as well as all other worthy projects, but every man who has a projec I think, almost without exception, feels that he is entitled to mas than the Budget estimate. Now, if we should raise every Budget estimate the same per I centage that you ask the committee to raise yours, instead of staying within the Budget estimate this committee would go many millions beyond the Budget estimate. As one member of this committee I ar willing to insist that the committee not only stay within the Budg but that we trim considerably below the Budget estimate. Mr. FARMER. I just merely want to say, Mr. Congressman, that this is a valuable reclamation project, that I think it is a wort while development, that I think it is good economic business for the United States to develop it with reasonable dispatch, and I think it s necessary that we continue some reasonable efforts to carry it out i order to protect a valuable right for the United States. Mr. O'NEAL. What population do you have down there now! Mr. FARMER. The area around Yuma has about 20,000 people Mr. O'NEAL. What percentage of that population is on farms! Mr. FARMER. There is something like 53,000 acres in the Y Valley, and there are around, I would say, 9,000 people there. Mr. O'NEAL. Is this designed to increase the population or is merely to give better farming conditions for the population that is already there? 3 Mr. FARMER. It will increase the population there, and it will fur nish homes on these mesa lands of which a small amount is under cultivation. It will increase the population. The water in the Yuma Valley is sufficient for the Yuma Valley Mr. O'NEAL. How many more farms will be put into cultivation Mr. FARMER. There are 139,000 acres of land, and dividing that by 40 acres, which would be a reasonable farm unit for that land, ar that would give you the number of farms. Mr. JOHNSON. How much of that area is under cultivation at this time? Mr. FARMER. Only about 1,500 acres. Mr. JOHNSON. 1,500 acres? Mr. FARMER. Yes, sir; of that mesa area, but immediately adjoining it in the valleys on both sides of it, there is somewhere about 60,000 acres of land that is now being farmed. Mr. RICH. I heard you make the statement that you are interested in trying to cooperate with the States that have signed the compact in the distribution of water. Mr. FARMER. Yes, sir. Mr. RICH. Would it be satisfactory to you to have a provision placed after the recommendation for an appropriation of that $1,250,000, the following: Provided: That this project, including the waters thereof, and the use of the lands and structures for the diversion and storage of the same shall be subject to and in accordance with the Colorado River compact, signed at Santa Fe, November 24, 1922, and the Boulder Canyon Project Act, approved Decem ber 21, 1928, including its provisions relating to contracts and charges for water delivered thereunder. Mr. FARMER. That is, would the land be subject to that? Yes, sir. Mr. RICH. No; I am asking you if you are willing to have the committee appropriate $1,250,000 with this proviso attached to it. at is the same proviso that was presented yesterday by Mr. Banster, and he asked that we insert that proviso. Mr. FARMER. I want to be clear about this, Mr. Congressman. May ead it? Mr. RICH. Yes. It is the same one that was presented here yesday. Mr. FARMER. I will say this, that we are willing for any provision be added here, which says that any water used on these lands shall subject to the Colorado River compact. If this provision includes anything that would say that before this oney can be made available, the State must take action, then I am lpless to make any agreement as to that. Mr. RICH. We know you yourself personally could not guarantee at, but it would only give the committee something to work on, nd then your State legislature would have some reason to get toether and act before anything could be done. Mr. FARMER. I would not be a party to attempting to coerce those eople, Mr. Congressman, because, let me tell you, as I started to nswer you awhile ago, I have tried to work with those people. Mr. RICH. Whom do you mean by "those people"? Mr. FARMER. The people in the Salt River Valley and in the cenral part of Arizona, which constitutes the majority of the populaion of the State. They have taken the position that they feel that he waters of the Gila River, which they appropriated and applied o a beneficial use long before the Colorado River compact was conidered, should not have been included in the allocation of waters to he lower basin States. They have taken that position consistently, and, of course, water from the Gila River never reaches the Colorado River except in imes of flash floods, and at that time it reaches the river below all points of diversion to be constructed for the use of waters in the United States. Mr. SCRUGHAM. Have you completed your statement now, Mr. Farmer, or do you have something more? Mr. FARMER. I am not through yet, Governor. I would like to offer for the record an excerpt from the Congressional Record under date of July 2, which includes an extract from the opinion of Arthur T. LaPrade, former attorney general of Arizona, and Mr. Charles A. Carson, Jr., his special assistant. It is marked here, and I would like to have this included in the record. Mr. JOHNSON. There is no objection. Mr. SCRUGHAM. You did not give the date of that quotation. (The quotation referred to is as follows:) (The following extracts are taken from an opinion rendered to the Colorado River Commission of Arizona by Hon. Arthur T. LaPrade, attorney general of Arizona, and Mr. Charles A. Carson, Jr., his special assistant, on July 12, 1933, and relate particularly to paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which reads as follows:) “(e) Also all patents, grants, contracts, concessions, leases, permits, licenses, rights-of-way, or other privileges from the United States or under its authority, necessary or convenient for the use of waters of the Colorado River or its tributaries, or for the generation or transmission of electrical energy generated by means of the water of said river or its tributaries, whether under this act, the Federal Water Power Act, or otherwise, shall be upon the express condition and with the express covenant that the rights of the recipients or holders thered t waters of the river or its tributaries, for the use of which the same are bece sary, convenient, or incidental, and the use of the same shall likewise be subjer to and controlled by said Colorado River compact. "(d) The conditions and covenants referred to herein shall be deemed to ra with the land and the right, interest, or privilege therein and water right, a shall attach as a matter of law, whether set out or referred to in the instrume evidencing any such patent, grant, contract, concession, lease, permit, livs right-of-way, or other privilege from the United States or under its authority, or not, and shall be deemed to be for the benefit of and be available to the St of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and the users of water therein or thereunder, by way of suit, defense, or otherw in any litigation respecting the waters of the Colorado River or its tributarie "EXTRACTS FROM THE LAPRADE-CARSON OPINION "Would the State of Arizona have authority to build a dam across the L stream of the Colorado River above Boulder Dam, and divert waters therefre for irrigation and power through ditches, tunnels, and other works across public domain, without the consent of the Federal Government? * "Congress in the Boulder Canyon Project Act, (c) and (d) of section. E makes the use of any right-of-way, license or privilege necessary or conver for the use of the waters of the Colorado River or its tributaries, up express condition and with the express covenant that the rights of the recx ents or holders thereof to waters of the river or its tributaries for which z same are necessary, convenient, or incidental and the use of the same, shall ▾ subject to and controlled by said Colorado River compact. In view of the fes going cases and decisions it is clear that Arizona could not construct a daz above Boulder Dam without agreeing to the conditions attached. It is proviet in article 8 of the Colorado River compact: "Present perfected rights to the beneficial use of waters of the Colorad River system are unimpaired by this contract. Whenever storage cajsci d 5,000,000 acre-feet shall have been provided on the main Colorado River with or for the benefit of the lower basin, then claims of such rights, if any. appropriators or users of water in the lower basin against appropriators & users of water in the upper basin shall attach to and be satisfied from wathat may be stored not in conflict with article III. All other rights to beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River sys shall be satisfied solely from the water apportioned to that basin in which the are situate.' "It is thus apparent that the use of water in the lower-basin States is, accord ing to the terms of the Colorado River compact, limited to that apportioned ... article III (a) to 7,500,000 acre-feet per annum and article III (b), 1,000,0 acre-feet per annum included for the Gila River. Arizona, of course, is n bound by the terms of the Colorado River compact, not having ratified the same; but according to the condition attached to the rights-of-way, the use such waters would be subject to the Colorado River compact although ratified by the State of Arizona, and the total use of water in the lower-bes States, as defined by the Colorado River compact, would be limited as above si forth." For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that your question must be answered in the negative, and that the State of Arizona does not have the le right to build a dam across the main stream of the Colorado River, above Boulder Dam, and divert waters therefrom for irrigation and power, throug ditches, tunnels, and other works across the public domain, without the conser of the Federal Government. Yours very truly, ARTHUR T. LAPRADE, Attorney General. CHAS. A. CARSON, Jr.. Special Assistant. Mr. FARMER. I should like also to offer an opinion of Mr. Moore the Head Gate Dam, across the Colorado River in Arizona. I would like to have this included in the record. May I, Govnor? Mr. SCRUGHAM. Yes, sir. (The opinion referred to is as follows:) HEAD GATE DAM, ACROSS COLORADO RIVER IN ARIZONA SENATE AMENDMENT TO H. R. 6732 1. The project and its purposes: Head Gate Dam, the canal and incidental orks, are designed to divert and use 500,000 acre-feet of Colorado River ater per year for irrigation of 100,000 acres of Colorado River Indian Reserition in Arizona, about 150 miles south of Boulder Dam. Six thousand acres this land are now under irrigation. None of its is in private ownership or subject to entry or purchase. The Indian Service plans to make the reclaimed reservation available for ettlement by such members of the Navajo and other tribes as may elect to emove from their present locations, large areas of which have become barren nd unproductive on account of erosion due to overgrazing. 2. The United States relation to the Colorado River compact: Article VII f the compact reads: "Nothing in this compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations f the United States of America to Indian tribes." By subsection (b) of section 13 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which atified the compact, it is provided: (b) The rights of the United States in or to waters of the Colorado River ind its tributaries howsoever claimed or acquired, as well as the rights of hose claiming under the United States, shall be subject to and controlled by aid Colorado River compact." By paragraph (a) article III of Colorado River compact, the "exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water" of the Colorado River per annum, in perpetuity, are apportioned to the upper-basin States, consisting of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and the lower-basin States, consisting of California and Nevada, respectively. As the United States, by the provisions or subsection (b) of section 13, Boulder Canyon Project Act, above quoted, agreed to be bound by the division of the waters of the Colorado as apportioned between the upper- and lowerbasin States by the Colorado River compact it, in effect, became and is a party to that interstate treaty. Therefore, it cannot draw upon water apportioned to upper-basin States for irrigation of public or Indian lands in Arizona, California, or Nevada, nor acquire any priority of right against the upper-basin States by a priority of use in the lower-basin States or in Arizona. 3. Arizona and the compact: While Arizona is named in the compact as a party and is designated as one of the lower-basin States, its legislature declined to ratify the treaty and accordingly it is not a party to it and its name, wherever it appears therein, should be disregarded. 4. Nevada and the compact: Due to topographic conditions, Nevada cannot economically put to use more than 300,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water. 5. California and the compact: Pursuant to the requirements of subsection (a) of section 4 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, California, by act of its legislature, agreed "irrevocably and unconditionally with the United States and for the benefit of the States of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, that the (its) aggregate annual consumptive use (diversions less returns to the river) of waters of and from the Colorado River shall not exceed 4,400,000 acre-feet of the waters apportioned to the lowerbasin States by paragraph (a) of article III of the Colorado River compact (7,500,000 acre-feet per year) plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters unapportioned by said compact." The unapportioned water is estimated to be 1,500,000 acre-feet annually. Hence, with California legally and Nevada topographically restricted to aggregate annual uses of 4.700,000 of the 7.500,000 acre feet per year apportioned to the lower basin by paragraph (a) of article III of the compact, plus one-half of unapportioned waters, the remainder of the water so app: tioned, amounting to 2,800,000 acre-feet per year plus one-half of the exos or surplus unappropriated water, estimated at 750,000 acre-feet per year, e be used in the United States only for irrigation of public and Indian lands Arizona. There are no lands in private ownership in that State to which t water can be economically applied. Therefore, unless so used, the water apportioned to the lower basin whe California may not and Nevada cannot use, aggregating 3,550,000 acre-feet per year, necessarily will flow down the river, after generating power at Bealiz Dam, and be available for use on about 1,000,000 acres of irrigable land t Mexico, just below the border. A conservative, capital value of this water, with the regulated flow pe vided by Boulder Dam, for irrigation in Mexico is $25 per acre-foot or a ver value of $88,750,000. Its value for use in the United States is twice as Lot The upper-basin States apparently would prefer to present this water? Mexico, free of charge, rather than to have it used in the United States $ a gratuity was not intended by the Colorado River compact or by Congress JAMES R. MOORE, Special Assistant Attorney General for Arizat WASHINGTON, D. C., July 1, 1935. Mr. FARMER. Gentlemen, I would like to offer further into the record, under date of June 18, 1936, a letter of John C. Page, Acti Commissioner of the Reclamation, a letter to the Honorable Ca Hayden, United States Senator from Arizona. I would like to have this incorporated in the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) STATUS OF WORK UNDER EMERGENCY RELIEF ALLOCATIONS Gila project, Arizona: This project involves the construction of canals, p ing plants, and other irrigation facilities. Contract for construction of a se tion of the main canal has been awarded and work is in progress. Obligati have been incurred-$1,057,599.79. The unobligated balance of the $1.80 allocation is necessary to purchase materials and supplies for this contrad and for supervision by Government forces. The project was contemplated b section 15 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act of December 21, 1928. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, Washington, June 16, 1936 Hon. CARL HAYDEN, United States Senate, MY DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN: I have received your telephone inquiry as to the terms upon which water will be sold to the water users of the Gila projec the water supply for which will be derived from the water stored in the Boulder Canyon Dam. On account of the unsettled condition of the land that will be watered by the Gila project, no contract has yet been executed with the water users of the project. However, the water supply will be derived from the Boulder Cany project, authorized under the act of December 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1057), and under the Colorado River compact of November 24, 1922. In selling water for the Gila project the Secretary must follow the require ments of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which provides in section 8 (a) follows: "The United States, its permittees, licensees, and contractees, and all users and appropriators of water stored, diverted, carried, and/or distributed by t reservoir, canals, and other works herein authorized, shall observe and subject to and controlled by said Colorado River compact in the construction management, and operation of said reservoir, canals, and other works and the storage, diversion, delivery, and use of water for the generation of power irrigation, and other purposes, anything in this act to the contrary notwith standing, and all permits, licenses, and contracts shall so provide." Also the first three sentences of section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Añ provide as follows: |