be affected by a diversion of this water should also, in my opinion, be given some recognition, because Congress has approved them, and they thereby became the law of the land.

Senator DANIEL. That is correct. Some will say go to court and force the compact. If Congress should pass this bill, and if those operating the dams and the projects did, as we find was done at El Vado by the Middle Conservation District, violate the compact, we have gone to court and I think we have been about 2 years in court and have not gotten a hearing yet. The special master held that the United States was a necessary party, and that is where we now stand in the matter. It is pretty difficult at times to get the courts to act on these matters as fast as we think maybe they should.

I want to say this, that this complaint is not being made against all of New Mexico. There are a lot of citizens and officials of New Mexico that have certainly tried to live up to the Rio Grande compact. Many of them have. Many of them in New Mexico are affected by the compact on the same side as Texas, as I pointed out. As Mr. Gregg will show here in a minute, too.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to introduce these four witnesses at one time, so if I should happen to leave a little early, I will have performed that much.

First was Mr. John L. Gregg, manager of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District of Las Cruces, N. Mex.

Next, Mr. A. P. Rollins, member of the Texas Board of Engineers. Next is Mr. Scott, Rio Grande compact commissioner for Texas. He will be here in a minute.

Next is Mr. N. B. Phillips, manager, El Paso Water Improvement District No. 1, El Paso.

Mr. Gregg.

Senator ANDERSON. Could I say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe if we we would look at the project from the way it was presented, we might eliminate some of the difficulties that seem to be ahead of us in some of the testimony. For example, there is nothing in this bill that talks about power dams. Only in this bill does it talk about a San JuanChama project. Therefore, if the Bureau of Reclamation people can state that they are going to survey this project without power dams, if that is what their presentation is going to be, then it seems to me unnecessary to prove that power dams are going to be a bad thing.

Secondly, the bill provides that no appropriation for or construction of the San Juan-Chama project or the Shiprock-South San Juan Indian irrigation project shall be made or begun until coordinated reports thereon shall have been submitted to the affected States pursuant to the act of December 22, 1944, and approved by the Congress.

So that if there ever was a project that was proposed that had any real danger, there would be plenty of opportunity for Texas to present that fact when it came before the Congress.

As it is now, Texas objects to the use of the Chama River to transport San Juan water down the stream which will be of benefit to the farmers in their own irrigation district, and would provide a municipal water supply to the city of Albuquerque. We cannot understand why they object to the use of the river for that. If we have to bring it down by pipeline, it is possible to do so. There is no one in New Mexico that I know of who lives north of the Elephant Butte Dam

49500-54 -28

who objects to that, when power dams have not been considered and have not been considered for many months.

Senator WATKINS. There may be an idea that you don't keep your compacts up.

Senator ANDERSON. It is in the court now. Fundamentally it comes down to the point where my farm, which is north of Elephant Butte and has been under irrigation for 250 years, has an inferior water right to the people of Texas who brought the land under irrigation in the last 50 years.

If they say we don't operate the compact correctly, it isn't the State of New Mexico that is not operating correctly. God doesn't operate it correctly. He doesn't let enough water fall in the watershed or doesn't put enough snow in the mountains. We are unable to do anything about that. We have talked to Him but nothing happens. I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is a conflict in here that ought not to be resolved.

As far as I am concerned, and I can't speak for anybody else, as for as I am concerned I don't want to write a thing in this bill that is going to jeopardize the water rights of the people who live below Elephant Butte Dam. I never have sought to do it; I don't seek to do it now, and I don't believe the official position of the State of New Mexico seeks to do that either.

The Governor of the State, who is in full accord with the development program, lives below the Elephant Butte Dam, and has nearly all of his life. He has been connected with the farm groups down there. I can't believe that he is trying to damage them. I can only say to you that if testimony can tell us how these projects without power dams are going to be of detriment to the people in the lower valley, I think it would help us a lot.

Senator WATKINS. There is one phase that may have been overlooked or not understood. That is this: All this bill seeks to do in reference to that particular project is to authorize further studies, and the project will have to get through the Congress before any money can be spent on it at all. When you keep that in mind it makes a kind of different picture. This bill authorizes the overall idea for the full development of the area.

As of now, how some of the projects are to be built and operated has not yet been completely studied. In other words, more work has to be done on them, and for that reason they have to come before the Congress again for authorization.

