it feasible under standards laid down by the Federal reclamation laws.

Mr. WILL. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. That is what is causing some trouble with some of the projects in this entire area, is it not?

Mr. WILL. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. We are trying to consider Kendall as an individual project. Are we trying to adopt a different rule on the Kendall project which we are unwilling to have with reference to other projects?

Mr. WILL. I don't think we are, Senator. I think on the Kendall project, our proposal for an amendment in that case, is in line with the proposals contained in S. 1555, regarding the conditional authorization of other units such, for instance, as the San Juan-Chama diversion in New Mexico, and certain developments in the south San Juan area, with respect to which final feasibility reports are not yet available.

Senator ANDERSON. That is why the language worries me a little bit. We have had a sample in the bill or recommendation being considered by the House committee where some projects in the State of New Mexico were removed from the bill because, when you applied the yardstick of feasibility to just those single projects, they might not have measured up, but by taking the entire basin as a simple multiple-purpose unit they had a place there.

I am just wondering if this recommendation with reference to Kendall might not be dangerous if we just took it singly.

Mr. WILL. We hope, Senator, that the New Mexico units and developments will fare better over here.

Senator ANDERSON. I do, too.

Mr. WILL. Note that the Kendall Reservoir wasn't approved by the House committee, either.

Senator ANDERSON. Which one?

Mr. WILL. The Kendall Reservoir in Wyoming.

Senator ANDERSON. I know it; and I am wondering why it might not be possible to consider the Kendall as a part of the single multiplepurpose unit, because surely we want Navaho Dam and the Navaho project and the other projects in our part of the area considered on that basis.

Mr. WILL. They should all be so considered.

Senator ANDERSON. Is there any reason why we are going to take these States up in reverse alphabetical order?

Mr. WILL. Yes, Senator. We thought that would best fit in with the convenience of this committee.

The States of Colorado and New Mexico have perhaps a more complicated problem to present than have the others. Accordingly, it was our judgment that this committee would prefer to hear first, after the Federal Government witnesses have testified, from the witnesses from Wyoming and Utah, where the internal problems are not as difficult.

Senator ANDERSON. On page 4 of your statement, in the middle paragraph, the very end of it, you express the hope that Congress will in general terms provide the framework within which there may be evolved definite plans, and so forth, for these projects.

I thank you and commend you for using the language you did. But when you use the term "evolve," by whom would those plans be evolved? Do you recognize the responsibility of the State to decide where its water should be used?

Mr. WILL. We think that it is a responsibility of the State, working in close cooperation with our commission and with the Federal Government.

Senator ANDERSON. But the quotation you have on the front page of your statement speaks of this fundamental policy that includes the interests and rights of the States in the development of the watersheds within their borders.

Mr. WILL. Yes, sir. We believe that the States now have, by law, in the language of section 1 of the 1944 Flood Control Act, certain duties and responsibilities and privileges in connection with the utilization and control of the waters within their borders.

Senator ANDERSON. You recognize, then, the responsibility of the State?

Mr. WILL. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MILLIKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Will.

The next witness is Hon. Ralph Tudor, Under Secretary of the Interior.

Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, again I have had no opportunity to go over Mr. Tudor's statement in advance. I wonder if we might have an agreement that if necessary he will come back at some other time in case questions arise.

Senator MILLIKIN. Yes. I hope he will be available at any time. I would like to say, Mr. Tudor, that I have to appear on the floor of the Senate in just a little while, so I will not be able to be here all the time. Senator Watkins will take over pretty soon.

Senator ANDERSON. Could we depart a moment to ask whether you plan to continue this afternoon?

Senator MILLIKIN. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Kuchel and I are involved in the Santa Margarita water bill which, as the chairman knows, is a somewhat warm issue in the State of California. I think that would be considered a moderate statement. We would like to try to finish the conference and at the same time I would like to be here.

