Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, sir, so far as we know.

Mr. FASCELL. Other than the maintenance of the levee and the maintenance of the channel itself, what other maintenance costs will be authorized?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. There is authorized here maintenance of works and maintenance of river channels. In those cases where the Federal installations are involved, and where they are being threatened by river changes, we would have authorization under this bill to protect the U.S. bank against a change.

Such a change would threaten properties that are of value.
Mr. FASCELL. Give me a for instance. I don't follow you.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Let's suppose we have a levee there, a mainline levee, and the river threatens to come in on the levee. Rather than lose the levee and the land, we would have a right, under this treaty, to put in bank protection works along the bank to prevent continued erosion of the bank, and the bill would authorize this work.

Mr. FASCELL. Authorization for future works?
Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. Necessary to protect the project?
Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. Is that limitation under the bill under the public works authorization?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. This is contained in article 4 of the treaty.

In order to reduce to a minimum the shifting of the channels of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River . . . and the problems . . . caused by the separation of tracts of land, the Contracting States agree that each Contracting State, in the limitrophe sections of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River may protect its bank against erosion and . . . may construct works in the . . . channels that are completely within its territory. . . to preserve the character of the limitrophe channel provided, however, that in the judgment of the Commission, the works... executed... do not adversely affect the other Contracting State through the deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of the river...

Mr. FASCELL. That is OK as far as the contracting parties are concerned. That is just a limitation for oversight with respect to future works on the course of the channel. I am talking about authorization in the legislation on the U.S. side, that the United States proceeds with other constructions, and what you are telling me, as I understand now, is that authorization contained in the legislation is simply to carry out anything that might be carried out under the terms of that particular article in the treaty?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. That is all you are seeking?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, sir. Now, there is another provision in the terms of a recommendation, in article 4 C.

Mr. FASCELL. You are reading from the treaty?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, sir.

The Commission shall recommend to the two Governments the execution of works it may consider advisable and practical for improvement and stabilization of... the Rio Grande and of the Colorado River . . . including, among others, ... clearing, channel excavations, bank protection, and rectifications. The Commission shall include in its recommendations an estimate of the costs of construction, operation and maintenance of the works and a proposal for division of the work and costs between the Contracting States.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Friedkin, what I am concerned about is not the U.S. commitment. I am concerned about the extent of the authorization that is requested in this particular legislation.

Do I understand that the authorization is for all future flood control works on the Colorado and Rio Grande?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. No, sir; it is not that extensive.

Mr. FASCELL. Then, what is the limitation contained in the article of the treaty that you read?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. The limitation is in the nature of works for which recommendation may be made under the treaty, and such works would have to come before the Congress.

Mr. FASCELL. For separate authorizations?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. No, sir; only for appropriation of funds.

Mr. FASCELL. Let me go answer the rollcall, and see if we can't get that straightened out. We will take a temporary recess.

(A short recess was taken.)

Mr. FASCELL. What did we decide?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. May I start at the beginning of this last discussion? Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Friedkin, you go ahead.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. In response to the question.

Mr. FASCELL. Are you sure that I asked a question?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. What this bill authorizes, I believe, in terms of funding, is first, the funds for the U.S. half of the relocation of the river at three locations mentioned in the Presidio area and down in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, under article I of the treaty.

Second, it also authorizes funds, under article IV of the treaty, and there are four points here, all for the purpose of reducing to a minimum the shifting of the channel and boundaries of the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. It authorizes for this purpose: (a) That each country may protect its bank of a river against a loss of territory by erosion. (b) It provides that each country shall prohibit the construction of works in its territory which could deflect a current or cause damage to the territory of the other country. This, too, involves expenditures. (c) In the event that works are built in one country that adversely affect the other country, the former must either repair the damage caused or make compensation for the damage caused. The bill would authorize the U.S. section of the Commission to perform this obligation for the United States. (d) It would authorize under article IV (C) that the United States, to the extent considered advisable and practical for improving and stabilizing the channels of the boundary sections of the rivers, undertake clearing channel excavations, river protection, and rectification of the river, all for the purpose of maintaining the boundary channels to the extent practicable. These are authorizations.

You will note that in article II of the treaty, it provides that as soon as practical the Commission will prepare maps of the new boundary, each Government bearing half the cost.

Mr. FASCELL. Is there or is there not any authorization in this bill that carries out IV (C)?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, section 108.

Mr. FASCELL. So you don't need any additional authorization to get any of that work done? That is all contained in the bill?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. That is correct-all the work provided for in the treaty.

me.

Mr. FASCELL. That seems to clear up one of the things that confused

Have we yet put in the record the value of the lands involved? Mr. FRIEDKIN. I believe we did. The land values are estimates. We do not have appraisals but they may vary somewhere within the range of $600 to $1,000.

Mr. FASCELL. That is irrigated land in the Presidio section?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. How about other land downstream?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Brushlands will go down to $100 or less.

Mr. FASCELL. How about Beaver and Horcon?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. We don't have estimates there yet. There may be some residential properties in the Horcon area.

Mr. FASCELL. You said there is a little town there. Are we going to buy up the town?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. We will have to buy up the properties for which there is a valid claim of ownership under U.S. law.

Mr. FASCELL. It is not all in Horcon, only a small part of it is? We have to estimate.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, sir; the village is partly in Mexico. We have not yet been able to make an appraisal or attempted to determine ownership claims.

Mr. FASCELL. Explain to me the language of section 102, paragraph 3, starting at line 12. I am sure it has a simple explanation that escapes me. "The U.S. Commissioner is authorized to enter into the contracts with owners of properties to be relocated at the expense of the United States.

