let each document speak for itself. I have nothing to add to it. Mr. SINNOTT. Doubtless you can give the conclusion better than we can maintain it in our minds. I believe it does conflict. Then how do you account for it? Mr. DOUGLAS. The members of the board of directors of the Yuma Water Users' Association which signed that resolution were defeated in an effort to succeed themselves in office. They were defeated because of having approved the resolution that has just been read into the record. Mr. SWING. That last part of your statement is a matter of conclusion. Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, they were defeated. Put it that way. The telegram that I just inserted in the record from this organization is the opinion of the water users expressed through their board a year later than the resolution read by Mr. Swing. In other words, I have given you their last word. Mr. SWING. There is great pressure from State authorities being now applied upon the people of Yuma to change their position. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is that your conclusion? Mr. SWING. That is my conclusion. I desire to read by way of rebuttal to the testimony offered yesterday by Mr. Carpenter the following extracts from his testimony given before this committee when this bill was pending before this committee during the last session of Congress. Mr. DOUGLAS. What is the date of the material you are about to read? Mr. SWING. April 16, 1926. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is about two years ago-that is 22 months ago. Mr. SWING. But it pertains to the same bill. On April 16, 1926, before this committee, Mr. Carpenter said, "The amendments in question were agreed to after much deliberation and a great deal of discussion * * *" (p. 120). Again, he says, "These amendments proposed are purely upper State amendments" (p. 121). Continuing, Mr. Carpenter said: In view of the peril threatening in the South, and the desire to facilitate the clearing of the legal problems so that the way might be open for early development and for the protection of the lower valley, the proposal for the acceptance of the Colorado River Compact on a six-State ratification basis came from the upper States (p. 129). Going on, I find: Mr. HUDSPETH. Do you understand that your people are willing to proceed with the building of this dam on the basis of the six-State ratification. Mr. CARPENTER. Yes (p. 129). Farther on, I find: Mr. TAYLOR. If these amendments are agreed to and inserted, the upper States are perfectly willing that construction work may proceed at once. Mr. CARPENTER. They will not object (p. 130). Again, I find: Mr. CARPENTER. I believe I am correct in saying that it is the thought of our State that no impediment shall be placed in the way of just progress in the matter. Were that not their attitude, we would not be here except to oppose the measure (p. 132). Mr. SINNOTT. How does that conflict with his attitude of yesterday. I can not carry all this in my mind. Mr. SWING. I think that Mr. Carpenter was asking that action be deferred-I think that was his testimony of yesterday. Mr. SINNOTT. His position there was for a six-State compact. Mr. SWING. Yes; and he said that the legislation could proceed without any objection. Mr. SINNOTT. How was his position yesterday, that it should not proceed with a six-State agreement? Mr. SWING. I understood that. Mr. WHITE. I do not understand that at all. Mr. Carpenter and the attorney general of the State of Colorado, Mr. Boatright, are of the opinion that every reasonable effort should be made to effect a seven-State compact and that if that can not be done every reasonable effort should be asserted to go ahead with a six-State compact. If the seven-State compact can not be effected after reasonable efforts have been made in that direction, then they would favor going ahead with the six-State compact. Mr. SWING. I am very glad to have your interpretation. Mr. MORROW. Has not Mr. Carpenter's attitude at all times been for a seven-State compact? Mr. WHITE. Yes; that is the idea-to get the seven-State compact through if possible. I think that Mr. Bannister feels the same way about it; if we can get a seven-State compact we should do it. Mr. BANNISTER. Yes; except that we want legislation at this session of Congress. Mr. SWING. After Mr. Carpenter had concluded his testimony on April 23, 1926, before this committee, the attorney general of the State of Colorado, Mr. William L. Boatright, said to the committee: I would have it distinctly understood that the testimony of Mr. Carpenter pertaining to these matters has been the continuous subject of conservation between him and me and that the testimony so given is the agreed statement so far as the State of Colorado is concerned, and should be equally binding upon the office of the attorney general and the office of the commissioner (p. 219). Mr. SWING. I now desire to read a telegram dated May 6, 1926, and signed by Mr. Delph E. Carpenter, Colorado State river commissioner. It reads as follows: Hon. ADDISON T. SMITH, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: GREELEY, COLO., May 6, 1926. Messrs. Hopkins, of Wyoming, and Squires, of Nevada, have requested that Colorado authorities openly advocate Boulder Canyon Dam bill. Attorney General Boatright and I have conferred and you are authorized to say that, while we objected to the measure a soriginally introduced, we have no objections to its enactment if it