Mr. DAVIS. Yes; that is the effect of it, in my opinion.

Mr. LITTLE. In the recognition of their entries, it puts the responsibility upon themselves for getting this amount of water. Was that provision put in, fundamentally, at first?

Mr. DAVIS. That provision was in all of them.

Mr. HAYDEN. Would it be of advantage to the people of the Imperial Valley at this time to divide the all-American canal into two sections, primarily taking into consideration the construction of the first leg from the Laguna Dam down to the present heading, and later the construction from opposite the present heading through the sand hills into the Imperial Valley? I understand that the first leg of the canal from the Laguna Dam to where the water could be dropped into the present heading would cost about $7,000,000; the remainder of the work about $23,000,000, a total of $30,000,000. What advantage would it be to the Imperial irrigation district to spend that $7,000,000 right now-to make two bites of the cherry, so to speak?

Mr. DAVIS. It would obviate the necessity of putting a dam in at the head of their present canal.

Mr. HAYDEN. That would remove a menace to the United States reclamation project at Yuma?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. If there were difficulty about raising all the money, would you advise at least raising the $7,000,000 to connect the present Imperial Canal with the Laguna Dam?

Mr. DAVIS. By all means.

Mr. LITTLE. As a matter of fact, Mr. Davis, is it not true that if it were not for the Yuma district these people could go ahead just as they are and avail themselves of the Yuma Dam and get enough water to keep them going all right?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; the Mexican lands would take it. That is the great trouble.

Mr. LITTLE. Even if they had plenty of water the Mexican lands would eventually get away with it?

Mr. TAYLOR. They would absorb it.

Mr. DAVIS. They claim a right to take half of it, but the further trouble is they might take more than half on that side of the boundary.

Mr. TAYLOR. Below Yuma the dam could be enlarged if it were not that Yuma proposes to have a greater increase of water supply down that ditch?

Mr. DAVIS. They took all the water out last fall; they dried the river.

Mr. LITTLE. No matter where the water goes, there would be an immense increase of water under the enlargement of the present dam in the working of the Yuma proposition.

Mr. DAVIS. NO. They took all the water out when the river was low last fall-they took every drop out-but that is unusual.

Mr. LITTLE. The enlargement of the dam would not result in sufficient storage.

Mr. DAVIS. No storage at all.

Mr. LITTLE. With such a dam there would be a storage?
Mr. DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. KETTNER. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that the director understands. You are aware, Mr. Davis, that the Yuma people are holding an injuction as a club over the heads of the Imperial Valley people at the present time?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KETTNER. You are also aware that through the use of that club the Imperial Valley were forced to come to the Secretary and make this contract which you have mentioned?

Mr. DAVIS. That was one of the inducements, probably. They came of their own accord.

Mr. LITTLE. The court enjoined them, didn't they?

Mr. DAVIS. Their injunction was made temporary and suspended. Mr. LITTLE. What is the benefit of the Yuma proposition by the injunction which refuses these people the right to get more water for them if they could go right on without and get it? Aren't you mistaken about that? Is it not the fact that this injunction is what interferes with them, and primarily?

Mr. DAVIS. The injunction probably had an influence, as you say, but the injunction is not operative, and never has been.

Mr. LITTLE. They fear they will put it into operation?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. LITTLE. The Yuma people have the injunction against these people doing anything to their dam at Yuma?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; exactly what is the legal status I do not know. They did have such an injunction, and a stipulation was entered into that by deposit of a bond to cover all the possible damages they could enlarge and build their dam, and they have done that.

Mr. LITTLE. Is it not a fact that but for that injunction they would go ahead with their dam?

Mr. DAVIS. I do not think they would do that; and that does not keep the Mexican irrigators there who have a waterway through there from getting water from them.

Mr. HAYDEN. Just how much of a menace to the Yuma project is this dam at the Imperial heading?

