would oppose this as anything else, because it would probably interfere somewhat with the sale of the land.

Mr. BARBOUR. Pardon me for interrupting you again. If we delay to make these changes, isn't that going to interfere with this work and delay the whole proposition?

Mr. DAVIS. The amendment to the bill I don't think would require more than an hour's delay. As far as the amendment of the bill is concerned I see no delay in it. Is there any other feature of delay that you refer to?

Mr. BARBOUR. Well, the withholding of the sale of lands until after the canal is completed.

Mr. DAVIS. That wouldn't delay the work. Of course the work could be done anyhow.

Mr. HAYDEN. How would you get the money to do the work? Mr. DAVIS. By the means provided in the bill. That money is provided by the issue of bonds under this bill by the district; then the receipt of those by the United States and the issuance of United States certificates in lieu thereof and the sale of those certificates. The receipts from the sale of land contemplated are merely an assurance, and the land being there, that assurance is there just the same as if it had been sold-in fact, better, because the land becomes more valuable as the prospect of water approaches.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, do you know of any reason, general or particular, why action on this bill should be delayed by the committee? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; I know of none; but, on the contrary, the strongest reasons why it should be expedited. I don't want anything that I have said or will say in the future to be interpreted as being anything in favor of either delaying or deferring action on this measure, because it is of very great importance, and I am heartily in favor of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as any treaty is concerned, or anything of that kind, have we any occasion for pausing or delaying?

Mr. DAVIS. Quite the contrary. If we undertake to negotiate a treaty before some such power as this is granted, we would undertake it under a great handicap. I am in favor of amicable relations with Mexico, of course, and the proper arrangements by which this can be done without the use of the strong hand. Unless the power is there to take this water around anyway, we have no talking point with Mexico and no possibility that I know of any favorable negotiations with Mexico, and I see nothing in the proposition made by Mr. Mead that should delay one hour the passage of this bill. In fact, I think it is all in favor of expedition, because it removes a very large and influential element of opposition to incorporate that. The opposition of the State Land Settlement Board, with the high standing it has and with the friends that it has in the home building population of California-which is in the great majority-is a very serious matter, and I think the bill is much more likely to pass in that shape. than it would without it; and it certainly would be more beneficial.

Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Davis, there is a possibility of the river rising down in Mexico and flooding this country, as it did once before. Now, the only way to avoid that, it would seem, is by diking, and how are we going to get that permission if we are not on amicable terms with Mexico at all times in handling this matter?

Mr. BARBOUR. You won't need it if you have the canal there. Mr. SUMMERS. The canal won't prevent the river overflowing. Mr. LITTLE. They explained that, Doctor. That never amounted to anything the last time it occurred. There isn't any danger to this valley at all from that. It might gradually enlarge the Salton Sea, but that is all. And our attention was also directed to the fact that the first people it would overflow would be the millionaire capitalists in Mexico, who certainly have enough business judgment to maintain the dike. Mr. Swing, the attorney for those people, made that very clear, that there was nothing to that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have been working on this thing for two months. These poor people have been here at great expense; the people who wish to suggest changes have had every opportunity, and I think we have delayed long enough. Now, if there are amendments to this bill that should be added to it, we can do that just as well after we report the bill as before.

Mr. HAYDEN. That is not a good way to legislate.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, if you feel that way about it, that puts a little different view on it; but there is no reason why this bill should wait any longer. If Mr. Mead had some suggestions, he should have made them long ago. Personally I am in favor of reporting this bill this morning. It is a very serious matter, and we ought not to treat those people this way. If this committee is going to do anything, it ought to do it; if you have some amendment you want to make later, I would favor it and work for it, if it is necessary and good; but I don't think we ought to delay another minute in reporting this bill.

Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for an opportunity for an answer from Mr. Davis. I am very much in favor of expediting the bill, but this is a very serious question that was raised at one time here, and it may have been answered at a time when I was not present, but I would like to have Mr. Davis's answer to it.