Senator MILLIKIN. We should go ahead with this, Senator, and if anything develops in your absence, it would be an easy matter to restore the witness so you can have your questions and get what information you wish. I don't think we should stop the hearing once we have started it.

Proceed, Mr. Tudor.

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH A. TUDOR, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. TUDOR. Senator Millikin and gentlemen, I must confess I was not aware of a rule that the statement should be up here 24 hours in advance and perhaps that was my fault. I do not think, however, that there is anything in my statement that is new. It is more of an emphasis to things that have been here before, and I will be glad to return at any time the committee desires.

49500-54

Senator ANDERSON. I think, Mr. Secretary, that the rule was adopted so that when it comes to a technical question, the people who are going to examine will have a chance to prepare that examination, just as you prepare the statement.

Senator MILLIKIN. I would suggest that all witnesses get their written material into the committee as rapidly as possible in advance of their appearing before the committee.

Senator WATKINS (presiding). Proceed, Mr. Tudor.

Mr. TUDOR. I have a prepared statement which I would like to read, and if there are any questions as I progress, please interrupt me.

I am appearing before your committee this morning to discuss the proposal and the legislation for the Colorado River storage project.

The project has a considerable history and a background of negotiating and planning that has covered many years. The development of irrigation enterprises using water from the Colorado River and its tributaries accelerated very rapidly between 1900 and 1920. This is particularly true in the lower portion of the basin in Arizona and California. The river has always been very erratic in flow and even in those early years it was evident that the time would come when all of the available water would have to be used with care and economy if even the ultimate essential needs were to be met.

In particular, it was evident that large storage facilities would have to be provided to equalize the erratic flows, conserve supplies, and make it possible to have an equitable division of the available water among the various States of the basin.

To this end the Colorado River compact was signed on November 24, 1922, and all 7 States were participants. This compact apportioned to the 5 upper basin States (Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona) the right to exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water annually. At this time the upper basin was obligated not to deplete the flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feet in any consecutive 10-year period.

Senator ANDERSON. Right there, Mr. Secretary, those two statements don't completely tie together, do they?

Actually, what the upper basin States were guaranteed was that they could have whatever was left over after they delivered the sevenmillion-odd acre-feet?

Mr. TUDOR. I believe that is right.

Senator KUCHEL. Wasn't that the same theory on which the Mexican water treaty was adopted and ratified by the Senate, that we would deliver to Mexico a certain annual quantity of water each year, so that to that extent all the States of the Colorado Basin would have what was left?

Mr. TUDOR. I believe that is the case. I am not familiar with the details, but I believe it was agreed that you would deliver a million and a half acre-feet which had to be divided equally between the upper States and lower States, with one State, I believe, having a specific amount.

Senator ANDERSON. I would only say there that Senators McFarland of Arizona and Downey of California tried to stop or modify the compact with the Republic of Mexico, and I think if we had known what direction we were headed, we might not have approved it, because we are certainly in a position now where we would like to buy back that

million and a half acre-feet. I don't imagine Mexico would sell at any low price, but unfortunately we made the treaty.

Senator WATKINS. Which State tried to stop it?

Senator ANDERSON. Arizona delayed Senate committee action and some of our other Western States should have realized the possibilities at that time, Arizona sensing apparently what was to happen. It has been a frightening thing ever since, because here we are with this guaranty and no water to fulfill it.

Senator WATKINS. I happen to have been present at those hearings. The State of Utah officially supported it as did the upper basin States, with the possible exception of Wyoming. I represented a faction in Utah at the time which was opposed to it, and I think time has vindicated our opposition. I wanted to call that to your attention.

Senator ANDERSON. I congratulate my colleague for that stand. I am not worrying about the official position of the States. I just happen to know that Senator McFarland went as long as he could with his committee filibuster and it is too bad he didn't get more help.

