Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SUMMERS. Ís the Government amply protected by the security which is proposed in this bill, in your opinion?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; as modified by the report of the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary recommended some modifications in the bill, which I think would strengthen it, and with those modifications incorporated I think the security is ample.

Mr. WELLING. It is the understanding that if the Government undertakes the project, whether it is so stated in the law or not, regulations will be adopted by the Secretary which would absolutely forbid any one holder to have more than 160 acres of land irrigated through this canal?

Mr. DAVIS. I think that should be, but unless it is provided in the law, I couldn't guarantee that that could be done.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Unless the man owned the land in private ownership and has his own water supply.

Mr. WELLING. He can't get it through this ditch, though.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, the remarks I made about the telegram from the Spanish War veterans and what their policy would be related entirely to the new lands and not to the old lands.

The CHAIRMAN. Just one question, Mr. Director-will you state just briefly your estimate of the merits of the Imperial Valley as an irrigation proposition?

Mr. DAVIS. The Imperial Valley is a very rich tract of land. It has a semitropical climate, in which it is possible to raise products of a character and quantity that it is possible to raise in very few other parts of the world, and it is similar in claimate to the Yuma Valley and similar in climate to the Salt River Valley of the Reclamation Service. The Salt River Valley project of the Reclamation Service last year produced 75 per cent more value than the total cost of the project.

The lands cultivated in the Yuma Valley last year produced an average of $113 per acre. The Yuma Valley is more nearly comparable to the Imperial Valley than the Salt River Valley is, though they are all very similar in character. The Yuma Valley is composed of alluvial deposits, which the Salt River is not to so great an extent, and consequently it has more humus in the soil; and the Imperial Valley is more similar in character to it.

Mr. TAYLOR. What is the average depth of the soil in the Imperial Valley?

Mr. DAVIS. Nobody knows. I have never heard of any boring made to the bottom of that soil. It may be thousands of feet deep. Mr. ROSE. We have bored 3,000 feet, and didn't strike the bottom. Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Director, what irrigation proposition in the United States has the largest production per acre?

Mr. DAVIS. You don't confine that to Government projects?
Mr. LITTLE. NO.

Mr. DAVIS. It is difficult to define what the term "project" means. Mr. LITTLE. Well, does the Imperial Valley or the Salt River Valley or the Yuma project have the largest production?

Mr. DAVIS. If you are speaking of certain valleys, I don't know of any under any definition that produces as large an amount as the Imperial Valley does.

Mr. LITTLE. Is there any in North America that does?

Mr. DAVIS. No; and very few in the world. Of course, if you should take the entire valley of the Nile, as one project, that might be. Mr. SUMMERS. I don't think so.

Mr. TAYLOR. Do they raise a crop every month in the year in the Nile Valley?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; it has a climate very similar to the Imperial Valley, and a much larger area. Of course, it raises more in the entire valley, but there are many diversions there, and I wouldn't call that all one project.

Mr. HAYDEN. We have covered the question of individual holdings; now I want to ask you another question about limiting the area of the project itself, in view of the present water supply.

You will remember that under the Salt River project a board of engineers was convened for the purpose of ascertaining the average water supply derived from the flow of the streams above that project, and a definite limit was at one time set on the area that could with safety be irrigated. By reason of the rising of the water table and the development of other sources of water supply, that area has been increased since. Would it be advisable now, in view of the fact that there is no storage on the Colorado River, to limit the area of land that might be granted water rights through the all-American canal?

Mr. DAVIS. That is one way of meeting the question, but the way recommended in the Secretary's report on this bill is that the proceeds from the sale of the public lands for which this bill provides be devoted to the construction of storage, and if the bill is passed and that is carried out, that solves the question.

Mr. HAYDEN. But it will take time to get the money from the sale of public lands; to get it into the Treasury and then have it appropriated for the construction of irrigation works?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. Could you with safety divert enough water at all seasons of the year from the Laguna Dam through a canal of the proposed capacity to irrigate the entire area included within the limits of the high-line canal?