Mr. DAVIS. That is a problematical thing. We consider it a serious menace for two reasons: One is that the action of the flow there may throw the river against the levee and dam, and the river would cut down there at the old sluice and do immense damage. The other menace is in conditions of low and medium water the river is 6 to 10 feet higher now above that dam than it is below it. That means for a distance of 8 or 10 miles from the town of Yuma to the Imperial heading that river is standing from 6 to 10 feet higher than it otherwise would, and it causes seepage in the Yuma Valley. Mr. LITTLE. And that is the reason you enjoined?

Mr. DAVIS. The Yuma people enjoined them.

Mr. LITTLE. You think they are right in doing that, or do you not?

Mr. DAVIS. I would rather not express myself on that.

Mr. KETTNER. I think, if the director does not wish to express himself, I want to say here for the Imperial Valley people that that is the main point that the Imperial Valley people are here for, and were forced into this position through this Yuma injunction.

Mr. LITTLE. That is what I was trying to bring out at Mr. Kettner's suggestion in my questions.

Mr. DAVIS. A great pressure was brought to bear by the Yuma project and the United States.

Mr. KETTNER. I can bring this out, that the director is fully aware, by the courtesy of Mr. Hayden and the two Senators in the last two years, they wanted to force an injunction a year ago, to get this injunction which would have shut off the Imperial Valley Dam. Mr. HAYDEN. I do not think that the Senators or Congressman of Arizona acted solely from a desire to be courteous. We at all times consulted with the people of the Yuma Valley and whenever an arrengement satisfactory to them was made with respect to the time the dam should be removed, the amount of the bond, etc., we gave our consent from year to year with the distinct understanding in each case that this was positively the last time that permission would be granted to put in such a dam. Each time excellent promises were made by the representatives of the Imperial Valley. First, they were going to construct a different kind of head gate that would take care of the sand and silt so that the water would be sure to get into the heart of the Imperial Canal without a diversion weir. When that plan proved to be a failure they began to talk about connecting with the Laguna Dam. The people of the Yuma project know that they are gravely and seriously menaced from two sources: First, that the repeated construction of this rock weir will some day result in turning the entire flood flow of the Colorado River into the very heart of their project, doing incalculable damage to land worth at least $300 or $400 an acre. Secondly, maintaining the river at a higher level for 8 miles above this dam causes the water to seep through the banks, raising alkali on large areas of land. That damage is being done now.

Therefore they were vitally interested in the construction of a main canal from Laguna Dam down to the present Imperial heading. There the water could be dropped back into the present Imperial Canal and carried through Mexico and thus remove a very serious menace as far as the Yuma project is concerned. That is why I ask you, Mr. Davis, whether, if it should turn out that there is not money enough to do all this work at once, and, therefore, the entire plan to build an all-American could not be carried out, is it advisable to insist upon the construction of a canal from Laguna Dam down to the present Imperial heading?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; it would be. The reason you have mentioned is not the only one. The water supply taken from Laguna Dam will be much more secure. A temporary dam such as exists at the lower heading is not secure because a sudden flood might breach that dam at any time and then it requires work and extraordinary expense to restore that in time to prevent a shortage of water in the valley, and the shortages they have had have been mostly due to what was out at the dam.

Mr. HAYDEN. In your opinion, as an engineer, it would be worth while for the people of Imperial Valley to build that connection between their present heading and the Laguna Dam, whether an all-American canal is constructed or not?

Mr. DAVIS. It would. It is a program to be considered, I think, as the first step in the construction of an all-American canal, which, taken independently, would be a wise thing. There is another

reason that has been mentioned, and that is there are sluicing facili ties at Laguna Dam which are not provided in their dam here.

Mr. HAYDEN. That is the present method of drawing water from the bed of the river carries sand and silt into the Imperial canal, which they must remove by expensive means, while, if connection is made with the Laguna Ďam such material can be sluiced away, thus saving a great expense.

Mr. DAVIS. The most troublesome portion of the sand can be sluiced out, and we now do that for the Yuma project.

Mr. HAYDEN. I just wanted to get your opinion as an engineer whether it would be a good investment for the Imperial irrigation district to build the first leg of the main canal. The people in Yuma would like to have that done, whether anything else was ever done or not. It would be the first step, and later they could do the rest of the work. Supposing something might prevent the completion of the all-American canal, do you believe that an investment of $7,000,000 in a canal from Laguna to their present heading would be fully justified for the Imperial people?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that would be for the mutual benefit of the Imperial Valley interests and the Yuma project? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; absolutely.

