Secretary of the Interior transmitting a report by the Director of the Reclamation Service, together with the proceedings of the conference on construction of Boulder Dam held at San Diego, Calif.

In the Sixty-seventh Congress, second session, there was a hearing on the development of the Imperial Valley. There is also a letter from the Secretary of the Interior transmitting a report by the Director of the Reclamation Service on problems of the Imperial Valley with respect to irrigation from the Colorado River.

In the Sixty-seventh Congress, second session, there was a hearing on H. R. 11449 for the protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin. That hearing is in five parts.

In the sixty-eighth Congress, first session, there was a hearing on H. R. 2903 for the protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin. The hearings were before the Federal Power Commission.

In the sixty-eighth Congress, first session, we had H. R. 2003, for the protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin. Information was presented to the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation. There are statements by citizens of Arizona relative to the Colorado River problem and opinions on legal questions involved. In the sixty-eighth Congress, first session, we had H. R. 2903 for the protection and development of the Lower Colorado River Basin. That is in eight parts.

In the sixty-eighth Congress, first session, we had a message from the President of the United States transmitting a report submitted to the Secretary of the Interior by a committee of special advisors on the subject of reclamation. That is House Document No. 92.

In the sixty-ninth Congress, first session, we had Senate Resolution 320, Colorado River Basin. That directed a subcommittee of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Senate to make an investigation of legislation for the protection and development of the Colorado River Basin. That is in six parts.

In the Sixty-eighth Congress, second session, we had hearings before the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation on a bill to provide for protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin. That is Senate 727, concerning the Colorado River Basin.

In the sixty-ninth Congress, second session, we had a letter from the Secretary of the Interior transmitting the report of the Board of Survey and Adjustments. That had to do with Federal irrigation projects.

In the Sixty-ninth Congress, first session, we had hearings on H. R. 6251 and H. R. 9826, to provide for the protection and development of the lower Colorado River Basin. That is in two parts.

In the Sixty-ninth Congress, second session, we have a report by Mr. Smith from the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, and minority reports by Mr. Hayden, Mr. Leatherwood, Mr. Whittington, and Mr. Davenport, on the Boulder Canyon reclamation project. That is in five parts.

In the Sixty-ninth Congress, second session, we had hearings before the Committee on Rules on H. R. 9826, which is a bill to provide for the protection and development of the Lower Colorado River Basin. That has to do with Boulder Dam and is in three parts.

Also we have in manuscript form eight volumes containing the report of the Chief Engineer of the United States Reclamation Service, submitted to the Secretary of the Interior on February 28, 1924, representing a cost of $391,000, part of which was appropriated by the Federal Government and the remainder contributed by various organizations interested in this project.

Therefore we feel that we have quite thoroughly covered the proposition in all of its aspects, except the points being raised by the governors of the watershed States.

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, all of these reports that have been printed are generally available, but it seems to me that the hearings of this committee during the last Congress and the preceding Congress, the Sixty-eighth and Sixty-ninth Congresses, might very well be adopted as part of the hearings now, because they cover practically the same bill and practically all of the features of the project. Therefore I move that the hearings before this committee during the Sixtyeighth and Sixty-ninth Congresses concerning this matter be adopted as a part of the hearings on this bill.

Mr. LANKFORD. I second that motion.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been moved and seconded that the hearings conducted by this committee during the Sixty-eighth and Sixty-ninth Congresses be adopted as a part of the hearings of this committee at this time. All in favor will say "Aye."

(The motion was carried unanimously.)

Mr. SWING. If I may make a further suggestion, the rules of the House are the rules of this committee so far as they are applicable. The committee having fixed a time limit on the hearings, it seems to me, in the interest of orderly procedure, that it would be well to provide that the time for and against the bill shall be in the hands of somebody, so that one witness or one group of witnesses may not take up the time to the exclusion of some other witnesses who desire to be heard, whether for or against the measure. It has occurred to me that the time of those opposing the bill might very well be given over to Mr. Leatherwood and Mr. Douglas-to Mr. Leatherwood while he is here and to Mr. Douglas while Mr. Leatherwood is absent.

