(The paper referred to follows:)

TABLE NO. 1.-Areas under cultivation and water used in Imperial Water Co. No. 1 during the years 1910 to 1914, inclusive, from the 1914 report of Mr. Ray S. Carberry, superintendent; also, in column 6, the duty of water per acre as deduced from the use in No. 1 Mutual Water Co.

Mr. Rockwood shows that in Imperial Water Co. No. 1 during these years the duty of water was 3.65 acre-feet of water per acre per year. He shows a little further on by his own statement that that is relatively high.

Mr. J. C. Allison, who was before the committee in the first hearing, testified, I believe, that the duty of water in Imperial Valley throughout was about 3 acre-feet.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. The reason it is high is because you irrigate constantly during the year, practically.

Mr. SWING. Yes, sir.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Ordinarily it is about 1 or 2 acre-feet a year.

Mr. SWING. Mr. Allison has been connnected with the system for a long while—was for six years chief engineer—and I think he is well qualified to make that statement.

The report to the Secretary of the Interior of Joseph Jacobs, D. C. Heney, and Dr. Elwood Meade gives the duty of water in Imperial Valley for the year 1915, compiled from actual data, as being 2,72. So, Mr. Rockwood, in assuming that it is 3.65 for the purpose of his discussion, has given the best of it against his own report. He is exceedingly conservative.

Table No. 2 shows the minimum discharge of the Colorado River at Yuma in any calendar month during the 10-year period from 1905 to 1914, inclusive; the mean monthly discharge for the same period; the areas that the minimum and mean monthly discharge would irrigate if all of it was applied to the land (taking his statement of 3.65 as the duty of water). The measurements being taken at Yuma, of course, mean water available below Yuma, which is practically Imperial Valley.

Now, Mr. Rockwood has the months listed from January to Decembeh; then he has the minimum discharge for those 12 months in 10 years; that is, he takes the lowest January in 10 years and the lowest February, and so on down. Then he takes the mean for all 10 years.

Mr. SINNOTT. Could you give us the figures there on the lowest? Mr. SWING. The lowest month in all 10 years would be September, when the discharge, the minimum discharge, was 367,000 acre-feet. Mr. TAYLOR. Let me interrupt you there. Are there any diversions or any canals on the Colorado River below this Yuma Dam, in Mexico, that are older or prior creations that we would have to permit water to do down to supply?

Mr. SWING. None at all.

Mr. TAYLOR. No ditches below whatever?

Mr. SWING. None at all.

Mr. TAYLOR. During that 60 miles from there on down to the Gulf of California there is no irrigation at all?

Mr. SWING. Not at all. Mr. Rockwood continues [reading]:

The river duty as shown in Table No. 2, columns 4 and 5, does not take into consideration the very considerable loss by seepage and evaporation that will occur in carrying the water from the river to the land. While data is obtainable from the records of the California Development Co. that will give an approximation of the present loss, the percentage of loss that this data would give is undoubtedly in excess of the percentage that we may expect five years from now. Our main canal through Mexico is an old river bed (the Alamo) that for many miles is shallow and wide. Eventually the Alamo will be partially abandoned as our main trunk canal, and where retained will be confined and forced to run in a deep, narrow channel, reducing thereby much of the present loss from seepage and evaporation.

Loss by evaporation is a negligible quantity, being less than 1 per cent. The loss by seepage can, if the necessity ever arises, be almost entirely eliminated by cementing our canals and ditches.

Mr. Rockwood next shows the areas which may be watered without storage. His table, compiled from Reclamation Service data, is as follows:

TABLE NO. 3.

[Showing the ultimate area that may, without storage, be irrigated by the minimum and mean discharge

Month.

of the river.]

The figures given in Table 3 show that the mean flow of the river in each calendar month is sufficient for the irrigation of the entire irrigable area below the Grand Canyon.

When the entire 1,700,000 acres is under cultivation, some storage will be necessary to furnish an absolutely safe supply for the months of July, August, September, and October. The months during the past 10 years in which the flow has fallen below the requirements are shown below:

TABLE NO. 4.

[Showing the amount of water required to irrigate 1,700,000 crop acres in July, August, September, and October, and the months in which the flow has fallen below the need.]'

There has been only one July in the past 10 years in which the flow has been insufficient to irrigate 1,700,000 crop acres, and as out of a total possible area under canal of 1,700,000 it is not probable that more than 1,500,000 will actually be in crop in any one year, we may assume that the July water supply is safe for the entire area.

The August supply is safe until the area under canal reaches 1,200,000 acres. When the entire 1,700,000 is under canal there will be without storage a shortage one year in three. September is safe for 1,000,000 acres under canal, and during the 10 years covered by these observations in only two, viz, 1905 and 1906, would there have been any shortage with 1,200,000 under canal.

The lowest October month would have furnished water for 1,400,000 acres under canal. The greatest amount of stored water required to have furnished an ample supply for 1,700,000 acres in crop in the lowest recorded month would have been for July 75,000 acre-feet, August 244,000, September 354,000, and October 111,000, while the greatest yearly shortage, that of 1910, would have required 772.000 acre-feet. In no other year would the shortage have exceeded 440,000 feet.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. It seems to me this data is of a technical character and does not go to the merits of the bill. We all believe, I think, after hearing Director Davis, that his proposition is feasible

from an engineering and economical standpoint, and I think, in view of the lateness of the hour, that Judge Swing had better proceed to answer Secretary Glass.