Mr. DAVIS. I think the proper arrangement with Mexico is very necessary to enable the Imperial Valley to take proper care of the protective works in the south. The building of the all-American canal alone will not solve that question of protection. That must be solved, and it is a very important matter, and must be solved by an arrangement with Mexico.

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Davis, you know they have a town down there of several thousand that will be flooded, and the Mexicans will certainly protect their own town.

Mr. DAVIS. No; that is not the fact.

Mr. LITTLE. The evidence shows it; and if you have any evidence to the contrary, I would like to have it.

Mr. DAVIS. I know all the land in Mexicali is higher than the Salton Sea, and when the water begins to rise the low land is flooded first.

Mr. LITTLE. Of course, the Salton Sea would be partially filled, but it soon evaporates and don't amount to anything.

Mr. DAVIS. But Calexico and Mexicali are higher than the valley, and some of that would be overflowed.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, they said it was unappreciable; and not only will the Mexican towns be overflowed first, but an immense amount of land around them; and, of course, the people down there will take

care of themselves, and they have got sense enough to take care of the dike. There isn't any arrangement necessary; the instinct of selfpreservation is enough to make any people keep the water from overHlowing. We have been all over that.

Mr. DAVIS. Water runs downhill always, and water runs from Mexicali [indicating on map] into the Salton Sea. All the land along the boundary line is higher than that in this region [indicating], and if the Salton Sea begins to rise Calipatria and Brawley and Imperial and all those places will be flooded long before Calexico will, or Mexicali.

Mr. LITTLE. The gentlemen here from the valley said that would not be serious. Isn't that true?

Mr. ROSE. That is true if it was flooded from the filling up of Salton Sea, but if the river would break with our dikes running across the flow it would flood, and did flood in 1914, 1,115,000 acres of Mexican land, and never covered one acre on the American side. It never flooded one acre. The flood passed down, and in less than six weeks the flood of 1914 was dry. The river went down and the water diverted. And that is the condition you will strike; it will flood the Mexican land. If it was allowed to run indefinitely it would back up over the American land.

Mr. DAVIS. This is the menace to the Imperial Valley-the filling up of the valley with water. The river overflows its banks normally-it has for all times past-and has probably overflowed this year next to the river. It is very true that when the river first overflows it overflows the Mexican land.

Mr. LITTLE. Nothing but a little backwater from the Salton Sea ever bothers them, and it evaporates from season to season.

Mr. SUMMERS. But when the river went that time to the Salton Sea and practically formed it, some years ago, and required $2,000,000 or something of that kind to stop it, is what I am thinking of.

Mr. DAVIS. The menace to Imperial Valley is submergence by the increasing size of Salton Sea. The water running down this channel of course menaces everything along the channel, and the towns of Mexacali and Calexico were threatened by that when it did overflow, but it was relatively a small matter compared to the submergence of the entire valley.

Mr. LITTLE. The Mexican land would be submerged long before the land in the Imperial Valley would.

Mr. BARBOUR. These Mexican people tell me they are getting ready to irrigate all these lands in here [indicating on map] from the Coloralo River. Wouldn't that necessitate the building of levees up there [indicating] in order to protect the river from flowing down into the Imperial Valley, at least to a certain extent? Haven't they got to do some construction work up there in order to properly irrigate this tract of land down in here? [Indicating on map.] The Mexican Government has already announced that it is going ahead with the reclamation of that section down in there. I had a talk in New York about a month ago with the agent of the Mexican Government-financial agent, I believe they call him-and he said they were going to irrigate all this land down in here and were going to take the water out of the Colorado River.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, certainly, Mr. Barbour, they will take care of the water down there.

Mr. BARBOUR. I think so, too.

Mr. EVANS. I am thoroughly in accord with this bill, but if there is any way in the world by which the Government can furnish the money themselves, within 15 years they would get their $30,000,000 back, and in 20 years they would have another $30,000,000 to apply to other irrigation projects. If there is any possible way in which they can raise the money-if we can put out our own bonds and raise the cash, I think we ought to do it. It is too good a thing; the security is too good down there to overlook that chance. That is the only amendment I would like to offer to this bill, if it could be worked out in some way, and I wish you gentlemen would put your thought upon the Government furnishing the money upon our own bonds for that project. It is the finest security on earth.