Mr. DOUGLAS. If I may ask a question-as I understand, this committee by its own action ruled that the hearings were to start to-day and be concluded on the 16th of this month?

The CHAIRMAN. On the 14th.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think it was the 16th. At least that was my understanding.

Mr. SWING. The motion was so fixed that it was from time to time and not later than the 16th.

The CHAIRMAN. Not later than the 16th does not include the 16th. We have another hearing arranged for six weeks ago beginning on the 16th. Many will be here in large numbers from the Northwest and it would be very inconvenient for them to lose a day, and I think we can have an extra meeting, if necessary, to finish the hearings on the 14th.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Then the committee rules that it will conclude the hearings before the 16th and not later than the 16th?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Let us assume that the proponents of the bill consume very little time during these hearings-that Mr. Swing plans to take only an hour or two. Would that action of his limit the time allotted the opponents of the bill?

Mr. SWING. I have no intention and no desire to do the trick that is sometimes done in court where the attorney for the defendant waives his remarks and thereby cuts off the prosecution.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Then as I understand, if you should consume only, say, two hours I still would have the time originally allotted me. Mr. SWING. That is right, according to my understanding.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think the committee would feel inclined to cut off the time of the opponents of the bill if the time allotted the proponents is not consumed by them.

Mr. DOUGLAS. If the proponents of the bills do not use their time, that will not cut us off.

Mr. SWING. No.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection to that arrangement, we will consider it so ordered. We will have Mr. Swing control the time allotted those in favor of the bill and Mr. Leatherwood will control the time of the opponents of the bill when he is here, and in his absence Mr. Douglas will control it.

Mr. HUDSPETH. There is a time limit set?

Mr. SWING. Yes.

Mr. HILL. Are members of the committee limited by that ruling in asking questions?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. Swing, as the author of the bill, is now recognized.

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, I shall take as short a time as possible to outline for the record the present situation of the project and the legislation in its behalf. First, let me call attention to the fact that the bill is word for word the bill which has been heretofore reported by the committee in the last session of Congress, with the exceptions that I shall now point out.

On page 4 of the new bill, at the bottom of the page, there is eliminated what was in the other bill, consisting of two paragraphs giving the Secretary of the Treasury discretionary power to avail himself of the Liberty loan acts to issue additional United States bonds. The Secretary at the time said he did not expect to avail himself of that provision, and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee advised me that his committee would object to those two paragraphs being in this bill, inasmuch as they related to Government finances in general and not to this particular bill, and that his committee had jurisdiction over all revenue-raising bills. Therefore, to meet that parliamentary situation the provision is left out. Of course, at any time the finances of the Government do not meet the expenditures of the Government, Congress and the Treasury Department and the Committee on Ways and Means will take care of that situation, which would be this expenditure together with any and all other expenditures the Government might see fit to make.

The next change is on page 12 of the present bill, line 22. This change is in the so-called Nevada amendment, which keeps the door open for the States that have been negotiating for a tri-State agreement between Arizona, Nevada, and California. In the last bill the

time was fixed as the 4th of March, 1927, which was the date for adjournment of last Congress. This bill keeps the door open until what is the probable date of adjournment of this Congress, June 1, 1928.

The third amendment, which is the only thing that has been added, is found on page 17, lines 3 to 6, and it is the so-called Colton amendment, which was suggested by Mr. Colton, of Utah, before the Rules Committee during the last session of Congress. This makes permits, licenses, leases, and other privileges approved or issued by the Federal Power Commission also subject to the terms of the Colorado River compact. There are quotation marks around this amendment, and at an appropriate time I shall eliminate them. The stenographer inadvertently copied the quotation marks.

Outside of these, the bill is the same as the one reported by the committee last session.

Gentlemen, the reason for this bill is that the Imperial Valley, as most of you know, lies in the bottom of a saucer-like valley, and the uncontrolled river flows around a part of the circumference of that saucer, with the law of gravitation having three and a half times the pull on the river to take it into the Imperial Valley as against the pull to take it to the Gulf of California. The Salton Sea in the Imperial Valley is 250 feet below the sea level and 350 feet below the valley's intake at the river, while the Gulf of California is only 100 feet lower than the river at the intake.