includes the amendments offered by the upper States and discussed in my testimony before House committee and thereafter included in bill as reported by Senate committee. We are in the position of objectors who have withdrawn their objection, but do not appear as advocates of the measure, believing that matter to be within the keeping of our Senators and Congressmen who are on the ground and in touch with national affairs. DELPH E. CARPENTER (p. 28). Mr. HUDSPETH. Mr. Carpenter has testified here. Are you now reading those extracts to contradict some statement he has made? Mr. SWING. They are read in explanation of his position taken on the bill last session. Mr. HUDSPETH. Has he testified before the committee at this time? Mr. SWING. Yes, sir; he did so yesterday. Mr. DOUGLAS. Those statements you are reading were made by him two years ago. Mr. SWING. The dates speak for themselves. Mr. Douglas. I repeat, those statements were made in 1926, about 22 months ago, and they were made before the conference of governors was held last September in the city of Denver. Mr. SWING. That is a matter of ascertainment by consulting the calendar. Now, I desire to read an extract from testimony given by Mr. Bannister. It says, "Referring to the bill as thus amended," referring to the upper State amendments, "there are reasons leading me to support it. Some of these reasons are simply appealing reasons, but others, I think, are absolutely compulsory" (p. 67). Thereupon he proceeded at great length to give the reasons there for. Mr. WHITE. Do you introduce that with the idea or thought that you are in any sense impeaching or lessening the weight to be given to Mr. Bannister's presentation of matters here yesterday? Mr. SWING. I offer it for what it is worth and for what weight the committee may see fit to give it. Mr. WHITE. That I will offer in evidence again this morning the splendid argument that Mr. Bannister made to us yesterday. Mr. SWING. I am perfectly willing to reintroduce part of it. I desire to read into the record next a telegram from Mr. Benjamin F. Stapleton, mayor of the city of Denver, dated May 7, 1926. The telegram is addressed to the chairman of this committee, and reads as follows: ADDISON SMITH, Chairman House Committee on Irrigation, DENVER, COLO., May 7, 1926. Washington, D. C.: Now that the proponents of the Swing-Johnson bill for the construction of the Boulder Canyon project have accepted the protective provisions of the upper States, as drawn by the upper States themselves, it is of vital importance to Denver that the bill be passed as a solution to a very material extent of the interstate controversy over the Colorado River. Were Denver not to bespeak prompt action, it would be blind to its own interests as a city in the upper States. The issue is serious. The welfare of several million people and the future of this city are involved. No consideration connected with the bill can or should be given the importance which the bill carries as a necessary means of settling controversies. Sincerely hope your committee will report favorably at once, for it is only prompt action that will have any value. BENJAMIN F. STAPLETON, Mr. DOUGLAS. What was the date of that telegram? Mr. MORROW. When he refers to several millions of people in his telegram he means the entire seven States. Mr. SWING. I presume he does. I have concluded. The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Charles L. Childers, attorney for the Imperial irrigation district, El Centro, Calif. STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CHILDERS, ATTORNEY FOR THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, EL CENTRO, CALIF. Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my home is down in the Imperial Valley. I have lived and practiced law at El Centro for 15 years. Soon after I went into Imperial Valley I became interested in water affairs. Water affairs in the Imperial Valley mean the Colorado River. All water in the Imperial Valley, for all purposes, comes from the Colorado River. Our rainfall there is negligible, except for torrential storms. We do not have wells, and we are wholly dependent for irrigation and other uses upon the Colorado River. My work has necessarily put me in contact with the farmers almost exclusively. I know a little about them. I know a little bit about the problems with which those farmers are confronted. I know a little of their few triumphs, of their many defeats, and of the suffering they have gone through during these years. For some years now I have been attorney for the Imperial irrigation district, which, you know, is charged with the responsibility of supplying water on the one hand and of protecting against floods on the other in that whole community. I have seen some of the fight that has gone on against the Colorado River. When the great flood came in 1905 and converted a salt marsh into a lake of more than 330,000 acres, the company, a private concern, that was developing or attempting to carry water from the river to these lands Mr. SINNOTT (interposing). How large was the salt marsh before it was filled up? Mr. CHILDERS. My information is that it covered 3 or 4 square miles. Mr. SINNOTT. How many acres did it embrace? Mr. CHILDERS. Possibly 2,400 acres. It was small and salt works were maintained in the bottom of the basin. The Colorado River came through there first in a gradual sort of way, with an opening of perhaps 30 or 40 feet wide in the bank of the river. They were alarmed at that, but not greatly so. This company, to which I was about to refer and which had small resources, borrowed about $5,000 from a bank to close the break. By the time they got on the job the river had raised, the break had increased so that the company could not handle the job with that small amount of money. The company then went out and borrowed $50,000, but by the time it got back on the job and ready to work that sum had been exhausted and the company became helpless in its endeavors. Then an appeal was made to the Southern Pacific Co., which entered into a contract with that private corporation and took an assignment of stocks and bonds and other resources and went in in an attempt to close the break. During some weeks the Southern Pacific Co. spent about $1,600,000. It constructed a great wooden structure in an attempt to hold the river in check and under control at that point while they closed the break. The opening had increased to 700 or 800 feet in width. They hardly had completed the wooden gate before the river bored under and lifted the gate and toppled it over. Then the break became some 1,500 feet wide. The 82561-28-PT 36 Southern Pacific finally gave up the job as impossible. They decided to let the matter go. The water flowed in and made a great lake. Even the railroad tracks had to be moved in order to be saved and to be useful. Every drop of the river was flowing in. It made a new channel into the Imperial Valley which is more than three times the fall northward into the Imperial Valley as it is southward into the Gulf of California. Naturally the whole river was flowing in with a mighty rush. At that time the people of the Imperial Valley appealed to the United States Government for help. President Roosevelt in a special message to the Congress of the United States on January 12, 1907 said, in part, as follows: The governor of the State of California and individuals and communities in southern California have made urgent appeals to me to take steps to save the lands and settlements in the sink or depression known as the Imperial Valley or Salton Sink region from threatened destruction by the overflow of Colorado River. The situation appears so serious and urgent that I now refer the matter to the Congress for its consideration, together with my recommendations upon the subject. * * The results have been highly alarming, as it appears that if the water is not checked it will cut a very deep channel which, progressing upstream in a series of cataracts, will result in conditions such that the water can not be diverted by gravity into the canals already built in the Imperial Valley. If the break is not closed before the coming spring flood of 1907 it appears highly probable that all of the property values created in this valley will be wiped out, including farms and towns, as well as the revenues derived by the Southern Pacific Company. Ultimately the channel will be deepened in the main stream itself up to and beyond the town of Yuma, destroying the homes and farms there, the great railroad bridge, and the Government works at Laguna Dam, above Yuma. ** The actual amount of tangible wealth or securities possessed by the settlers to-day upon which money can be raised is believed to be very small. Nearly all individual property has been expended in securing water rights from the California Development Co., or from the other organizations handling the water supply and controlled by this company. It is evident that the people have slender resources to fall back upon, and in view of the threatened calamity are practically helpless. The California Development Co. is also unable to meet the exigency. The obligations assumed by the sale of water rights are so great that the property of the company is not adequate to meet these obligations; in other words, a gift of the visible property of this company and of its rights would not be a sufficient offset to the assumption of its liabilities. Nevertheless, the people in their desperation were reported as trying to issue and sell bonds secured by their property in order to give to the California Development Co. a million dollars to assist in repairing the break. * If the river is not put back and permanently maintained in its natural bed the progressive back cutting in the course of one or two years will extend upstream to Yuma, as before stated, and finally to the Laguna Dam, now being built by the Government, thus wipping out millions of dollars of property belonging to the Government and to citizens. Continuing farther, it will deprive all of the valley lands along the Colorado River of the possibility of obtaining necessary supply of water by gravity canals. The great Yuma bridge will go out, and approximately 700,000 acres of land as fertile as the Nile Valley will be left in a desert condition. * The interests of the Government in this matter are so great in the protection of its own property, particularly of the public lands, that Congress is justified in taking promptly and effective measures toward the relief of the present situation. ** If Congress does not give authority and make adequate provision to take up this work in the way suggested, it must be inferred that it acquiesces in the abandonment of the work at Laguna and of all future attempts to utilize the valuable public domain in this part of the country. Mr. CHILDERS. At the same time the President of the United States sent this message to the Congress he appealed directly to Mr. Harri |