Page images
PDF
EPUB

and irrigation benefits will accrue to water users in the United States from construction of Amistad Dam.

It has long been the policy of the President and the Congress to require reimbursement for costs of water resource projects allocated to these purposes in recognition of anticipated benefits. While it may not be feasible or desirable for the Department of State to assess charges and collect for these benefits from individual water users, there appears to be no reason why the State of Texas, in which the benefits will be realized and which under the terms of H.R. 8080 will be responsible for determining the amount and timing of releases from Amistad Dam, cannot accept financial responsibility for these costs and collect in turn from the individual beneficiaries or the irrigation districts involved.

In these circumstances, we can find no basis for making an exception in the case of Amistad Dam to the generally accepted Federal policy. To do so would discriminate against other States and localities, which under law, are required to repay the costs of Federal water resource projects allocated to these purposes. Sincerely yours,

PHILLIP S. HUGHES,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, do you not think you ought to read that so the witnesses will know their position?

Mr. SELDEN. The position of the Budget Bureau is unchanged. The letter states:

In these circumstances, we can find no basis for making an exception in the case of Amistad Dam to the generally accepted Federal policy. To do so would discriminate against other States and localities, which under law are required to repay the costs of Federal water resource projects allocated to these purposes.

The construction of the Amistad Dam will affect the districts of both Congressmen Fisher and Kilgore. At our previous hearings we had a number of representatives from the districts of both of these gentlemen. Today we have representatives primarily from the district of Congressman Kilgore.

We are very delighted to have you gentlemen with us today and we are going to ask your distinguished Representative to introduce, first, those who will not testify and, then, those who will testify in connection with this project.

Congressman Kilgore.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE M. KILGORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. KILGORE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We certainly appreciate the committee's scheduling this hearing particularly in the light of the problems the main committee has in your continuing hearings on the foreign aid authorization bill.

First, I would like to introduce to the committee, again, from Eagle Pass, two attorneys, who are here, who will not testify today but who were here at the prior hearing, Mr. Jeremiah Rhodes and Mr. David Hume, of Eagle Pass.

Mr. SELDEN. We are glad to have both of you gentlemen back with us today.

Mr. KILGORE. And from Laredo, two of whom were here before and the last two who were not here in the prior hearing, State Senator Abraham Kazen, Jr., and Frank Y. Hill. Both of these gentlemen were here before. And then, also, two who were not here before, Mr. Honore Ligarde and Mr. R. S. Phelps.

Then among those who are here, who either will not testify or who will merely submit a statement for the record. The ones I will name now come under the general auspices of the Lower Rio Grande Water Committee, though they may have individual affiliations with water districts or with municipalities.

Mr. Leo L. Moses, of Los Fresnos, who is representing Cameron County Water Districts 6, 10, 11, and 12.

Mr. G. H. Loop, of Brownsville, who is representing Cameron County Water Control and Improvement District No. 5.

Mr. H. C. Fitzpatrick, of Los Fresnos, who is representing Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 11.

Mr. Elton L. Key, of Mission, who is representing Hidalgo Water Control and Improvement District No. 7. I might say his district is one in which I grew up and my father was chairman of the board of his district for many years.

Mr. Rex Flanagan, of Edinburg, who is representing Hidalgo Water Control and Improvement District No. 15; and Mr. Eldin Longwell, of Edinburg, who is also representing that same water district. Mr. E. E. MacDonald, of Mission, who is the manager of and representing Hidalgo Water Control and Improvement District No. 6; and Mr. Glenn G. White, of Donna, who is representing the Texas Farm Bureau, who testified before the committee at the prior hearing. Mr. Ralph T. Agar, of San Benito, who is manager of Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 2.

Mr. Norton Colvin, of San Benito, who is representing Cameron County Water Improvement Districts Nos. 2 and 20.

Mr. Mark Redford, of Edcouch, who is manager of Hidalgo and Willacy County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1. Mr. Otho Holland, of Edcouch, who is representing Hidalgo and Willacy County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1.

Mr. C. I. Haven, Edinburg, who is manager of Hidalgo County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1; and Mr. Richard Wiesehan, of Edinburg, also representing the same water district.