Mr. LITTLE. It is the best irrigating prospect we have.

Mr. EVANS. And it will return to our irrigation fund within 20 years just what we have advanced. Six per cent compounded would return $30,000,000 to us within about 15 years.

The CHAIRMAN. We will take it up and consider it.

Mr. THOMPSON. Why not appoint a subcommittee to take up these amendments?

The CHAIRMAN. I think we ought to have the full committee, but I am willing to appoint a subcommittee.

Mr. LITTLE. I move that we take this bill up next week.

Mr. EVANS. I agree with Mr. Little.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been moved and seconded that the Imperial Valley bill be taken up for consideration next week.

(The motion was put and carried.)

(Whereupon, at 11.45 o'clock a. m., the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.)

COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, September 26, 1919.

The committee met at 10.15 o'clock a m., Hon. M. P. Kinkaid (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Gentlemen, we have the Imperial Valley bill under consideration this morning. I want to call the committee's attention to some communications that have been received since our last meeting.

(The communications referred to appear hereafter.)

Dr. Elwood Mead has been insisting on some important amendments to the bill. Here is a telegram from him saying that he is coming here, and he states that there is going to be a meeting held with the Imperial Valley people on October 1 and that a letter is coming.

Mr. EVANS. His action only tends to delay this measure.

The CHAIRMAN. He says here that a conference with the Imperial Valley irrigation people will be held at the university on October 1, and that he will wire the action taken. This is dated the 23d.

Following that is a telegram from Merrill B. Davis, at El Centro, who says:

Board of supervisors and farm bureaus have refused to meet with Dr. Mead.

Mr. SINNOTT. Who is that?

The CHAIRMAN. The board of supervisors and the farm bureaus have refused to meet with Dr. Mead.

Mr. WELLING. He is fighting this bill?

Mr. BARBOUR. It seems to me Dr. Mead has had plenty of time to meet with those men out there if he has been disposed to be reasonable.

Mr. EVANS. It seems to me that would only tend to delay our proceedings.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a very general demand that the soldiers, sailors, and marines be given the preference right that would be very easy to provide for.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. How can you do that, if you are going to sell to the highest bidder?

Mr. HAYDEN. Suppose that the bill provides that soldiers shall have preference for 60 days to purchase the land, if they bid the same amount.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe 30 days would be better. That is the act in our State. It is 30 days there and nobody has ever complained that it was too short; in fact, I think it has been pretty long. I think they ought to get around to do something themselves or let somebody else do something in less time than that.

Mr. WELLING. Would you give them the right to meet any bid that was made by anybody else?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, I don't know about that.

Mr. HAYDEN. If we said that returned soldiers should have a preference right, that would mean if the bids were equal.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. If two or more bids are the same, one of which is offered by a soldier, he would have the preference right. Mr. BARBOUR. There would be no objection to that that I can see. I think it would be a good thing.

Mr. EVANS. It is starting a great deal of machinery for very little.

The CHAIRMAN. We will take up the consideration of the bill, gentlemen. Who will we have first?

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement to the committee.

You will remember that when we had the Kettner bill under discussion I made inquiry of various witnesses about the advisability of amending the bill to provide, among other things, for a limitation of the area of the project so that the Secretary of the Interior would have to make a finding that there was water available for the land to be irrigated. That would enable the settlers to know in advance where the water was to go and it would prevent speculation in lands which probably would not be included in the project, and therefore would not receive water. Everybody seemed to agree that such an amendment would be desirable. I also suggested the advisability of limiting the area to which water should be supplied for land in one ownership, and the committee seemed to agree that such a limitation should be made, particularly where valid water rights have not attached to the land.

Then there was talk of the necessity for storage on the Colorado River. I gathered it was the consensus of opinion that provision