ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Mr. EVANS. The East Mesa averages 40 to 50 feet higher than the Imperial Valley now in cultivation."

Mr. ROSE. It averages 50 feet higher.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, Director General Davis is here. The committee would be pleased to hear from you now, Mr. Davis. Have you seen this bill of Mr. Smith's that we have been discussing?

STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR P. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF
RECLAMATION SERVICE.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; I have examined it personally and I have talked with members of the committee from Imperial Valley about it. I know its provisions. It provides for the sale of the public land in

advance.

Mr. TAYLOR. Tell us, Mr. Davis, what is your idea about this thing. How are we to get harmony or agree on what we ought to do and get a bill out of here and do something? Now, give us your concrete judgment as to what is what and what we ought to do.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, Mr. Davis; I want to supplement that a little perhaps with the same meaning, the same purposethat is, what is the most practical thing to do, knowing that it is so difficult to get money appropriated, and what, in your judgment, is the best course to pursue which will be a reasonable thing to do?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, the Smith bill that has been under consideration this morning is in its larger features substantially what was proposed by the Kettner bill originally. There are some differences, but it proposes to sell a very large tract of public land in order partially to finance the irrigation of that and other lands-to put through the all-American canal, in other words. The discussion on the original bill showed an immense amount of opposition, and I am satisfied that the State of California officially opposes this Smith bill-you have already heard Dr. Mead in opposition to it, and he is the official representative of the land settlement board in California. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Let me ask you, Mr. Director, do you think they would oppose it if they got 40,000 acres set aside for the soldier settlement of California?

Mr. DAVIS. That would probably go a long way to remove their opposition, and for their immediate purpose; but I do know that Dr. Mead, and I am sure that his supporters in California, oppose the sale of public lands on a speculative proposition of this kind. That seems to me fully to offset the improbability of the other bill passing. I can't see that there is very much choice as to the probability of passing, but you gentlemen are much better acquainted with the sentiment in Congress than I.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Davis, one reason why the sale of the land on the East mesa is advocated is that the Congress by the passage of the Yuma mesa bill authorized the sale of lands. I would like to have you tell the committee just what part of the Yuma mesa was offered for sale and what success you are having with the sale, so that we may use your experience as a basis for judging how this the East mesa lands would sell.

Mr. DAVIS. The scheme on the Yuma mesa is for about 40,000 acres total, and we offered for sale first, after advertising for months,

about 6,400 acres. About four-fifths of that has been sold; not quite enough yet sold to justify the Secretary in making expenditures under it.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. That is because of the exorbitant price, $225 an acre. That is the reason it don't sell.

Mr. DAVIS. The reason on the other side, however, is that the land is close to the growing town of Yuma and along a trans-continental railroad.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. But is not the expense of pumping water up there very high-isn't that a factor?

Mr. DAVIS. That is what makes it costly.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. That is not a gravity proposition.

Mr. WELLING. What will the annual charge for that water be? Mr. DAVIS. We can't tell accurately in advance, but it will be relatively high.

Mr. WELLING. $5 an acre?

Mr. DAVIS. More than that.

Mr. WELLING. What is the annual charge usually under gravity systems out there?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, that varies widely-probably $3 or $4 an acre in most places of that section. That is about the figure on the Yuma project. That, of course, is very different from what it was five years ago. Everything costs about double what it did then.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. What is the annual charge on the Minidoka project, on the gravity portion?

Mr. DAVIS. I don't know the charge there now, the Government is not handling the operation, except the reservoir and diversion works. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. It is not much over $1.

Mr. DAVIS. I think it is probably about $1.50. It is doubtless higher than it was originally, because the price of everything has gone up. But that is a very cheap system.

Mr. HAYDEN. Presuming that the water could be placed by gravity on the east mesa for half the cost, or less than half the cost of the expense of placing it on the Yuma mesa, that would mean a charge of $75 to $100 an acre?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. At that price do you believe that 200,000 acres of land could be sold in advance of the delivery of water?

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. 160,000 acres.

Mr. DAVIS. I can't see any reason to think it would, but of course I may be wrong about that. It would depend very much upon fortuitous circumstances. We can not predict that, and it would depend upon whether it was well advertised and what kind of impressions got out about it. But with the assurances which must be given, I don't think it is safe to assume that it would.

