However, it is very easy to do so. It costs a very small amount, and it is very easily obtained.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. How about fishing and boating?

Mr. HEWITT. Well, the same applies to fishing. But as far as boating is concerned, as long as you do not land on the Mexican side you are free to use the water on the Mexican side of the boundary as much as you like.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. But you can't fish on the Mexican side of the stream.

Mr. HEWITT. You can fish on it with a license.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. With a Mexican license?

Mr. HEWITT. Yes, and by the same token if the Mexicans come over to the U.S. side they require a Texas license, too.

MAINTENANCE COSTS

million a

The CHAIRMAN. I don't believe you ever said what the maintenance costs would be. You said the capital costs would be $2 year. What is the maintenance cost?

Mr. HEWITT. The maintenance cost, annual operation and maintenance cost, of the dam and powerplant is $532,000, as annual costs. So that the total cost of capital, fish and wildlife, and maintenance is $3,097,000.

Senator WILLIAMS. What rate do you carry on your investment? Mr. HEWITT. 21⁄2 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this formula for the benefit-cost ratio similar to the one used by the Army Engineers in domestic projects?

Mr. HEWITT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What is it?

Mr. HEWITT. The benefit-cost ratio of the project as a whole is 1.6 to 1 on a 50-year basis and 1.9 to 1 on a 100-year basis.

Senator WILLIAMS. To the extent you have to pay over 2.5 percent, your investment costs would increase?

Mr. HEWITT. Yes, that is correct.

Senator WILEY. What is the foundation there-rock formation, granite?

Mr. HEWITT. Limestone; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that finish your statement?

Mr. HEWITT. Well, needless to say, sir, we support the request of the Department that H.R. 12263 be considered favorably by the committee.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LYNDON B. JOHNSON

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reporter, I wish you to insert in the record at this point the statement prepared by Senator Johnson in support of this measure.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LYNDON B. JOHNSON

JUNE 21, 1960.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee today on behalf of H.R. 12263, authorizing the joint construction by the United States and Mexico of the Amistad Dam project. This legislation is extremely significant to our continued good relations with Mexico, and I want

to urge upon the committee the importance not only of acting favorably on the bill, but of doing so in sufficient time to permit the appropriation of the U.S. share of the first year cost during this session of Congress.

H.R. 12263 does the following things: It authorizes the conclusion of an agreement between the United States and Mexico for the joint construction of the dam. In connection therewith, it authorizes an agreement for the joint or independent development of hydroelectric power at the dam, and if separate development is decided upon, it directs the construction of the required facilities. Finally, it makes clear the right and the responsibility of the State of Texas to control the distribution of the U.S. share of the water impounded by the dam and requires that the operation of the dam be coordinated with the operation of Falcon Dam located downstream so as to protect the rights of water users below Falcon.

The dam as authorized by this bill will provide a reservoir capacity of 5,660,000 acre-feet, 2,110,000 acre-feet for flood control, and 3,550,000 acre-feet for conservation storage and silt retention. Of this, 56.8 percent will belong to the United States and 43.8 percent to Mexico. The total cost of the U.S. share of the cost of the dam together with a powerplant will be $71,846,000. The benefitto-cost ratio on the project is shown by the committee report to be at the unusually high level of 1.55 to 1.

An extremely compelling reason for immediately authorizing the construction of the dam is that such action is necessary to carry out our treaty obligations with Mexico. The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 provided for the joint construction of three major storage dams on the Rio Grande for flood control and water conservation purposes. Falcon Dam was the first dam constructed pursuant to this treaty and was completed in 1953. It is located about 75 miles downstream from Laredo at the head of the fertile Rio Grande Valley.

Amistad is the second of the dams called for by the treaty, and it will be located about 300 miles upstream from Falcon. The only reason special legislation is required for its construction is that it will be built in a slightly different location than that specified in the treaty, and in a reservation to the treaty, the Senate prohibited expenditures not specifically provided without authorization by Congress. Thus, H.R. 12263 in reality merely permits a change in location of one of the dams authorized by the 1944 treaty.

But the urgency for early action on the dam is dictated not by the treaty obligation as such but by the need to bring to an early end the terrible damage and destruction the floods the Rio Grande brings to the area between the proposed Amistad damsite and the headwaters of Falcon, both in the United States and Mexico. This 300-mile stretch of river has witnessed some of the most devastating floods this continent has seen, including two major floods since the completion of Falcon Dam in 1953.

In the path of these floods lie major border cities of Del Rio-Ciudad Acuña, Eagle Pass-Piedras Negras, and Laredo-Nuevo Laredo, 120,000 people, 66,000 acres of fertile irrigated farmland, railroads, highways, bridges, and many other valuable improvements.