Mr. TAYLOR. I don't think we need to go into these technical details. Nobody questions that.

Mr. SWING. I will ask leave to read his conclusions, which are very brief. His résumé is:

My deductions, then, from this study are:

First. That with 2,000,000 acre-feet of stored water the supply from the Colorado will safely irrigate every available acre below the Grand Canyon, including all lands in Mexico.

Second. Without storage, the supply is safe for 1,200,000 acres under canal. Third. Without storage and the entire irrigable area below the Grand Canyon under canal, the worst that can happen in any year will be the loss of one or two cuttings of alfalfa on a part of the land.

In conclusion, I desire to say that it is my opinion that even without storage and with all the irrigable lands below the Laguna Dam under canal there never will be a serious shortage if we have so perfected our distributing system that we can take all of the water from the river during the low periods and conduct it to the land without unnecessary waste.

This was Mr. Rockwood's report, dated May 24, 1915, to the board of directors of the irrigation district.

Mr. TAYLOR. You don't happen to have collected, do you, any data as to the water that flows through the entire Colorado River from the mouth up, 1,500 miles, to show the quantity of the water and where it comes from, and what States, and the capacity of the various rivers and the various lengths up and down, have you? I won't ask you to go into it.

Mr. SWING. NO. There is a paragraph in here, Mr. Taylor, that I would just like to read regarding that proposition.

Mr. TAYLOR. I may say that at my home town on the Grand River we have kept a rating every day now for about 20 years, so I could get that, I guess.

Mr. SWING. This is what Mr. Rockwood says about upstream diversions, and if the committee will bear with me just a minute, I will read it:

The irrigable lands on the highest reaches of the river and its tributaries in Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming will draw water only during the summer, when the supply is more than ample for all needs. Not only would a large area under irrigation above the Grand Canyon diminish the violence of our floods but all such lands become reservoirs that will by natural means increase our low-water flow. It is not probable that the irrigated area on the Colorado watershed above the Grand Canyon will ever reach 500,000 acres. I wish it were four times as great, as such a body of land under water would help materially to solve our flood and silt problems, and would make other storage unnecessary.

That is our point of view in the Imperial Valley.

Mr. SINNOTT. Mr. Swing, how much more water will you deliver to the district through the all-American canal without the storage reservoirs than you are delivering now?

Mr. SWING. You mean, how much can we get into the valley?

Mr. SINNOTT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean how much will be saved?

Mr. SINNOTT. No; how much will be delivered to the valley through the all-American canal.

Mr. SWING. Well, I don't know how to answer that.

Mr. SINNOTT. How much more than you are taking now?

Mr. SWING. Well, the old canal's capacity is reached now. It is 6,000 second-feet, the maximum capacity, and this proposed canal will carry 8,000 second-feet or more.

Mr. SINNOTT. Why do you want that preference right to that additional 2,000 feet?

Mr. SWING. I said to the valley. I don't mean to the district. Mr. SINNOTT. I mean to the district. What I had in mind wasMr. SWING (interposing). Well, I don't know that we would ever need

Mr. SINNOTT (interposing). What I am getting at is you need about 5,500 second-feet in the district.

Mr. SWING. Yes, sir.

Mr. SINNOTT. Now, if the canal will deliver more water than that, why do you want a preference right on that?

Mr. TAYLOR. It might not be in the river to put into the canal. Mr. SWING. Well, it is just a question that if you have title to a piece of land you would like to look at the deed to it. You may know you own it, but it is just the way people feel about it.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. In the event of a shortage, you want those that are getting water now to get theirs first?

Mr. SWING. Yes, sir.

Mr. SINNOTT. You don't want a preference right to any more than 5,500 second-feet?

Mr. SWING. No, sir.

Mr. SINNOTT. Ány more than is necessary to irrigate your irrigation district?

Mr. SWING. No, sir.

Mr. SUMMERS. As a matter of fact, about 4,000 is as much as you have been using, isn't it, on the American side?

Mr. SWING. I suppose so. The actual usage of the land, 4,000 would be as much as we have actually put on the land itself.

Mr. SINNOTT. We are going to be criticized for giving you a preference right to more water than you need.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment-am I correct in understanding you that you mean by claiming this preference right merely to preserve your existing rights?

Mr. SWING. That is all. Mr. Sinnott, we could not possibly, under the laws of California, claim 1 acre-foot of water more than we could put to beneficial use. We could not get it in there and turn around and sell it to some one else on the outside. We can only claim that amount of water that we can actually put to beneficial use. Mr. TAYLOR. It would add, wouldn't it, to the value and availability of your bonds of this district to know that you have got this water, and absolutely know that if there is any gamble or any chances on anything it is on the outside?

Mr. SWING. Yes, sir.

Mr. SUMMERS. If you will pardon me, in answer to Mr. Taylor, that don't seem to me possible, because you are not going to sell these bonds. You are only going to deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. The Secretary is going to sell them, though. Mr. TAYLOR. But then the Government of the United States is putting up $30,000,000 on the district itself; my impression is that this original area and that this original appropriation of 5,500—