Senator KUCHEL. May I inquire, also, where you say as you just read, this compact apportioned to the five upper Basin States the right to exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 72 million acre-feet of water annually, do I understand by that that you mean that your interpretation there is that the compact provided that in each 12month period that amount of water would be the maximum of beneficial consumptive use of the waters of the river to the five upper basin States?

Mr. TUDOR. Did you say the maximum?

Senator KUCHEL. There are two sentences. The first one is this compact apportioned to the five upper basin States the right to exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 72 million acre-feet of water annually. That is to say that each year they would be entitled to that much?

Mr. TUDOR. Without benefit of having that before me, I think that is the minimum and not the maximum.

Senator ANDERSON. I believe that is correct. There is a provision for subsequent adjudication of the waters, which we now think do not exist. But certainly if there had been surplus, there would be an opportunity to adjudicate it. I did not mean to get into an interpretation of the compact, but nevertheless the fact remains that the upper basin States may end up with 40 or maybe 371⁄2 percent of the water in a short time.

Senator KUCHEL. By way of comments to the suggestion of my friend from New Mexico, it is a fact, is it not, Mr. Secretary, that the Colorado compact must control the manner in which this legislation would be considered by the Congress?

Mr. TUDOR. That is correct, sir. That is our anticipation. Senator KUCHEL. To that extent, where interpretations are required with respect to the provisions of the Colorado River compact, those interpretations, obviously, would have an effect upon the legislation which we are considering?

Mr. TUDOR. That is our intention. Our recommendations are that this legislation be within the confines of those two compacts. Senator WATKINS. You may proceed.

I may make a suggestion to the members of the committee present that, if possible, let's mark the text where we want to ask questions and ask them at the conclusion of the witness' statement. Probably we will get a more consecutive understanding of what he is trying to say. Sometimes we fill the record up so full between the parts of the statement that it is almost impossible to get the clearcut interpretation.

Senator ANDERSON. I am afraid the Senator from California and I cannot wait to get into an argument. But go ahead, that is all right.

Senator WATKINS. Proceed, please.

Mr. TUDOR. By this compact the quantity of water available for consumptive use in the upper basin was specifically limited. In addition, any deficit in the water supply available for delivery to Mexico under the Mexican Treaty of 1944 must be furnished one-half by the upper basin and one-half by the lower basin.

As a result of this 1922 compact, it was possible to proceed with the development of the lower Colorado for the benefit of the lower basin States. In particular, the Boulder Canyon project proceeded immediately and other projects have followed.

In the meantime, the upper basin States had a problem of their own to divide among themselves the water that had been allocated for their joint use. To this end the upper Colorado River compact, specifying the percentages of the available water which each upper basin State might use, was negotiated and formalized. The Congress granted its consent to this compact and it became effective on April 6, 1949.

Thus the presently proposed upper Colorado River project is now presented to enable the upper Colorado River States to carry out their responsibilities to the lower basin States under the Colorado River compact of 1922 and distribute the remaining benefits among themselves in accordance with the upper Colorado River compact of 1949.

The Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Reclamation has been working in close cooperation with the upper basin States and various Federal agencies in the preparation of a coordinated plan of development of these water resources.

Adequate reservoir storage is the key to this plan and it is necessary to store water not only to take care of fluctuations in flow during any year, but also to take care of the very erratic flow of the Colorado River from year to year. This may vary from 4 million to 23 million acre-feet annually. The variation is unusually broad.

For this reason, the ultimate plan of development anticipates a series of 9 storage reservoirs having an initial total storage capacity of about 47,000,000 acre-feet. This amount of storage regulation is necessary to assure meeting the obligation of the upper basin to deliver 75 million acre-feet to the lower basin over a 10-year period and, at the same time, permit development of irrigation, municipal, and industrial use of water in the upper basin.

It is not my purpose to describe in detail features of the plan of development. Other witnesses who have participated in the detailed work and are more familiar with it than I am are available and will appear before your committee to cover these items. It is my pur