Mr. TAYLOR. It would be entirely out of the range of any ordinary poor man to pay $75 an acre and wait 5 or 6 or 10 years to get water. Mr. DAVIS. Yes; it makes it purely a speculative proposition. Mr. WELLING. Do you think it would be five years?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; I feel positive that it would not be a day less than five years.

Mr. WELLING. Do you think, then, we are manifesting good faith toward the soldiers in putting a provision in this bill holding out

185833-20-34

the bait to them that we are going to give them soldier settlement and keep them off the land five years?

Mr. DAVIS. I am not trying to keep anybody off the land. You have got to wait for the organization of the districts, the issue and sale of bonds, and then it is a big job to build it.

Mr. TAYLOR. You have to test it in the courts; you have got to have litigation and all sorts of contingencies that you don't know anything about.

Mr. WELLING. The only thing I am trying to show is that the provision in this bill for the relief of soldiers don't amount to anything. Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, it does; but it takes time to construct an irrigation plant, and that is something that the soldiers can't complain of. Mr. SUMMERS. In that connection I think it is a fact that the homesteading after the Civil War by the soldiers occurred mostly from 1870 to 1880.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. That is because they did not have any railroads out in that country. If they had had the railroads they would have gone out right after the war was over.

Mr. SUMMERS. I beg pardon. I happen to have known a great many of them that went out in covered wagons, but they didn't get into the notion of going until some years after the war closed; and if we can't get ready short of five years, let's give them a chance then. Mr. DAVIS. I went west myself in 1872 in a prairie schooner. Mr. SMITH of Idaho. You would have gone sooner, though, if you had had a railroad to carry you out there in two or three days. Mr. DAVIS. The railroad would have cost too much.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, Mr. Davis, you feel that the bill-have you got any further suggestions to make to this committee about the bill? That is the second redraft of the Kettner bill, and do you think that that is what we ought to report out now? Is that your judgment as Director of the Reclamation Service?

Mr. DAVIS. With slight modifications I think it is. I think that this bill (11553), introduced by Mr. Kettner and now before the committee, fills the conditions well and is the best thing that I have seen suggested, both from a financial and legislative standpoint, and from a practical working field standpoint, but to answer your question I must go on record, Mr. Chairman, emphatically against the provision in the last portion of section 19 of that bill. It goes outside of the functions of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to call your attention to that.

Mr. DAVIS. Answering the question of the gentleman from Colorado directly upon this bill, that is the only serious objection I see to it. The CHAIRMAN. We discussed that yesterday and concluded we would have your advice about it.

Mr. DAVIS. This provision reads:

The construction charge per acre as heretofore fixed by the Secretary of the Interior for the lands of the Yuma reclamation project shall be proportionately reduced by the sums to be paid by the Imperial irrigation district for the right to use the Laguna Dam, as provided in section 9 of said contract.

That is a change of existing law, a subversion and a revolution of the theory of the reclamation law, and is the first definite, serious piece of legislation that I know of, that has any chance of getting through, at any rate, to enter upon a program of repudiation. That

money has been spent wisely for the benefit of that valley. The law, as at present interpreted by the Solicitor for the Interior Department and by the Attorney General of the United States, makes it necessary in order to do that, to pass this law-that is, it is a change of existing law, and there isn't any reason, either in law, equity or justice, or anything else that I can see, for that provision.

The Secretary has already announced the charges upon that land; the money has been spent; nobody questions but that it has been spent wisely and has been absolutely essential to the safety of the valley to build protection works there; and now, because there is an opportunity to collect that money by the use of some works for which the Government has spent its money and which it now owns, the provision is inserted here to prevent the collection of the money from the Imperial Valley for the defrayment of that expense; or, in other words, to pay that money over to the Yuma water users.

The charge per acre on the Yuma project as announced on the part of the project to which this applies is $75 per acre. The people on that project are now in a lawsuit with the Government, undertaking to upset that but they are not going to succeed, in my judgment, because I don't think they have either law or equity on their side; but, of course, that is to be determined by the decision of the court. The trial was held last spring, but the decision has not yet been rendered.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the amount of the water charge?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WELLING. They are trying to reduce the charge?

