« 이전계속 »
system by permitting the Mexican interests to have the Laguna Dam as a point of diversion rather than be interfered with by the Yuma project. That effort is being made, as I say, and it was only a few days ago that I was approached by Mr. Corey, an engineer of the Interior Department, who came before this committee in a secret session and testified, what to I don't know. However, he suggested that the interests get together and build that first leg of the canal in view of the opposition of the different departments. Now, I think that the people of Imperial and Coachella Valleys can not oppose that too strongly, and for this reason, that we would then be providing Government legislation to put through a proposition furnishing Mexican lands with the Colorado River water, a continuation of the present system. The Imperial irrigation district has mapped out within its territorial limits about 584,000 acres, some 410,000 acres under cultivation. The 584,000 acres is the entire amount they can irrigate from that system. So that if they had all the land of that district under cultivation they wouldn't irrigate more than 584,000 acres. To-day there is being put under cultivation acre after acre in Mexico, and just as fast as they can bring in Chinese and Japanese foreigners to put it under cultivation they are doing so. We would then be limited to the amount of land we could cultivate by that system, but would permit them to continue to develop their land so far as the water supply goes and without them paying any charge or anything else. In other words, it would be a continuation of the same deplorable conditions that now exist of developing Mexican lands at the expense of American lands, only it would be sanctioned by Federal legislation. The Mexican interests are permitted to develop their lands while ours stay bare. This proposition to put that one leg through as proposed by the same Mexican interests is directly against the development of the arid lands of the United States. Mr. SMITH. The expenditure of the $7,000,000 to build the first leg would not be of any special benefit to the Imperial Valley or Coachella Valley? Mr. YAGER. No, sir. I would say to build only the first leg would be greatly to the detriment of Imperial and Coachella Valleys. Mr. SMITH. But it would be used in connection with the proposed all-American canal? Mr. YAGER. Well, it would be practically a part of it because that is practically on the same route as the all-American canal, but let that present system be connected up with the Laguna Dam and our land outside of the Imperial irrigation district consisting of 500,000 acres will not get the benefit of the waters of the Colorado River. That is one of the purposes of the all-American canal to irrigate this additional land, and unless this legislation provides for all of it this purpose is defeated. r. SMITH. How was it proposed to get the money to build the first leg? Mr. YAGER. To be raised in the same manner as provided in the bill I presume. r. Rose. We could get that if we would buy our own bonds. Mr. YAGER. But this first leg proposition alone prevents the building of an agricultural empire in the United States that would be unequaled in the world.
Mr. HAYDEN. If any legislation at all passes the bill will authorize the construction of a canal to connect the Laguna Dam with the Imperial Valley to irrigate lands in the United States. Such a canal must be built some time and, first or last, the main canal will extend from the Laguna Dam down to the border. If there is to be a division of water with Mexico, the division will take place within the United States and the balance go over the border. There is to be no legislation which will provide for nothing but the construction of the first leg of the canal. r. Rose. But without you provide the means whereby the entire all-American canal can be built we would be blocked. We do say that without provision is made to build the entire canal it will be blocked. Mr. YAGER. We are so anxious that this legislation be enacted to give us our own water supply at our own expense entirely on American soil and sever our partnership with Mexican interests and permit us to build up the arid lands of that section. I can see no reason why objection should be made for doing that. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Yager, you have twice made reference to severing partnership with Mexico. I would like to get your view as to how you are going to prevent the flood menace from the Colorado River which makes it necessary to go into Mexico to control the flood waters. Mr. YAGER. I would like to say this in regard to the flood waters; that is a condition which is being enlarged upon by Mexican interests as one reason for the prevention of this legislation if possible. If we are permitted to build up the lands there and use more water of the Colorado River and if storage is provided it will regulate the stream of the Colorado River and the flood menace will be practically eliminated without going into Mexico to do any protection work. Mr. HAYDEN. Sufficient storage work could not be constructed on the Colorado River for a great many years to absolutely control that Stream. The tables of the flow of the Colorado River show that the difference between low and high water is so enormous, the flows are so difficult to control, that as a practical matter for many years to come it will be necessary to maintain levees in Old Mexico to prevent the inundation of the Imperial Valley. You suggested at the beginning of this hearing that we should build an all-American canal, assert our rights to take all the water out of the Colorado River, and allow the Mexican lands to go absolutely dry if the water is needed to continue irrigation in the United States. After such a dry season has passed do you think that the Mexicans would be in a frame of mind which would permit our going into their country to repair the levees when the next flood comes? Mr. YAGER. Well, if protection work is needed, it would be to the benefit of Mexican lands as much as ours, and I think Mexico would want a treaty with the United States to help bear the expense of this protection work. Mr. HAYDEN. And when we negotiate that treaty you get right back into partnership with them again. You were talking about dissolving partnership with Mexico. Mr. YAGER. I would not consider an agreement to maintain a protection levee in Mexico a partnership relation.
Mr. HAYDEN. There must be some reciprocity in the treaty. The Mexicans are not going to negotiate a treaty so one-sided that it will say that whenever necessary the American interests shall have the right to go into Mexico to repair levees, but when the Mexican interests want water for irrigation they shall not have it.
Mr. YAGER. That levee is as much for their protection as ours. We don't want to say they shall not have any water, but if they pay for the storage of the waters of the Colorado river there is sufficient water to irrigate all that land.
Mr. Hayden. You went further and said that the Mexicans might pay their pro rata share of the cost of enlarging the canal capacity?
Mr. YAGER. I will put it this way: That if the United States furnishes Mexico water Mexico should pay the United States for so doing.
Mr. HAYDEN. If the Mexicans have a share in the main canal from Laguna Dam to the border and if it is necessary for the people on the American side to go over into Mexico to repair the levees, are they not again in a partnership? I am trying to find out how you are going to avoid such a partnership.
Mr. YAGER. If the United States sells Mexico water, I wouldn't say that you are in partnership with those interests south of the line. It is a treaty or agreement between the United States and Mexico. But I can't see why Mexico should make any objection or take any exceptions to us going in there and protecting their own land.
Mr. HAYDEN. How are you going to get away from the fact that there is a community of interest between the lands in the Imperial Valley and the lands irrigated in Mexico which is so close and so intimate that there must be intercourse and business dealings between the people residing thereon at all times?
Mr. YAGER. There are many places on the Mexican border where business intercourse exists without a treaty. And I said before, I don't think for a minute that this Government wants to cause any injustice to be done to Mexico, and I don't think this Government would. I think if we enacted this legislation and took care of our own business on this side of the line building an all-American canal those people would come to this Government and say, “ We want a treaty so we can continue the irrigation and development of Mexican lands,” and at the same time say, “ We will take care of the floodprotection work in Mexico." That it is just as much protection to the Mexican land as it is to the American land.
Mr. HAYDEN. After all, the Secretary of State was not greatly in error when he said that there are considerations of equity and comity between the two nations?
Mr. YAGER. Well, I don't see where the equity is.
Mr. HAYDEN. If it is necessary to protect both the Mexican lands and American lands from floods, equity would require that the American lands should pay their share of the cost. On the other hand, there are lands in Mexico now being irrigated which have an equitable right to some of the water of the Colorado River, which you say you do not think our Government will deny.
Mr. BARBOUR. I didn't understand him to say that they had any right at all.
and equityze the minimitably say, but your perater."
Mr. HAYDEN. Not a legal right. Mr. Yager said we could divert all the water out of the Colorado River and dry up the Mexican lands. The Mexican Government can urge, as a matter of comity and equity, that we ought not to dry up their lands. That would probably be the minimum claim they would make. The Mexican Government could equitably say “ Our people must go into your country to get water for irrigation, but your people must come into our country to protect themselves against flood water."
Mr. YAGER. If I said that they have any equitable claim, I was misunderstood. I was attempting to show that they insult this Government and American interests this side of the line in their dealings and have had the people of this irrigation district by the throat and bled them for years and there is no equity in dealing with them; it is not equity, in my opinion. Equity does not compel the United States to develop Mexican lands and let American lands go dry. It would simply be a concession on the part of this Government in furnishing them any water and this concession should be paid for by them.
Mr. HAYDEN. Yet, on the ground of mutual concessions it would be necessary for us to concede them a certain amount of water out of the stream, and it would be necessary for them to concede to us the right to go into Mexico to protect the Imperial Valley lands from inundation. If you do not want to use the word “ equity” use the word “ concession."
Mr. YAGER. I don't think it is necessary to concede them any water, but think they can get it by paying for it. I wouldn't say the relationship between us, under those circumstances, is a partnership.
Mr. HAYDEN. Partners are persons engaged in a common business from which they each draw a share of the profits. The landowners in Imperial Valley and the landowners in Lower California are and will continue to be engaged in the same business, which is the growing of crops by irrigation. They all are and will continue to draw water from the same source, out of the Colorado River. They are partners in that business. They are all interested in the protection of their lands from floods in the Colorado River. In other words, they must all work together to successfully do the things essential to the prosperity of all concerned.
Mr. YAGER. It wouldn't be sharing our waters; it would be selling our waters to the Mexican interests. The United States Government would be selling our water and allowing them to purchase water from this Government, and if it was a bargain and sale proposition, it wouldn't be a partnership in that respect. On the other hand, I can't see where protection works there should constitute a partnership in the protection of their own lands. They would be just as vitally interested in that
Mr. HAYDEN (interposing). But you admit that if the flood protection levee is for the benefit of lands in the United States and Mexico, as a matter of justice the lands both in the United States and Mexico should pay for the levee?
Mr. YAGER. I don't think this Government wants to get something for nothing.
Mr. HAYDEN. And you do not want Mexico to get something for nothing. It is inequitable that the Mexican lands get water at a cheaper price than the American lands. It is to remedy that condition that you ask for this legislation.
Mr. YAGER. This situation can be remedied if this legislation was passed, and not only this remedied but you will provide the means of developing an agriculture empire unequaled in the world. Mr. BARBOUR. Have you said all you want to say, Mr. Yager? Mr. YAGER. There are other matters I could bring to the attention of the committee. But I want to thank you for permitting me to speak before you, and I honestly and sincerely want to urge you all to do something for us in that territory; and if we are wrong in any of our contentions we want to be righted, but I do think it is a very meritorious matter that needs your immediate and favorable consideration. Mr. BARBOUR. I suppose there is no use in taking the matter up with the full committee until after the session convenes in Decem. ber, because the plan is for adjournment about November 10. Mr. YAGER. If the bill could be reported out, Mr. Barbour, couldn't that be done? Mr. SMITH. As I understand it, there is a delegation coming from the Imperial Valley ! Mr. YAGER. There is a delegation coming from the Imperial Valley to urge along the same line as we urge, as I understand, to get something done. * Mr. BARBOUR. The delegation that is coming should be heard. You would have to give them a week to arrive here and that would be along the 4th or 5th. We will have as much as we can attend to during that time, anyway. Mr. YAGER. You can appreciate our position. This bill has been in committee since the 17th day of June. Mr. BARBOUR. The committee's failure to act is due to the situation that arose in the Imperial Valley. Mr. Rose. I think that is largely true. Mr. BARBOUR. This subcommittee could have been called together a long time ago, if we hadn’t been up against the proposition that there is a division of opinion out in Imperial Valley. Mr. HAYDEN. I am at the service of the subcommittee or its chairman at any time. Mr. BARBOUR. What do you think about the possibility of taking the matter up before December? Mr. HAYDEN. The statement you have just made covers the situation. Mr. BARBOUR. I think so, too. Mr. Mondell has stated that November 10 has been set as the date for adjournment and you won’t be able to hold enough of the members here. Some of them have already gone. They will keep filtering out until that time. Mr. YAGER. Even if the bill is not taken up in the House I should like to see it reported out of committee. Mr. BARBOUR. As I understand it, we can’t report the bill out until these representatives get here and tell us just what they have agreed upon. Mr. HAYDEN. It would not be fair to invite a delegation to come o from the Imperial Valley after we had agreed on the terms of the bill. Mr. BARBOUR. They would reach here about the time the House would adjourn. (Thereupon at 4 p.m. the committee adjourned.)