The urgent need for flood protection in this area is vividly demonstrated by the two recent floods of 1954 and 1958. In 1954, shortly after the gates on Falcon were closed, a mighty flood which originated above the Amistad damsite, swept down the Rio Grande into the practically empty Falcon Reservoir, leaving a trail of death and destruction behind. Damages on the U.S. side alone amounted to $18.6 million. On the Mexican side, property damage was even greater, and an undetermined number of lives were lost.

A second major flood occurred on the Rio Grande in 1958. Floodwaters from above the Amistad site joined with heavy inflows downstream, and in addition to causing extensive damage above Falcon, the flood caused Falcon itself to spill. This spill joined with another flood downstream from Falcon to cause unprecedented damage in the Rio Grande Valley amounting to $9.5 million. Again, Mexico suffered severely also.

The flood control features planned for Amistad would permit the control of all floods of record below the damsite. The dam would virtually eliminate the threat of flood to Del Rio, Eagle Pass, and Laredo, their companion cities in Mexico, and rural developments in the area. Furthermore, the danger of flooding from spills at Falcon would be reduced to practically nothing.

Most of the suffering caused by the 1954 and 1958 floods would have been avoided if Amistad had been built at the time, and the amount lost in property damage would have equaled a large part of the dam's cost. As a matter of fact, so effective is the flood control features of this project that all but $3,000 of the

staggering $1,864,000 in flood damage estimated to now occur to U.S. properties annually will be eliminated.

In addition to this urgently needed flood control feature, the House-passed bill calls for the inclusion of 3 million acre-feet of water conservation storage and facilities for the production of hydroelectric power. Although the need for flood control provides the most compelling reason for the immediate construction of this dam, there is also a great need within the affected area, both in the United States and Mexico, for the water conservation storage and hydroelectric power provided in the House-passed bill. It would be unfortunate indeed if this excellent site were not developed to its maximum potential for water conservation and hydro power.

I will not go into the details of the project further. These are set out in great detail in the hearings of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and its excellent report on the bill. These will be amplified for the committee by Col. L. H. Hewitt, Commissioner, U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission. These should be more than sufficient to answer any questions the committee may have.

My principal purpose in testifying today is to emphasize to the committee the need for immediate action on the bill. And I believe this has been forcefully brought home to us by the President.

In their_meetings here and in Mexico last year, President Eisenhower and President Lopez Mateos of Mexico recognized this project to be an extremely important link in United States-Mexican friendship. As a matter of fact, it was at their meeting in October of last year that the name of the dam was changed from Diablo to its more meaningful, symbolic present name of Amistad, or "friendship."

When I met with President Lopez Mateos in Acapulco, Mexico, in 1958, and again when he visited my ranch in Texas last year, we discussed the Amistad project at length. We were in wholehearted agreement on its importance to both of our countries and agreed to work for its implementation as soon as possible.

I was gratified that our President took particular note of the importance of this project in his budget message earlier this year. In this message, he stated as follows:

"To carry forward the joint development of waters on the Rio Grande, construction should be started on the Amistad (Diablo) Dam, in accordance with the treaty of February 3, 1944, between the United States and Mexico. I urge the Congress to enact promptly the legislation now needed to authorize negotiations of an agreement for this construction. Funds will be requested for the U.S. share of the first-year cost of this project following enactment of the legislation."

I certainly agree with this statement of the President, and I hope the Senate will act on this authorizing legislation soon and in time for action by the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate during this session.

In summary, the project authorized by H.R. 12263 is urgently needed to protect lives and safeguard property in the United States and Mexico. In addition to ending the menace of floods, it will provide badly needed water conservation storage and hydroelectric power to the surrounding area. We are obligated under our 1944 treaty with Mexico to join in the construction of this project, and Mexico is ready and anxious to perform its part of the bargain. I hope that the United States does not further delay getting it underway. At best we would be remiss in our solemn treaty obligations to one of the best friends we have. At worst we would be responsible for additional tremendous losses in life and property, both in the United States and Mexico.

I again thank the committee for its courtesy, and I urge that H.R. 12263 be favorably reported as soon as it is convenient for the committee to do so.

REPAYMENT OF WATER SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION COSTS

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hewitt, I have a letter from the Budget Bureau, and they say this:

Under the terms of H.R. 12263, authorization of the project would not be subject to a requirement for repayment of water supply and irrigation costs. In its report to the House Foreign Affairs Committee on H.R. 8080, the predecessor bill to H.R. 12263, the Bureau of the Budget recommended that, as in the case of the Anzalduas diversion dam now under construction, local interests should be

required to repay appropriate costs allocable to irrigation and water supply purposes in the United States if Amistad Dam and Reservoir is operated for such purposes.