"Any and all operations involved in said relocations, to construct, operate, and maintain all works, provided for in said treaty and/or title I." That sounds like a double authorization.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. This authorizes the U.S. Commissioner to construct, operate and maintain all works provided for in said treaty or title I, and for this purpose to enter into contracts with landowners.

Mr. FASCELL. Why is that different from section 108?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Section 102 is authorization for the U.S. section to construct. We may either construct it ourselves directly or we may contract with a farmer or other contractor in the area. There are some cases where there are irrigation ditches that have to be relocated. In these and in other cases it may be cheaper and simpler to get the job done by simply contracting with the appropriate owner.

Mr. FASCELL. It says, "to construct, operate, and maintain all works provided for in said treaty," and what you told me was that section 108 authorizes all of the work to carry out article IV (C). Section 108 reads: "There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State for the use of the United States section such sums as may be necessary to carry out provisions of said treaty and title I of this Act." That is a general authorization.

Then you go to section 102 and it says "to construct, operate, and maintain all works provided for in said treaty and/or title I of this act." That sounds like a lawyer talking to me, so what does our lawyer say? What is the difference between those two authorizations?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. I misled you in referring earlier only to section 108. Mr. Chairman, section 102 is the authorization to perform the work. The other, section 108, is the authorization for funding of the work. Mr. FASCELL. That makes sense. You are authorized under section

102 as the Commissioner to actually carry out the work and the other is the authority for the money.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. Does that language in the first part mean that that the United States is authorized to enter into contracts with all owners of property.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. No, sir, not all owners, but it may be efficient and in the best interest of the Government to contract with some of the owners in some circumstances to relocate their irrigation ditches or relocate some of their pumps, and that is the purpose of that particular provision.

Mr. FASCELL. So it would just be in those instances in which the Commissioner decides that work is to be done.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. That is right, and how it can best be done.

Mr. FASCELL. Is there anything involving non-landowners who would be affected in any way? Does the treaty cover any aspect of that or do we contemplate any problem with nonlandowners; workers, for example, who might be dislocated; or businesses, gas stations, inns, restaurants, that might suffer a loss as a result of these land relocations?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. As mentioned before, in the Presidio Valley, there will be the loss of 770 irrigated acres. Without compensating measures or offsetting measures, it would reduce the income to the area and adversely affect others in the area, and this is the reason we urge as title II of this bill, the flood control project which will largely offset those losses by the savings of flood damages

Mr. FASCELL. I don't know about that, Mr. Friedkin. I don't know if that is good enough. You are not going to provide income just because some contractor comes in there and built a levee.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. No, but it will prevent flood damages that they are suffering now. This would save the crops and the crops saved would provide work for workers.

Mr. FASCELL. On the remaining land north of the levee?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. Who would the works be turned over to once they are constructed? Would that be the Corps of Engineers?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. The United States section of the Boundary Commission will maintain the works because they are constructed in connec tion with Mexico.

Mr. FASCELL. A joint operation?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. Then I understand your answer to be that there is no provision made with respect to any non-landowner. Right? Mr. FRIEDKIN. That is right, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. So loss of jobs or loss of income is not involved except in the overall computation of what is benefit and what is not benefit. Mr. FRIEDKIN. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. Let's come downstream again to the wildlife refuge. Is that an existing wildlife refuge? (See treaty map, "Upstream from Hidalgo-Reynosa", facing p. 48.)

Mr. FRIEDKIN. No, sir, it is not.

Mr. FASCELL. When you take the water and run it from north to south, what is it going to do to all of that land?

Mr. FRIEDKIN. This land is now all above water.

Mr. FASCELL. The water is north of it and you are going to cut a channel to the south and you are going to make the land anywhere the wildlife refuge will be.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. No, sir, it will have rain. There is a lot of rain in this country.

Mr. FASCELL. I heard someone say that it had not rained there in 45 years.

Mr. FRIEDKIN. No, sir, this is down in the Lower Rio Grande Valley part of the river.

Mr. FASCELL. How about the wildlife people who are here telling us something about it. Tell me why it would be such a great wildlife refuge, aside from the fact that it is Government property.

STATEMENT OF JAMES PULLIAM, ASSISTANT CHIEF, DIVISION OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Mr. PULLIAM. I am Assistant Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. The Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge is 10 or 15 miles down the river in the area of MacAllen. It is not very far from this area.

You will notice that a lot of land along the river has already been cleared for agriculture. These two areas were approximately 50 percent cropland at one time. I understand the cropland is now reverting to brushland. In the past, along this area of the Rio Grande much land was of this general habitat type created by regular flooding of the Rio Grande.

Water is very essential to maintaining these habitat types. We have problems maintaining vegetation at Santa Ana Refuge. That particular area is a result of many years of flooding by the Rio Grande. Since the flooding frequency has been reduced, we have had problems maintaining habitat and we do it through pumping.

I understand these two areas will not have any water rights but it will be possible to maintain parts of these areas by drilling deep wells, pumping, and periodic flooding with water.

The area itself is not presently valuable for waterfowl, but primarily for white-winged doves and peripheral bird species, such as green jays, red-billed pigeons, and Lichtenstein's orioles. There are many kinds of birds, at least two dozen along this area of the river that are found nowhere else in the United States and they are associated with the unique habitats in areas such as these.

Mr. FASCELL. If that is farming land now you are going to have to start your explanation all over for me. First of all, you ran the water off. Then you farmed it. Now you tell me you are going to pump the water back so it will be suitable for birds. I am lost.

Mr. PULLIAM. No, the water would be to maintain the vegetation that is there.

Mr. FASCELL. That is just to maintain the ground cover because you are moving the river. Who is going to pay for the pumps? Mr. PULLIAM. The Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. FASCELL. Does the Wildlife Service have a preliminary plan as to the use of this land?