Mr. DAVIS. Without storage?

Mr. HAYDEN. Without storage; yes.

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. Then, if that is the case, would it not be wise for the Secretary of the Interior to have authority to fix a limit to the land that could be irrigated until storage is provided?

Mr. DAVIS. That might be done, but he has to sell these lands in advance and secure the funds, and it will take several years to build this all-American canal.

Mr. HAYDEN. The point I am getting at is, I want to avoid the situation that has arisen on so many projects where, after the commencement of construction, people would settle upon the land in the hope of obtaining water, and it would turn out that the water supply was not available in time to give them a supply, or that storage was necessary, and they underwent years of hardship and disappointment, which is bad both for the people and the project. Now, if the Secretary of the Interior had authority to say in advance what area could be irrigated from the all-American canal from the present unregulated flow of the Colorado River, taking into consideration the

data that you have on the flow of the stream and the size of the proposed canal, he could then determine that with safety a certain area might be included within the project and then later, when storage is developed, he could take in new lands-don't you think it might be wise to have such a provision in this bill?

Mr. Davis. I think it would-leaving it in the discretion of the Secretary.

Mr. HAYDEN. Absolutely so; but have it incumbent upon him to make a finding in advance of what lands could be irrigated and where they are located.

Mr. DAVIS. I think that would be wise. It would certainly create greater confidence in the project.

Mr. HAYDEN. Because if we do not do that, every acre of land now in private ownership that could possibly be irrigated from the all-American canal will be placed upon the market and the prospective purchaser will be told, "The all-American canal is going to be built; the Government has adopted the project; you are going to get water." As a matter of fact he may get water for his land and he may not. But if the Secretary of the Interior says at the outset : "Now, we propose to irrigate ultimately all of the land that can be covered by the all-American canal and its laterals, but to be perfectly sure that there will be ample water at all times for the lands in cultivation we are going to limit the area within the project to certain designated tracts of land that will get water immediately, and when storage is provided we will furnish water for the balance," there would not be the disappointment and suffering that would otherwise occur.

Mr. DAVIS. I would like to say this, too: All that you have said is true, and I agree with it; but the question is not so threatening or dangerous as you seem to think, for the reason that during the early part of the year-in fact, all of the year except the fall-there is no danger of shortage under natural conditions.

Mr. HAYDEN. That is by reason of the flood season of the Colorado River coming at a convenient irrigating season.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; the flow of the river throughout the spring months and June and July will be ample for any development that can be made before the Secretary constructs storage, even if he has the funds that this bill provides, and such shortage as might come in would only interfere with the cultivation of such crops as it would happen to strike. In other words, you could raise grain and other things on the land that is not allowed any storage water, and the provision that the Secretary might make would not interfere with the development of the land at all but it would be limited to the crops that the flow of water would permit.

Mr. HAYDEN. But clearly the Secretary of the Interior ought to have that right in the law so that no one could dispute his authority to do it.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. You spoke about two or three other suggestions that the Spanish War veterans made. You said that you thought the first one about the limitation of acreage was a good idea; what were the others?

Mr. DAVIS. There was one other, a provision that soldiers and sailors should have preference rights.

Mr. HAYDEN. There is one other question I wish to ask you, Mr. Davis. Would it not be advisable to provide in this bill that all those who expect to obtain the benefit of the construction of the allAmerican canal should also be obligated to pay their fair share of the cost of future storage works, the cost to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior when the works were completed?,

Mr. DAVIS. I don't see any objection to it.

Mr. HAYDEN. It is one of those matters where if it is provided in the law that the Secretary was directed to fix the charge for storage, there would be no question about his authority to do so.

Mr. DAVIS. I don't see any objection to it.

Mr. HAYDEN. As new lands come into cultivation, storage works must be constructed to provide water for them.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. And if these works are constructed the charges should apply to all the lands benefited thereby.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. Lands now irrigated perhaps would not have as great a need for storage as the new lands.

Mr. LITTLE. Then the charge for the storage should be laid on the new lands, which should pay for the canal also. It would be perfectly convenient for those who divert between the lands on the east basin and the Imperial Valley, who have a perfect water right with respect to the amount paid for storage in that ditch, that all these lands should pay something for being under storage.

Mr. DAVIS. I think that they should, not but what they have a right to plenty of water, but they are certainly interested in storage to some extent. I think the charge should be laid on lands now under cultivation. They are most interested in storage.

Mr. LITTLE. You think they should, notwithstanding they are all entitled to water, but as I understood you a few moments ago, they are not all entitled to getting water from this new ditch.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. LITTLE. And if the community did not use the Mexican ditch their right to water there is a wholly different matter, but when they come to get water out of this new ditch which we propose to build there, would not they be obligated on that basis, these people who take water there, to include the storage obligation?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, if they pay their share upon this ditch they have a right to carry their present water rights further down.

Mr. KETTNER. Is there not an American right there? That is the keynote of the whole thing. I am not clear just what your judgment is about that matter. Now, it seems to me very important. You say if they pay their share of the new ditch they have the same rights that they have under the old ditch.

Mr. LITTLE. Yes. They have the same relation to the community as before, but, as I just suggested to you a few moments ago and you seemed to agree with me, don't you think it subjects to the obligations the community that wants it, for example, nobody can get water for any more than a quarter section of it.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; that condition is made by law.

Mr. LITTLE. Then they would not have large entries there. Have they now?

Mr. DAVIS. I think that is through an act of Congress.

Mr. LITTLE. Then the Congress could go ahead and say everybody who took water out of this new ditch would take it subject to the obligation, an obligation to be shared with everybody else.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. LITTLE. Certainly if Congress should put that condition on the act creating that clause, it would not be just.

Mr. TAYLOR. Why would it not be just?

The CHAIRMAN. You do not mean you could deprive anybody of existing water rights.

Mr. DAVIS. Oh, no.

Mr. HAYDEN. But before anybody secured water out of the allAmerican canal he would have to pay the water charge as fixed.

Mr. LITTLE. It would not necessarily follow that he would have the same status under the Mexican ditch that he would get under the new ditch.

Mr. DAVIS. Congress may put any condition it chooses on the new ditch.

Mr. SINNOTT. Do you know how much public land there is within the boundaries of the Imperial ditch?

Mr. DAVIS. 586,000 acres, I think it is.

Mr. SINNOTT. You mean public land in the boundaries of the Imperial.

Mr. DAVIS. Very little public land. There is a total area inside of the district of 586,000 acres.

Mr. SINNOTT. And very little public land?

Mr. DAVIS. Very little public land.

Mr. SINNOTT. Why is the paramount right to the water given to the Imperial irrigation district under section 12 of the bill? What is the reason?

Mr. DAVIS. That is the recognition of the fact that the district has been irrigating 400,000 acres of land, a recognition of the right of prior appropriation.

Mr. SINNOTT. Have they had ample water in the district?

Mr. DIVIS. No. There is often ditch trouble there. But only twice has all water been taken out of the river in that valley. The farmers and residents, I have heard, said they never had enough in any year. Mr. SINNOTT. Why should they be given a paramount right to an increased amount of water?

Mr. DAVIS. I do not think they should get a paramount right to an increased amount unless they pay for it. But let them have a right to the same amount as they have been already using on the basis of prior appropriations.

Mr. SINNOTT. That lands outside of the district, by virtue of section 12, shall have a right secondary to that of the lands within the boundaries of the district. I do not see the reason for that.

Mr. DAVIS. The reason is that there will be some years of shortage unless storage is provided-that is, unless storage is provided for additional acreage, and the new lands naturally would suffer from that shortage.

Mr. SINNOTT. I can see why they should be given a paramount right to the same amount of water, but not to additional water. The CHAIRMAN. You will find in there it is simply their existing right.