Subject to your consideration of our view on the above repayment requirement, the Bureau of the Budget recommends that H.R. 12263 be enacted.

What about that repayment requirement?

Mr. HEWITT. Insofar as the Commission is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a matter for determination by the Congress. I have no argument one way or the other.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, in connection with the Anzalduas diversion dam, that was required?

Mr. HEWITT. That was required in the construction of Anzalduas, the people were required to repay a portion of the cost which would be allocated to conservation, providing the facility was ever used for that purpose.

As a matter of fact, it has never been used for that purpose nor insofar as I know at the present time is it contemplated that it ever will be.

The CHAIRMAN. You said you anticipated in connection with this dam that the conservation benefits, you say would be just under $2 million, $1,892,000 I believe, which would be a major benefit. Mr. HEWITT. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Why shouldn't repayment be required in this case? Mr. HEWITT. Well, there is one reason which should be considered by the committee and that under normal circumstances this facility would probably have been constructed for flood control alone.

However, in view of the fact that section I of article 5 of the treaty which reads:

I. The dams required for the conservation, storage, and regulation of the greatest quantity of the annual flow of the river in a way to ensure the continuance of existing uses and the development of the greatest number of feasible projects, within the limits imposed by the water allotments specified.

That rather put the bee on us because if we had been building this as a dam entirely within the United States it probably would be built as a flood-control dam only, but being an international dam, and being constructed by the United States and Mexico combined, Mexico desiring to have conservation storage included in the dam, we could not very well stand out and say we don't want it.

ACREAGE PROTECTED

The CHAIRMAN. Are these 66,000 acres of irrigated land that this is supposed to protect all in the United States or in both Mexico and the United States?

Mr. HEWITT. I think that the acreage is about the same in both countries, and in each country they have about that amount. The CHAIRMAN. Then the 66,000 acres are the United States. Mr. HEWITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The cost of this dam would run nearly a thousand dollars an acre if you were looking only at the protection of the irrigated land above Falcon.

Mr. HEWITT. Well, as a matter of fact, the protection given runs all the way down to Matamoros and the gulf. There are 750,000 acres down there which also are protected by this dam, and the 66,000

acres up between Laredo and Del Rio, are in addition to that down below.

And, of course, you have the tremendous losses which occur in Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Piedras Negras, Laredo, Nuevo Laredo, and Ciudad Acuña, too, involving a population of 120,000 on the U.S. side alone.

REPAYMENT OF WATER SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION COSTS

The CHAIRMAN. What I was wondering is this: Since the largest part of your benefits is allocated to conservation benefits, that you said are greater than the estimated flood damages, why wouldn't this provision that the Budget Bureau refers to be an appropriate provision in this authorization-that they do repay these costs?

In other words, why shouldn't the irrigation waters that are used be repaid on somewhat the same formula that a reclamation project in the West is paid for in this country? Wouldn't you have a situation here that these people along the Rio Grande would be getting free water whereas in another dam in Texas or Arizona, the American citizens would be paying for their water?

Is there any justification for that?

Mr. HEWITT. I think that is correct, Mr. Chairman, but I think that the situation is considerably different in that this is an international dam and that the additional amount of water which is produced in relation with the amount which is already produced by Falcon, is not a tremendous amount.

Falcon did not require any contribution or local participation. The CHAIRMAN. It did not?

Mr. HEWITT. It did not.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is this Anzalduas Dam we are talking about? Mr. HEWITT. It is in the general vicinity of McAllen. I should say, actually very close to Mission.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it a joint project with Mexico?

Mr. HEWITT. It was, yes, sir, 50 percent of the cost by Mexico and 50 percent by the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. It was similar in that respect to this dam. It was a joint project?

Mr. HEWITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you do require contribution there?

Mr. HEWITT. Yes, sir; if it is to be used for irrigation.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just trying to understand why it is you don't require it in one case and you do in the other?

Mr. HEWITT. Actually, sir, there is no contribution to be expected from the residents of the United States from Anzalduas Dam because it has not and will not be used for conservation purposes in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Did the Mexican Government initiate this project; were they interested in it?

Mr. HEWITT. The Amistad Dam, yes, sir, very much interested.

ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROJECT

The CHAIRMAN. Is this allocation of costs based upon the allocation of benefits? We pay what-about two-thirds of this, don't we?