Then, Mr. Chairman, the others who will testify: First is Mr. C. Y. Mills, of Mission, who is an attorney and who is the informal chairman of the group who represent the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Committee and whose testimony will be related primarily to that of summarizing the position of the water users to this point.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. O'Hara

Mr. O'HARA. May I at this time announce my interest in one of the witnesses, a long, personal and fraternal interest in Mr. Fitzpatrick. I shall, of course, Mr. Chairman, keep an open mind, but I do have this warm friendship for a very estimable gentleman, and I am happy to see him here with so many good friends.

Mr. KILGORE. I will say, sir, you have a fine friend. He is certainly well regarded in south Texas now that he is a south Texan.

Mr. FASCELL. I just want to ask Congressman Kilgore if anybody is left back in your district?

Mr. KILGORE. We are working in shifts.

Mr. SELDEN. Congressman Kilgore, we are very delighted to have this distinguished group of Texans at the hearing, and we will be very happy to hear from those who are going to testify.

Mr. Mills, if you will come forward and have a seat, we will be glad to hear from you.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt, several of these witnesses will make reference to a proposed redraft of section 3 of the bill of which I have several copies and which I will distribute at this time.

STATEMENT OF C. Y. MILLS, MISSION, TEX., MEMBER, LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER COMMITTEE

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, may I say at the outset that we of the lower Rio Grande Valley are indebted to you for allowing us to appear here today and present our case with respect to H.R. 8080, dealing with the construction of the Amistad Dam.

I am a member of the Lower Rio Grande Water Committee and several other irrigation organizations and am a member of a law firm representing six irrigation districts in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, below Falcon Dam comprising approximately 110,000 irrigated acres. With the indulgence of the committee I should like to review some of the testimony which has been previously presented with the objective of showing some of the effects of the construction of Amistad Dam upon the lower Rio Grande Valley below Falcon Dam. From the Amistad Dam site to Falcon Dam, a distance of 300 river miles, there are only approximately 66,000 acres of land under irrigation on the United States side, most of which land is on the low benches near Eagle Pass. I understand about the same acreage is under irrigation on the Mexican side in this reach of the Rio Grande. Living in the United States in this area are approximately 120,000 people. From Falcon Dam to the Gulf of Mexico, a distance of 270 river miles, there are approximately 750,000 acres under irrigation on the United States or Texas side. The population of this area is approximately 400,000.

By the terms of the 1944 Water Treaty between the United States and Mexico each country receives the inflows of its measured tributaries and one-half of the unmeasured inflows with the exception that one-third of the inflows of certain Mexican tributaries above Falcon Dam are allotted to the United States. The conservation capacity of Falcon Reservoir is divided 58.6 percent to the United States and 41.4 percent to Mexico. Falcon Dam affords a reservoir of a total capacity of 4,150,000 acre-feet, consisting of 1,710,000 acre-feet of flood control capacity and a total of 2,440,000 acre-feet for conservation and silt storage for both countries. The United States share of storage below the top of conservation level is reckoned presently at approximately 1,369,000 acre-feet. The lower Rio Grande Valley below Falcon Dam lies in an arid region with an average annual rainfall based on records of the last 87 years of between 18 and 24 inches, and the average annual supplemental irrigation water required for successful farming is two acre-feet per acre or a total of 1,500,000 acre-feet on the 750,000 acres now being irrigated.

This exceeds the United States share of the conservation storage in Falcon Reservoir, and of course, it is well known that the supply of water yielded by the Rio Grande over the past more than 50 years

is inadequate on an average by more than one-third to adequately irrigate the acreage presently in cultivation. It is estimated that on the average only 500,000 acres in the United States below Falcon Dam can be properly irrigated. Our experience has been and history will show that during times of short water supply numerous and serious clashes have resulted between the residents of our two countries who are entirely dependent upon the Rio Grande for irrigation and also domestic needs. In my opinion this has been the most serious cause of misunderstandings between our people in our area over the past many years. Serious water shortages were suffered in 1956 and 1957. Col. L. H. Hewitt, Commissioner, U.S. Boundary and Water Commission, has stated:

Studies based upon recorded flows of the past 59 years indicate that with Falcon alone, shortages of United States waters may be expected during 22 years of a 59-year period like that of record, including annual shortages of more than 25 percent of requirements in 11 years, and more than 75 percent of requirements in each of two consecutive years.

The question might easily be asked at this point: In view of your almost certain water shortage won't the Amistad project be the answer to your dilemma? We believe the answer to be definitely in the negative. Colonel Hewitt and his staff have calculated that the actual net gain in conserved water annually resulting from the building of Amistad Dam is only approximately 86,000 acre-feet, although the United States first cost allocated for such conservation storage is $12 million.

Our good friend, Congressman O. C. Fisher, representing the Del Rio area, in earlier hearings before this committee if I may digress, the $12 million figure quite frankly, we are unable to tie down. I believe Congressman Fisher did state in the earlier hearings that the approximate cost would be $12 million. We have not been able to find where Colonel Hewitt or any member of the U.S. Boundary and Water Commission has so stated.

Our good friend, Congressman O. C. Fisher, representing the Del Rio area, in earlier hearings before this committee has stated:

The conservation storage contemplated for Amistad will not be substantial, although adequate for its purpose. * * * And, after all, the cost allocated to conservation storage represents a relatively small portion of the total cost of the project-about 8 or 9 percent, so it is a relatively unimportant factor insofar as the overall picture is concerned, so let's not worry too much about that feature of it. ***

I agree that Congressman Fisher need not be concerned and insofar as his constituents are concerned, it is unimportant. My memory is that in his congressional district there are only one or two small tracts of land being irrigated below the Amistad site. But the tion is extremely vital to the lower Rio Grande Valley wherein is located 90 percent of the irrigated lands between the Amistad site and the Gulf of Mexico.

ques

If Amistad were a project entirely devoid of humanitarian features, and if it were appraised solely from a cold economic viewpoint, the great majority of those residing in the lower Rio Grande Valley would be opposed to its construction. It results in the removal of the major portion of our water supply a distance of 300 miles upriver from Falcon Reservoir where it is now stored, a distance of 270 miles

from the Gulf of Mexico. Even with storage in Falcon Reservoir the travel time for water to the mouth of the Rio Grande is approximately 7 days. In other words, irrigation requirements near the mouth must now be anticipated by users as long as 8 days in advance in order to secure releases from Falcon Reservoir. In all fairness, it should be pointed out that it is hoped and contemplated that adequate amounts of water will be kept in storage in Falcon Reservoir to allow the continued release for irrigation to the lower Rio Grande Valley from this reservoir. However, in the 300-mile reach of the river between Amistad and Falcon if 43,000 acres of new land are placed under irrigation, and this is not a large amount for the distance involved, and if the average water use figure below Falcon Dam is applied, then the 86,000 acre-feet gained from Amistad will be entirely dissipated.

Actually in the Maverick County Water Control and Improvement District near Eagle Pass and above Falcon Dam the International Boundary and Water Commission Water Bulletins of 1955, 1956, and 1957, the latest available, show an average annual use of water of 8, 9, and 9 acre-feet per acre, respectively. If that be applicable to the new lands, then only 10,000 acres of new land would have to be placed under irrigation to nullify the conservation benefits of Amistad. Many will argue that no new lands may be practically irrigated because of the expense involved in lifting or pumping water to high areas, that the lands upriver are all too rough or not fertile enough. I submit that with improved farming techniques and mechanical facilities, the present crop supports, subsidies, soil bank programs, soil conservation assistance and other Federal and State aid available, those lands formerly not economically tillable may very likely, with an assured water supply, become so. It is a very real possibility that 10,000 acres of new land could be placed under irrigation in the upriver section, and permits and filings have actually been secured under the laws of Texas for irrigating almost four times this amount in the area between Amistad and Falcon.

However, these economic objections are overcome by the fact that death, human suffering, and severe property loss have recently come to our friends in the upriver section, both on the United States and Mexican sides as a result of flooding by the Rio Grande, and we are anxious that they be protected from a future similar catastrophe even though it might result in hardship of an economic nature directly to the farmer and irrigator in the lower Rio Grande Valley.

We do not believe that we should be penalized further by being asked to pay some $12 million toward the first cost of conservation features of a structure which we in the lower reaches of the river do not require and which will result in hardship to us without, in our opinion, any adequate offsetting gain.

For a first cost of $12 million, and we understand this figure is a minimum estimate, we would get, if all goes well, an additional 86,000 acre-feet of water provided it was not lost to new lands during its 300-mile course. If all of this 86,000 acre-feet got to its rightful owner it would only irrigate a little over 5 percent of the present irrigated acreage below Falcon Dam. Estimates have been completed and plans are being formulated to build up to three channel storage dams in the Rio Grande at points located between the mouth

« PreviousContinue »