Mr. HAYDEN. Do you believe that the Yuma people can continue to give the Imperial Valley permission to construct a diversion dam at the present heading of the Imperial canal, with safety to the Yuma project?

Mr. DAVIS. No; I would not say that. I do not believe that the Yuma people will ever absolutely refuse to agree to reconstruction of the dam unless the Imperial Valley ceases its efforts to get connection with the Laguna heading.

Mr. HAYDEN. That is, as long as they act in good faith in an effort to make connection wth the Laguna Dam, you would be justified in allowing them still another permit. But if they cease to exhibit good faith and show a tendency to remain at their present heading and a desire to get water from there permanently, then you would be justified in using all legal means to prevent the construction of other diversion dams in the Colorado River.

Mr. LITTLE. In other words, the Yuma people can only afford to let these people linger as long as they have the present situation. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; that is the situation.

Mr. SINNOTT. Does the Alamo Canal irrigate any lands in the United States outside of the Imperial irrigation district?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. SINNOTT. Is it planned that there is going to be a moral obligation on the part of the Government toward the people in the Imperial irrigation district?

Mr. DAVIS. I have not heard any such claim made by them or anyone else.

Mr. SINNOTT. Are they suffering from a shortage of water now? Mr. DAVIS. Not now. They have at brief intervals in the past for various reasons, some breaches of the dam in the river or some leak of the dam there, and twice from a shortage of water in the river itself.

Mr. SINNOTT. I mean that it was claimed there was a moral obligation on the part of the Government that the Government had induced them to do something.

Mr. WELLING. I talked with you in your office the other day about Green River project on the headwaters of the Colorado River and the tributary waters of the Green and Grand Rivers. Most of the waters in the Colorado River come from the watershed in southeastern Utah. In view of what you have said about the lack of water now for the projects that are now involved in this scheme under the all-American canal, what about the rights of people farther up the Colorado River in the State of Colorado to divert water to projects up there? We claim that water in the State of Utah.

Mr. SINNOTT. The Supreme Court has had that under consideration for two years, Mr. Welling. They have not rendered a decision yet.

Mr. DAVIS. The idea I have in regard to that, Mr. Welling, is this: That except the character of the developments was to divert water entirely outside of the Colorado basins or to store water in the low-water season, I think no obstruction could be placed in the way legally in the upper reaches of the river for the reason that they use the waters mostly in May, June, and July, when there is plenty of water for all, and the only shortage to come is immediately after that. It is partly returned by seepage and it would be very difficult to say that their water supply was depleted by diversions above that so long as it is not taken out of the basin.

I do not think any obstruction should or could be placed upon the unlimited use of water from the Colorado in these upper basins. The particulars are not sufficiently extensive to entirely get away from the reasons that I have given for that.

Mr. TAYLOR. There is a certain amount of water in the Colorado. Mr. WELLING. I am glad to have you express that opinion. Our experience with the Colorado River in my State with the same stream waters-we use the headwaters of the stream-is that it is the very best reservoir for the waters below.

Mr. DAVIS. It is a common thing. Of course, a diversion from the headwaters of the Colorado River in August and September would deplete the waters on the lower Colorado in addition to these same projects diverting that in May, June, and July, but the return seepage would probably restore that.

Mr. TAYLOR. We found that true and worked that out in the Kansas-Colorado case and also in the Nebraska case. Under the irrigation in Colorado all of our irrigation works, hundreds of them, made a reservoir of these waters, and an enormous reservoir in the last 20 years; since we have been doing that irrigation there is three times as much water in your other State lines-in Nebraska and in Kansas and these States; there is more water to-day than in years. In other words, we have increased your normal supply in your States by reason of the storage which has made you good, permanent water supplies where the streams were dry in 50 years before we commenced the irrigation-dry as the State lines. That is the result of Cutting, and all the old-timers' testimony taken in these cases in the United States courts shows it.