That is the understanding I have with reference to this quite large group of projects, where the studies have not been complete, and plans have not been worked out.

After I heard the New Mexico witness testify with relation to this, I believe about all that they would require would be the use of the river for transporting the water from the point where it would come out of the diversion tunnel or canal, into the Chama, down to where it would be taken out into the reservoir.

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I have not had the privilege or opportunity to read the testimony before this committee given by the witnesses from New Mexico as to how they propose to change the project.

All I have been able to go on for the last day or two has been the fact that before the House committee these dams were sought.

Senator ANDERSON. That is correct.

Senator DANIEL. Senator Anderson is very strong in his advocacy of these dams on the Chama River. In the bill that is now before the Senate, they are authorized, including, as I read it, the hydroelectric power, generation of hydroelectric power, dams that would make that possible.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me ask you this in line with what was said a moment ago by the chairman.

What does this bill authorize? I am reading the proviso that I am sure the chairman is referring to, on page 3, beginning on line 4. It provides that

No appropriation for or construction of the San Juan-Chama project or the Shiprock-South San Juan Indian project shall be made or begun until coordinated reports thereon shall have been submitted to the affected States pursuant to the act of December 22, 1944, and approved by the Congress.

In view of that, what is authorized by this bill with reference to the San Juan-Chama project?

Senator ANDERSON. Am I not correct in saying that all that is authorized is a feasibility report, and if that feasibility report is also approved by the Congress at a subsequent date, then it goes in as a participating project?

This bill is a pure authorization for a feasibility report.
Senator DANIEL. Does it authorize a survey?

Senator WATKINS. Yes.

Senator DANIEL. Expenditure of funds for surveys?

Senator WATKINS. We have had money each year, making annual appropriations, and that has been going on for a long time. Senator DANIEL. On the San Juan-Chama project?

Senator WATKINS. I understand so. We have the reclamation engineer, the regional director, who testified as to the investigation. That is the part of the overall program that the Bureau of Reclamation does under the general program.

On the upper Colorado we have $500,000 annually that comes from the revenues from Hoover Dam. That is spent for basin studies and planning. I don't know if any of that is spent on the Chama or not.

Senator ANDERSON. May I say that I do not express surprise that there is concern over this from the State of Texas. I think they were justified in making studies of it. I want to be sure that we put into the records of this hearing the fact that as far as I am concerned, and as far as I believe anyone else in New Mexico is concerned, that we would continue to operate the San Juan diversion if built in a fashion that would not jeopardize the water rights, but which would add water to the people below Elephant Butte Dam. No other purpose so far as I know is in any way planned. Certainly the construction of the dams on the Chama which were contemplated were not discussed on the basis of reregulating the stream and interfering with the Rio Grande compact. It was only when, as I say, water got scarce, and we got into arguments as to how the compact was being discussed, that, so far as I know people became worried about these power dams. When the water is scarce they have a right to be worried, and I have never said to my good friend from Texas that he shouldn't have been worried.

But let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that the very same thing has happened in the Rio Grande that is happening in the Colorado. If

you look at the stream flow of the Colorado, which I believe is on page 151 of these House hearings, starting out about 1934 or so, when it was down to 3 million historical flow and a 5 million virgin flow, there haven't been but 2 years, since that time, that there has been enough water in the river to satisfy the compact provisions.

We always draw these treaties so that the upper States, where the water generates and comes from, are the residual legatees. They get what is left, after they have fulfilled their obligations to the lower basin States.

Senator WATKINS. Is that the same on the Rio Grande compact between Texas and New Mexico?

Senator ANDERSON. Yes, indeed. Texas gets what is guaranteed to it, and the Republic of Mexico gets what is guaranteed to it, and we get what is left. The same thing happens with the 72 million acrefeet in the Colorado compact. They say "Give us 72 million acre-feet every year in California, and if there is only 1 million acre-feet left for Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico, it is your own fault."

I don't subscribe to that, and that is why I would like to see these storage places built, so we can store it if there are any good years. But if you will take the record of the Colorado River from 1929 or 1930 and carry it to the present date, and try to visualize what would have happened if we had tried to build these storage places and fill them, you will see we never would have been able to put any water in the storage places and keep it there, we would only have been storing it to fulfill our obligations to the lower basin States.