Mr. DAVIS. They are trying to have it cut down.

Mr. HAYDEN. The basis of the suit in the Federal court is that the original reclamation act stated that settlers should pay the estimated cost of the construction of a project. It is the contention of a part of the water users under the Yuma project that the Secretary of the Interior did make an estimate of cost, upon which they acted in good faith in subscribing as shareholders in the association. The Secretary insists that certain statements and reports to which these water users refer was not an official estimate within the intent of the law. That is a question for the courts to decide. My judg ment is the court will hold that the people on the project must pay the total construction charge as fixed by the Secretary of the Inte

rior.

On July 16, 1918, the Secretary of the Interior fixed the total construction charge for the Yuma project and announced it in a public notice as $75 an acre. In arriving at the charge of $75 an acre, certain items of cost were included. Among the items was the construction of the Laguna Dam, which was set forth at about $1,750,000. When it was proposed that the Imperial irrigation district be permitted to obtain the use of the Laguna Dam at a compensation of $1,600,000, the water users of the Yuma project, through their representatives, said that they were willing to agree to the arrangement, provided their part of the construction charge be reduced by a like amount. The Secretary of the Interior, after listening to the arguments pro and con-at that time Mr. Davis opposed the idea-concluded that the contention of the representatives of the Yuma project was just, and said that he would allow the Yuma water users this

credit, if permitted to do so under the law. The matter was referred to the Attorney General, who rendered an opinion that the Yuma water users could not be given credit for the $1,600,000 under existing law since legislation is necessary, I therefore submitted the matter to the Secretary of the Interior and received this letter from him:

Such a controversy arose in the department as to our right to credit the Yuma reclamation project with any moneys received from the Imperial project with any moneys received from the Imperial irrigation district for the privileges of connecting with and using the Laguna Dam, that I referred the matter to the Attorney General of the United States for opinion. I am now in receipt of his opinion dated September 16, 1919, copy inclosed, wherein he holds that under the law this credit can not be allowed. I am of the opinion that Congress should authorize the receipts from the Imperial irrigation district or other districts for the use of the Laguna Dam to be applied as a reduction of the charges assessed against the Yuma projects. I recommend that such legislation be enacted.

It was in pursuance of that recommendation made by the Secretary of the Interior that I have asked to have included in section 19 of this bill the provision to which Mr. Davis objects.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, just permit me I suppose this was quite similar to the conditions with other projects. In the case of the North Platte project of Nebraska and Wyoming, the estimates on that project, in the first place, were for $35, I believe it was, and they were increased twice, first to $45 and finally to $55 per acre. Of course there was some dissatisfaction about that, but they are all paying the $55 an acre, and they are getting rich by doing it.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think Mr. Davis will recall, too, that the Uncompahgre project in Colorado was probably the most insistent one in the United States, as it was the first one. They had a direct statement from the department that the maximum cost would be $25 an acre; now it is up to about $75 an acre, and, of course, there are a lot of kickers that have always been contending that the Government ought to be held to that original proposition.

Mr. DAVIS. I will say, Mr. Chairman, that while what has been said regarding original estimates is true, when those estimates were announced in Yuma-I was present-as in many other places, they were accompanied by a statement that the law required this fund to be a revolving fund, that whatever the cost it would have to be repaid, and when the contract was finally drawn in each case it so provided. The contract being so drawn, it enabled us to do a great many things that were not included in the original estimate, and we did. As Mr. Hayden will remember, on his own project we started out with the idea of building only the Roosevelt Storage Dam. We afterwards built a great many things in addition. We bought canal systems, etc., and where they expected that the cost would be about $4,000,000-$3,850,000 was the amount, I believe, for which they incorporated-it came to about $11,000,000. But that has all been thrashed out fully. We bought big canal systems, enlarged them; we built a power plant, as Mr. Taylor remembers, on the Uncompahgre project. The figure that has now been announced there as the book cost includes a large number of things; for example, the purchase of all those canal systems that were not included in that first estimate at all. They have been purchased, they have been rebuilt and enlarged, very similarly to what we have done upon the Salt River.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »