and 60 miles upstream at an estimated cost of $7,500,000 which would conserve an estimated 140,000 to 200,000 acre-feet of water per year. This is water which would otherwise waste into the Gulf of Mexico, and which is stored in readily accessible reservoirs, not hundreds of miles removed from the acreage upon which it is to be applied. A comparison readily shows that this conservation can be realized near the mouth of the Rio Grande and adjacent to a large irrigated section at only about one-half of the cost of the storage in Amistad Reservoir. In addition to the cost advantage there is the additional feature that, even though the $12 million plus financing costs is paid, there is no guarantee that those who pay for it would receive the water. Insofar as users below Falcon are concerned a civil suit was filed in the 93d District Court of Hidalgo County, Tex., in 1956 and although water rights below Falcon Dam are still in process of determination the water master appointed by the court has, during the pendency of this litigation, successfully secured the delivery of water to its rightful owners below Falcon Dam. No such legal action has been prosecuted as to lands above Falcon Dam.

Colonel Hewitt in his recent testimony before the House Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs frankly stated:

I think that we can, or we should realize that there is the possibility that had it not been for the treaty we would have recommended the construction of a dam for flood control alone.

Because the treaty makes the requirement it does not follow that those who have irrigated acreage should be required to subsidize the construction of Amistad Dam, run the risk of having the main source of irrigation water moved 300 miles upstream, assume the responsibility of policing the water along almost 600 river miles to insure its use by its rightful owners, and then pay almost double what such water would cost if facilities were provided by the irrigators in the form of downstream channel storage dams. The United States is required to take conservation storage in Amistad Reservoir even though not desired if Mexico so requests. This action would be necessary on the part of the United States to assure the United States share of available waters will be not diminished under the terms of article 8 section (c) of the 1944 Water Treaty.

In essence the position of the majority of lower Rio Grande Valley residents is that they are desirous of their neighbors being protected against future calamitous floods even though it may result in inconvenience and probable loss of the additional water conserved, but they do not believe it is fair to place a prohibitive cost for conservation capacity on them when it is the responsibility of the two governments to furnish this under the terms of the treaty. Colonel Hewitt and all to whom I have talked appear to share the opinion that the project would be more economically feasible as a flood control structure alone and would have been so planned had it not been for the Water Treaty of 1944. We would much prefer that it be built solely as a flood control structure, but if Mexico requests conservation capacity then because of the proposed joint operation of Falcon and Amistad, we in the United States would be forced to request conservation capacity.

These remarks which I have made were adopted by the Lower Rio Grande Water Committee at a meeting held March 2, 1960, as a correct

statement of the position of the Lower Rio Grande Water Committee and its membership.

Mr. SELDEN. Thank you, Mr. Mills, for a very comprehensive state

ment.

Before you leave, sir, perhaps one or two members of the subcommittee would like to question you.

Have you any questions, Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. No questions.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Fascell?

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Mills' statement is very clear and concise and his position has been made.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Kilgore.

Mr. KILGORE. No questions.
Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Fisher.

Mr. FISHER. Possibly one question, Mr. Chairman, for clarification. On page 5 in the middle of the page, Mr. Mills, in referring to no new lands that may be irrigated, and so forth, it is true that under the State authority all the water is already committed that comes down the normal flow of the Rio Grande?

Mr. MILLS. Congressman Fisher, as I understand the normal flow, it is committed to the extent that it is a rule of property that the lands are entitled to the normal flow. The overflow or the flow of the river above the normal flow is appropriated under the laws of the State of Texas.

Mr. FISHER. Then if any new land were put in and water allocated, it would have to be in connection with riparian rights, is that correct? Mr. MILLS. No, as I understand it, Congressman Fisher, the State of Texas, insofar as appropriating water is concerned, has no control whatsoever over the normal flow, that, under the Constitution-and you will hear some lawyers later who I think will present that has been allocated already to the land in the Spanish grant fronting on the river.

Mr. FISHER. Thank you.

Mr. SELDEN. Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. MILLS. Thank you, gentlemen.

I

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Kilgore, will you introduce your next witness? might say at this point that, as you know, we are debating a bill over on the floor of the House and we may have a record vote on it. If we do, we will recess long enough for the members to go over and vote and come right back.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, there will be a record vote.

Mr. SELDEN. So I understand.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Chairman, there are two witnesses who would like to appear together and present their testimony concurrently. They are Mr. Garland Smith of Weslaco and Mr. W. D. Parish of Mercedes. They are the attorney and manager, respectively, of the Hidalgo and Cameron Counties Water Control and Improvement District No. 9.

The map that is pinned to the drapes on the side of the hearing room is an exhibit they want to make reference to. They particularly want to discuss the situation that exists with respect to outstanding water rights on the river.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Parish, if you and Mr. Smith will come forward you can proceed with your testimony.

Perhaps we should recess at this point, so we can vote. The committee will reconvene at 3 p.m.

(Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the committee was recessed, reconvening at 3 p.m.)

Mr. SELDEN. The subcommittee will come to order, please.

Mr. Smith, you and Mr. Parish may proceed.

STATEMENT OF GARLAND F. SMITH, WESLACO, TEX., GENERAL ATTORNEY FOR HIDALGO AND CAMERON COUNTIES WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 9

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee. My name is Garland F. Smith. I represent two water districts in the valley that have a total acreage of 86,400, and they have about 60,000 people residing in the outer boundaries of the district and all of these people make their living either directly or indirectly from the land and the land in turn depends upon water for production.

Now with respect to reclamation projects since 1902, Federal funds have been used beneficially since the enactment of the reclamation law in 1902 to convert desert and arid lands into highly productive irrigated lands. In these situations, the Federal Government expected, and rightly so, that the lands thus benefiting bear part of the cost of construction of dams and facilities. The irrigated area in the lower Rio Grande Valley did not so develop. My two districts began their development in 1906, and all of the work was done by private capital, mule teams, picks and shovels, and hand labor, and without benefit of Federal assistance. Political subdivisions known as water control and improvement districts later organized, voted bonds, and purchased the irrigation systems from the private owners. They received their water direct from the channel of the Rio Grande without the benefit of any canals or reservoirs built with Federal or State funds, and through their use of water from the Rio Grande from 1906, had established 47 years of priority to water before the first Federal project stored any of the waters of the Rio Grande in Falcon Dam.

For them, Falcon reservoir did not create a new source of water; it did, through storage, make floodwaters available in the dry periods of the year, which somewhat offset the damaging effect of the construction of Elephant Butte Dam above El Paso, which cut off the flow from the spring thaw in the Rocky Mountains, which at one time gave an even flow during heavy water demand in the lower Rio Grande Valley.

THREAT OF EXPANSION

We think it logical that similar expansion of irrigated area will take place below Amistad, after its authorization, which took place in the lower valley after the authorization of Falcon. In 1945, when the treaty with Mexico was signed and ratified, authorizing the construction of the Falcon Reservoir, the records of the International Boundary and Water Commission showed that there was in cultivation

in the counties below Falcon 544,415 acres of land, of which 91.6 percent was irrigated, or a net irrigated acreage of 498,684 acres.

The authorization of Falcon Dam set off an era of speculation and expansion which did not stop until the Rio Grande was absolutely dry at its mouth where it entered the gulf, and you could walk across from the United States to Mexico without getting your feet wet. And this fact did not stop expansion, as the speculator let the purchaser of lands in marginal areas worry about the problem of water and of water rights.

It was then that a lawsuit was instituted in the 93d district court of Hidalgo County, Tex., wherein the court took jurisdiction of the waters in the river, and required all who were diverting water from the river to file claims with the court designating the amount of acreage they had under irrigation, and prorating among such water users the available water on a pro rata per acre basis until rights and priorities could be adjudicated. The acreage under irrigation could then be measured accurately, and the records in this case indicate that there is now receiving water under some claim of right more than 760,000 acres of land, which you immediately recognize as an expansion of more than 50 percent.