There is no question whatever but that each year increases the peril of the 65,000 people living in that community, threatening the existence of the lives of that community, because the river brings down each year 100,000 acre-feet of silt and deposits it in the lower delta, thereby raising its bed and choking its outlet to the Gulf. The river can not continue to flow in the unstable bed which it has created by lifting itself up by these deposits in its bed. Levees have been resorted to as far as they may be safely used. There is a limit to the height of earthen levees. Those are made of silt, because there is nothing else there to use, and, though they are revetted with rock, they present an inadequate and unstable protection from the flood

menace.

Furthermore, it is financially as well as physically impossible to go on raising these levees higher and higher, because to put an additional cubic yard of material on top one has to go back 30 or 40 feet down the slope and put 30 or 40 cubic yards of earth on the slope in order to make the one cubic yard stay on top.

The Mississippi River Commission finds that it is not feasible to raise the Mississippi levees to the height they would have to be placed to give security against the 1927 flood; therefore they have had to resort to a by-pass system, because the foundation of these levees would not sustain any greater weight and burden.

United States engineers, under the direction of Congress and by congressional appropriations, have undertaken to solve the problems of the lower Colorado River, and this bill presents to you the engineering recommendations of our own Government engineers. Mr. A. P. Davis, when Chief Engineer, filed a preliminary and later a final report on the subject. Afterwards Mr. F. E. Waymouth became Chief Engineer, and he made further and additional investiga

tions and surveys and his report is before this committee. It is a very exhaustive and complete report on every phase of the subject. The department's best engineers applied their best efforts to this problem. Mr. Walker Young and Mr. J. L. Savage on designs and estimates, Mr. Gaylord and Mr. Dibble on the electrical problem, Mr. Deffler on water supply and irrigable areas, Mr. Ransome, Mr. Jeinson and Mr. Homer Hamlin on geological problems. Furthermore, this report was made under the supervision of and was reviewed by a consulting board of engineers of outstanding ability, consisting of Louis Hill, A. J. Wiley, and James Munn, after which it was brought to Washington and subjected to a careful examination by a special board of engineers appointed by Doctor Work, after which the Secretary indorsed the bill as carrying out the ideas of the Interior Department.

The features of the bill, in addition to flood control, are to provide an adequate water supply to existing communities; having stored the water for flood control, it becomes an asset and may then be put to useful purposes.

Some of the greatest losses in the Imperial Valley have been from drought. As high as $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 have been lost in one year there. These shortages of water have increased as the upper basin States have developed their projects, because when they consume more water, of course, there is less to come down. Therefore, one of the uses of the reservoir will be to conserve the water supply and to stabilize the flow to existing communities. It would do away with the threat of law suits and injunctions against the upper States, release the natural flow of the stream for the upper basin States, and supply the lower States with stored water to meet their needs.

No provision is made in this bill for the reclamation of new lands at this time. The public lands are withdrawn from entry to prevent speculation, but it is left to a future date and for Congress to determine when it will authorize a new reclamation project and make appropriations for the distributing system. That matter is not included in this bill.

The bill puts into effect, between the States which have agreed or may agree to it, the Colorado River compact and carries the upper State provisions for the protection of their water rights. It makes possible a reservoir from which the Government may meet any treaty obligation it may incur toward Mexico.

Last Congress authorized the International Boundary Water Commission and directed it to gather data for a treaty with Mexico regarding the waters of the Rio Grande, the Colorado, and the Tia Juana Rivers. There is no question but that our country will be called upon by treaty with Mexico to supply some water to Mexico. How much is a matter for the negotiators and the United States Senate to determine. But in the lights of all past precedents we will furnish them some water. In the uncontrolled condition of the river there is no flow available for the Government to use for this purpose, therefore, it must build and control a reservoir from which it may be able to comply with the treaty obligations when they shall have been authorized.