Senator WATKINS. The testimony was that even during the whole period you wouldn't have been able to fill them.

Senator ANDERSON. I am not saying that you could not have filled them if you used the water in the upper basin. I am saying if you look at the table there and start with 1930 when they had 14 million acre-feet, and try to add all of those together and divide them by 15, you will find that there is a smaller number there than the number of years. In other words, there has never been sufficient to produce 15 million acre-feet and there cannot be.

Senator WATKINS. It could not be filled in any 1 year.

Senator ANDERSON. No. If you still use 712 million feet in the upper basin States and lower basin States, you are not going to have a chance to fill anything at any time.

Senator WATKINS. You cannot hope to use that in the upper basin States.

Senator ANDERSON. Not for many years. That is exactly the situation in the Rio Grande Valley. In the Rio Grande compact, we have water rights for well over 100,000 acres and there was even a stipulation that came through that we could use water for an additional 10,000 acres that was going to be developed. Nobody has ever talked about using the extra 10,000 acres. We do not even use 100,000 acres. We are only trying to irrigate 75,000 acres and we haven't got nearly enough water to do that. The amount of lands under irrigation shrinks year by year by year. But the complaint comes that we do not operate the compact so as to live up to our agreements. But the fact is that there is not the water in the river.

Senator DANIEL. Mr. Chairman, the Senator from New Mexico is describing how the compact is supposed to work. But I want to say

that it has not worked out in that way. As of December 31, 1952, New Mexico failed to deliver in Elephant Butte Reservoir approximately 460,000 acre-feet of water required by the Rio Grande compact. This is more than twice the debit permitted New Mexico by the terms of the compact.

Mr. Chairman, a minute ago I was trying to tell you how this agricultural area below in the Federal irrigation district below Elephant Butte ranks in the Nation. I have the statement here that I was looking for a minute ago. I am informed that it ranks second or third in the United States in value of crops produced and it is one of the few irrigation projects that is paying its construction costs to the Government. It is certainly an area that we don't want to see damaged any further by what might be done on the Chama River. I am glad to hear Senator Anderson say that it is possible that things could be worked out where these dams would not be built, would not impound water in violation of the compact. We just want to be sure of it.

I would like to introduce at this time a letter addressed to the chairman of our full committee, the Honorable Hugh Butler, from the Governor of Texas, opposing this part of the bill, only the San JuanChama part.

Senator WATKINS. We will make it a part of the record. (The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. HUGH BUTLER,

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Austin, Tex., January 12, 1954.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

of the United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BUTLER: There has come to my attention an interim report on the San Juan-Chama project, San Juan River and Rio Grande Basins, Colo. and N. Mex., which was prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation.

A review of this interim report reveals that the proposed project contemplates the impounding of water in the San Juan River Basin, a tributary of the Colorado River watershed, and diverted therefrom into the Rio Grande watershed approximately 235,000 acre-feet per annum. The water, when it reaches the Rio Grande watershed, is to be impounded by a series of dams and is to be released primarily for the production of power.

On page 17 of the interim report in the first paragraph, beginning with the third sentence, we find the following statement:

"The project plan is based on fullest practicable utilization of the flows of the Rio Chama and its tributaries for development of hydroelectric power in conjunction with the flows diverted from the west slope."

Records indicate that the Rio Chama is the largest contributing tributary of the Rio Grande. It is evident, therefore, that the flows from the Rio Chama are the principal supply for the Elephant Butte Reservoir. The flows which add most to the storage behind the Elephant Butte Dam occur in the late spring and early summer as a result of melting snow and spring rains along the Continental Divide.

Article VIII of the Rio Grande compact reads:

"Neither Colorado nor New Mexico shall increase the amount of water in storage in reservoirs constructed after 1929 whenever there is less than 400,000 acre-feet of usable water in project storage; provided, that if the actual releases of usable water from the beginning of the calendar year following the effective date of this compact, or from the beginning of the calendar year following actual spill, have aggregated more than an average of 790,000 acre-feet per annum, the time at which such minimum stage is reached shall be adjusted to compensate for the difference between the total actual release and releases at such average rate; provided further, that Colorado or New Mexico, or both, may relinquish accrued credits at any time, and Texas may accept such relinquished water, and in such event the State or States so relinquishing shall be entitled to store water in the amount of the water so relinquished."