Consequently, if we face, as we must, the fact that the day Congress authorized construction of Amistad Dam, this constitutes an open and engraved invitation to every speculator and scoundrel in the 50 States to come to the area, buy up cheap lands which local people know cannot be irrigated because of inadequate supply, and under some available claim of right, commence irrigating the land with water which the lower Rio Grande Valley has heretofore been receiving through the uninterrupted flow of the Rio Grande; this could be devastating to the lower valley.

We recognize that this is a problem which must ultimately be resolved by Texas courts. The survival of the lower Rio Grande Valley, however, requires that we energetically prosecute the necessary litigation in the courts of the State, and at the same time not overlook the fact that our first line of defense is to have written into the legislation authorizing the construction of this dam language which will put the world on notice that any claim for water for new lands on the Rio Grande is very likely a hot check written against an overdrawn and overappropriated river, which historically has not, and cannot in the future produce waters for more lands than are now receiving water from the river, with the possible exception of the 80,000 acre-feet of conservation storage which the IBWC report before you indicates the Amistad Dam will provide.

In order that you may understand the magnitude of this threat, we have prepared and have for exhibit here a map showing the reaches of the river involved.

At this point I will ask Mr. Parish to point out first, on the big map of the State of Texas, the point where this map begins at the west line of Val Verde County, Tex.

Mr. SELDEN. Let me interrupt, Mr. Smith, to announce that unfortunately there has been another bell. The first bells were a quorum call. However, this is a record vote on the legislation. This will be all today as far as the voting is concerned and we will have no further interruptions. If you will excuse the subcommittee members, we can be back in a few minutes.

(Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, reconvening at 3:30 p.m.)

Mr. SELDEN. The subcommittee will be in order, please.

For the benefit of the members who were not here when we recessed a few moments ago, Mr. Garland F. Smith was testifying. Please proceed, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. For the benefit of those who were absent, I was just at the point where we were going to explain this map. I had pointed out what we consider to be a threat of uncontrolled expansion in the upper reaches of the river which could dry up our water supply, and this map will help you understand why that is a real and imminent threat to our water supply.

The map begins at the west line of Val Verde County, Tex., which Mr. Parish will identify on both the big map and the little map of the State of Texas. You can see there it is approximately 300 miles below El Paso. It is 273 miles downstream from Fort Quitman. Lands above Fort Quitman receive their water supply from the stored waters in Elephant Butte Reservoir above El Paso, so that our watershed begins at Fort Quitman. That is the significance of the references to Fort Quitman in my testimony and any other that you may hear on the subject.

I have divided the stretches of the river into three areas. One of them I have called the "uncontrolled area" and the other "potential control" and the other "controlled area" and I will explain why that is as I go along.

UNCONTROLLED AREA

From this point of Fort Quitman, the Rio Grande winds along south of a mountain region, including Big Bend National Park, about 330 miles, which area is not shown on the large map. Beginning at this point, the river is shown with a red color, to designate it as "legally uncontrolled" from Fort Quitman to the headgates of Maverick County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, located in Kinney County, Tex. By that I mean no court has taken jurisdiction of the river to give it any form of control and anyone could take water at any time they desire for any land.

POTENTIAL CONTROL

The next area is designated "potential control." Thereafter the river color is changed to yellow to designate "potential control" downstream to the headwaters of Falcon Reservoir in Zapata County, Tex., through the order of the 49th District Court of Webb County, Laredo, Tex., entered on May 1, 1957, "taking jurisdiction" of this stretch of the river. A water master was appointed, but he is not active. The inactive status of the water master is why I say "potential control." He could be readily made active by the court. The water master could be made active at any time by the court but it has not been done because it is not actually necessary during these wet years.

Mr. FASCELL. Is the U.S. Government or the International Commission a litigant or party defendant in this suit?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.