prior beneficial use should always be recognized between irrigators when it comes to appropriation.

With the conclusion of that statement I will put on my other cap and talk as a member of the local Farm Bureau in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. I am also chairman of the Valley Farm Bureau Water Committee. I guess perhaps I am the only actual farmer in this crowd from the way all the others have testified. They are businessmen and chamber of commerce men. I am actually a farmer and irrigator.

I live on a small farm between Donna and Weslaco. In the 40 years I have lived there since I went to the area after the First World War, water and the assurance of a supply of water and flood control have been of primary interest to me as a farmer.

There are several observations I should like to make as a result of all of those years of study and observation. Also, I worked for several years on a project to build a gravity canal in our area and made a very close study of the behavior of the Rio Grande.

The testimony this morning touched on it, but it perhaps might have missed your attention. I refer to the fact that we are talking about a drainage area where the water is supplied by "storm water." It was pointed out how the area of the land is so situated that the warm Gulf atmosphere moves in and there are heavy rains in spots. But actually when you trace the production of water of the Rio Grande system, it is a tremendously fluctuating figure. The river will run along with a few hundred second-feet or a few thousand second-feet and then all of a sudden it is up to a real large delivery. I mean in the 30,000, 40,000, or even 60,000 second-feet flow, and it is always because of a heavy storm that has hit somewhere in that wide range of drainage area.

So that actually when you get right down to studying the figures, averages don't mean too much. But it is the possibility that we are looking at and that is why our Del Rio, Eagle Pass, and Laredo people are pleading to get this dam built as quickly as possible, because of the constant threat of tremendous floods. We have also experienced heavy flooding from tropical storms coming in along the Mexican coast below Brownsville, Tex., passing inland dumping tremendous amounts of water in the drainage areas on the high lands of northern Mexico or the trans-Pecos or both. It is entirely possible that such a storm can be followed by a repeat performance before the runoff from the first storm could get underway. That is what we are building against and that is why the project is so urgent.

Those of us who are irrigators visualize this dam, particularly if conservancy area is included, serving as a giant "surge tank," built to accumulate and hold a vast amount of water to be controlled and released for its most beneficial use. So that the control of unpredictable tremendous floods, the saving of devastation and losses from such floods, the economic value of the controlled use of the water, all point to such a total economic and humanitarian gain to the Nation as a whole that there seems to be no room for questioning the feasibility, the desirability, or the absolute need of the project.

I wasn't expecting to be heard until tomorrow so I did not come today with a prepared statement. Since it has now developed that

there is going to be an additional hearing, I might skip a point that I wanted to bring out. The point has not been touched on here today and I'm not sure but that I might be out of order referring to it at this time and if I say something you don't want in record as yet, just shut me off.

I am concerned about the suggestion from some sections that there be an assessment against the water users for water that is impounded for conservation.

I believe I can accurately report to you that we have unanimity up and down the river against that particular point if it does come into the picture. It is not in our bill but there is a possibility, as I understand from reports, that we may be called on to pay for the conservation area if we want to use water that is impounded in the Amistad Dam for irrigation.

We think we should revert to the treaty. There was never any intent that irrigators should be called on to repay any portion of the structures. I believe I am correct in saying that in all the testimony and the discussions surrounding the development of the treaty, its approval and authorization of the construction of Falcon Dam was never any reference made to irrigators paying any of the cost of conservation. The performance of Falcon Reservoir, handling floodwater and conservation, already during the short period of its existence to date has proven its value to the economy of the Nation and has justified itself. Which we think proves that the repayment for conservation in Amistad should not be considered.

In fact, we feel from the standpoint of how it would be policed, how it would be enforced, how it would be carried out and made equitable as between water users from that far away from the ultimate user, the proposal is impractical. The possibility of interests coming in with unused water permits, that do not have the funds to contract for the water, we consider is a danger to the rights of all the present water users.

We do not think it is good for our international relations with Mexico that the American water users should have to pay for the impounding of the relatively small amount of additional water that Amistad would develop when Mexican users would not be called on to pay.

This may be a little out of order to bring this in at this time, as there hasn't been any testimony given as yet covering this requirement, but I understand there has been some proposal to that effect.

Mr. SELDEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SELDEN. I think you are quite in order in bringing up this subject, because contained in the Senate document are recomendations by the Bureau of the Budget in this connection. Of course, the subcommittee will have to go into that subject.

If the gentleman wishes to do so, he can wait until he comes back for the second hearing, to which he referred, to go into the matter more thoroughly. But certainly he is in order in referring to the question at this time.

Mr. WHITE. I don't think, then, I have done any damage by referring to it at this time and giving you something to think of. Perhaps our friends from up and down the river will get together

on that particular subject. For fear that I might not have had the opportunity to develop this thought, I just threw it in for what it is worth, and with that I will say thank you for your indulgence, and I certainly have appreciated the opportunity to present our angle. Mr. SELDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. White.

Are there questions from any of the members of the subcommittee? Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an observation. I have noticed there doesn't seem to be much controversy among you people from Texas, or apparently among our friends in Mexico. To me, that is a beautiful contrast to the situation we found in my section when the city of Chicago for the health of its people vitally needed Lake Michigan water diversion and some of our neighboring Middle West States stood on their heads and howled.

Mr. SELDEN. I would like to make an observation, also. I have river development projects in the district that I represent, and I am nearly always on the other end of the hearing. I am usually appearing before some committee in an effort to get authorization or funds appropriated for a project.

I do know that local interest is extremely important, and certainly this is a very fine delegation from Texas that has appeared here today. In my opinion, it has strengthened your case. I want to personally express the appreciation of the subcommittee and my own appreciation to you gentlemen for giving us the benefit of your views.

Are there any further observations or statements?

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include State Representative de la Garza and State Representative Murray in our thanks to all these fine people who have contributed so ably to the furtherance of this project.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Fisher.

Mr. FISHER. I have a statement here from Mr. J. E. Sturrock, general manager of the Texas Water Conservation Association of Austin. That covers the entire State of Texas.

It is a very active and a very vital organization so far as water conservation and flood control projects in Texas are concerned. He strongly endorses this project and asks me to seek permission of the committee to have a brief statement inserted in the record. Do I have that permission?

Mr. SELDEN. Without objection, the statement will be included at this point in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. E. STURROCK, GENERAL MANAGER, TEXAS WATER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, AUSTIN, TEX.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is J. E. Sturrock. I reside in Austin, Tex., and I am general manager of the Texas Water Conservation Association, a statewide organization dedicated to the task of promoting the sound and orderly development, conservation, protection and utilization of the water resources of Texas for all beneficial purposes.

I submit this statement in support of H.R. 8080 subject to the following qualifications:

Under date of December 11, 1958, Hon. Price Daniel, Governor of Texas, transmitted by letter to Hon. R. R. Rubottom, Jr., Assistant Secretary, the Secretary of State, Washington, D.C., the order of the State Board of Water Engineers approving the feasibility of the proposed Diablo (Amistad) Dam and Reservoir project, which has been submitted to the Governor for review and comment. Governor Daniel stated in his letter:

"I hereby concur in the board approval and urge prompt action on this important project. Recent devastating floods which have occurred on the Rio Grande, causing great loss of property and human suffering on both sides of the river fully justify the highest priority which can be given to this project."

The order of the State Board of Water Engineers to which the Governor referred is printed in full, beginning on page 136 of the Senate Document No. 65, 86th Congress, 1st session "Rio Grande International Storage Dams Project: Proposed Amistad Dam and Reservoir (formerly known as Diablo Dam)."

After due notice and public hearing, the State Board of Water Engineers "found that the said Federal project was feasible and that the public interest would be served thereby, and on October 24, 1958, entered its order approving the preliminary report on the Federal project of the Department of State, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, Rio Grande international storage dams project, proposed Diablo Dam and Reservoir, subject to the following:

"(a) The proposed Diablo Dam must be integrated with other water conservation activities on the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman, Tex., and operated in such manner that the amount of water allocated to the American section and available for release from and through Falcon Dam which would otherwise be available for use by existing lawful diverters and appropriators of the American section below Falcon Dam will not be impaired or diminished; and

"(b) All releases of conservation storage water allocated to the American section from the proposed Diablo Dam for hydroelectric power purposes shall be subordinated to higher priority or preference uses of lawful diverters and appropriators of the American section below Diablo Dam and in accordance with State law."

I understand the above qualifications to mean that existing lawful diverters and appropriators of water below Falcon Dam will continue to have available for beneficial consumptive use at least the same amount of water, including that provided through regulation by storage, as would be available to such users without Diablo on the river. And I, therefore, concur in the qualifications and support the views and recommendations of Gov. Price Daniel and the Texas State Board of Water Engineers on the proposed Amistad Dam and Reservoir on the Rio Grande.

As I construe section 3 of H.R. 8080, to authorize the conclusion of an agreement for the joint construction by the United States and Mexico of Amistad Dam and Reservoir, it embraces the above qualifications.

I respectfully urge that the existing rights and uses of waters of the Rio Grande below Falcon Dam and Reservoir be recognized and fully protected in this authorizing legislation.

Respectfully submitted.

J. E. STURROCK.

Mr. SELDEN. If there are no further questions and no further statements, the subcommittee stands adjourned until 10:30 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10:30a.m., Tuesday, February 9, 1960.)

(The following letters were submitted for inclusion in the record :)

ARROYO COLORADO NAVIGATION DISTRICT

OF CAMERON AND WILLACY COUNTIES,
Harlingen, Tex., February 3, 1960.

Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: Note your committee will have a hearing beginning February 8 in regard to Diablo Dam, now called Amistad Dam, above Laredo.

We are very definitely in favor of this dam for the reason that during the last flood in 1958, the channel of the Arroyo Colorado was used to divert floodwaters of the Rio Grande in addition to the flood control system of the Rio Grande Valley. At the height of the flood 21,000 feet of water was turned into the arroyo, which overflowed in several places and caused a great deal of damage to Port Harlingen by siltage.

We understand the International Boundary Commission now has plans in case of a serious flood to divert 50,000 feet of water into the arroyo, which would very definitely cause untold damage.

Since a great deal of water comes from above the proposed dam, in time of floods this new dam would definitely relieve the pressure on the lower reaches of the Rio Grande and flood control system, therefore we wish to go on record approving this dam and hope that construction will start very soon.

Yours very truly,

CLIFFORD H. PURDY, Chairman.

Representative THOMAS E. MORGAN,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

HARLINGEN, TEX., February 4, 1960.

DEAR SIR: I would like to submit some information and pictures to be presented before the hearings on the Amistad Dam which are to be held February 8 and 9. I am submitting six pictures of the Arroyo Colorado which were taken in the vicinity of Harlingen, Tex. This flood was in the fall of 1958, and approximately 21,000 second-feet of water went through Harlingen at that time. I have talked with local officials of the International Boundary and Water Commission and they tell me that after the Anzalduas diversion dam has been completed they plan, in time of peak flow, to put 51,000 second-feet of water through the Arroyo Colorado, which is approximately 12 times more water than was sent through Harlingen during the last flood.

Since the last flood, the International Boundary and Water Commission has spent approximately $90,000 clearing the brush to facilitate the flow of water through the Arroyo Colorado.

I have numbered the pictures in the order that the water flowed through Harlingen. Picture No. 1 shows several houses inundated. Picture No. 2 shows the water almost up to the bypass bridges of the expressway now under construction. There will be a high span between the two bridges shown in this picture.

I have been told by the city engineer of Harlingen that in case of a peak flood, it is their intention to use the bank of the main irrigation canal of Cameron County District 1 and attempt to hold the floodwaters on the Arroyo side of this canal. All homes in these pictures would be flooded at times of peak flood if this proposal is followed.

Picture No. 3 shows the sewage plant of the city of Harlingen, which was barely able to keep functioning during the last flood, as its outlets were many feet below the flood level.

Picture No. 4 shows the Arroyo at my home.

The water was approximately

5 feet from the floor level at my home. My neighbor's house on the right was in approximately 3 feet of water.

Picture No. 5 shows two houses where it was necessary to use sandbags to keep out water. I would also like to point out that a very few more feet of water would flood many points in this subdivision.

Picture No. 6 shows Port Harlingen. The people of Cameron County have voted Arroyo Colorado Navigation District bonds in the amount of approximately $1,500,000, and the Federal Government has spent approximately $1 million to help on Port Harlingen. The major part of the port facilities was rented by Olin Matheison Chemical Co. and they suffered a large loss in materials in their warehouse and moved out after the flood.

I wish to emphasize that all of these pictures were taken at the time there was a flow of 21,000 second-feet in the Arroyo Colorado. I have been told by Mr. Moore, local official of the International Boundary and Water Commission, that he expects the water in the vicinity of my home to be 39 feet in time of maximum flood. This would place the water approximately 14 feet higher than it was in the flood in the fall of 1958.

The reason we are to get the additional flow is that, under the treaty, when the Anzalduas Dam is completed, it is the plan of the International Boundary and Water Commission to use the north floodway and the Arroyo Colorado as the principal means of alleviating the flood situation. By doing this, there will be no chance of flooding Matamoros, which has no floodwalls or other means of preventing the city from being flooded.