« PrécédentContinuer »
Senator King. They would have to have a specific grant.
Senator CHAVEZ. We are fair in New Mexico; we want the Navajos to get full benefit of whatever rights we might have under the compact of the different States from the waters of the San Juan.
Mr. WOEHLKE. As I see the situation, throughout that Navajo country the battle for range is so exaggerated, the demand for range on the part of all interests, white, Spanish-Americans, and Indians, is so terrific that practically throughout that area heavy overgrazing has resulted.
Senator McCARRAN. Are not you under the Taylor Grazing Act?
Mr. WOEHLKE. The adjacent territory in which both Navajos and whites operate, and where the Spanish-Americans run their flocks is under the Taylor Grazing Act.
Senator MÖCARRAN. The Indians are allocated certain commensurate rights, are they not, under the Taylor Grazing Act, those who graze cattle, livestock?
Mr. WOEHLKE. They are just beginning along that line, but nevertheless, with that allocation, the total demand on the range on the part of all parties is so great and the stocking in the past has been so exaggerated that a reduction rather than an expansion of the livestock business is essential.
Senator McCARRAN. Of course, that is true in all of the western States. Under the Taylor Grazing Act administration there has been a very decided reduction in the use of the range.
Mr. WOEHLKE. In this particular area, the overstocking and overgrazing has been more than the average, so that any expansion through grazing land, if you take into consideration the established rights of white and other operators, is absolutely impossible. Senator McCARRAN. Let me see if I understand you there: The way
. I understand it is that these Navajos are an agrarian Indian; is that right?
Mr. WOEHLKE. They are principally stock raisers.
Senator McCARRAN. They have no rights on the open public domain now?
Mr. WOEHLKE. Yes; they have.
Senator McCARRAN. What I am getting at is this: If you increase the base, then you must increase the commensurate rights on the open public domain so as to comply with the base. Do I make myself clear?
Mr. WOEHLKE. Yes.
Senator McCARRAN. Then, if you increase the commensurate rights on the open public domain and it is already overstocked, how are you going to improve the situation?
Mr. WOEHLKE. That is exactly what I am saying, Senator; you cannot improve the situation.
Senator McCARRAN. That is what I am trying to get at. Why do you want to increase the base? Why would it be economically feasible to increase the base; that is, the inclosed land, so to speak? That is what I term the base, the lands that will support the livestock during the winter, the nongrazing season that is recognized, as I understand it, in the Taylor Grazing Act as the base lands. If youl are going to increase the base, which you propose to do by this reclamation project, what are you going to do with your livestock interests?
Mr. WOEHLKE. On the contrary, what we are endeavoring to do through the irrigation project is to decrease the dependence of the Navajo on that.
Senator McCARRAN. On the open public domain!
Mr. WOEHLKE. Yes; under any conditions, to substitute irrigated farming for their dependence on livestock, their excessive dependence on livestock Senator McCarran. Now, let me ask you one question there. The
. project that you have described to the committee, has that been approved by the Reclamation officials ?
Mr. WOEHLKE. No; it has not been, because it has not been considered by them as yet.
Senator MoCARRAN. I understood you were speaking of the same conditions that Mr. McClure spoke of, and I understood him to say it had been approved, and that lines were run, surveys were made.
Senator CHAVEZ. I think he referred to the Debler report, which included the project you speak of.
Mr. WOEHLKE. The San Juan storage project.
Mr. WOEHLKE. Yes; but the investigations of that project have by no means been completed.
Senator McCARRAN. I have no more questions.
Senator HATCH. The Indian people already have some irrigated
Senator Hatch. I think you said that dry land and irrigation together was about 25 percent of their present source of income.
Mr. WOEHLKE. The present source of income, and the total percentage of surface acreage represented by the irrigated and dry farm land, was about 134.
Senator HATCH. There is no question in your mind but that if the water could be made available the Indians themselves could be diverted from their old type of occupation, that of stock raising, to irrigated farming and be successful at it?
Mr. WOEHLKE. They would have to be. In fact, the distribution of the acreage which now, for instance, is irrigated under the arid lands project was based on the desire to take people out of the livestock business and put them on a farming basis.
Senator Ashurst. Are there any more questions, Senator King? Senator King. No more questions. Senator McCARRAN. Mr. Chairman. Senator ASHURST. Yes, Senator McCarran. Senator McCARRAN. At this point, and on the behest of Senator Pittman, of Nevada, by colleague, and myself, I desire to have inserted in the record a wire of the date of May 28, from Gov. E. P. Carville, of the State of Nevada, approving H. R. 9877 as it is now in the House, and which will also be S. 4039.
Senator ASHURST. That will be printed in the record, there being no objection. (The telegram referred to is as follows:)
CARSON CITY, NEV., May 28, 1940. Hon. P. A. McCARRAN, United States Senator, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.: Re Boulder Dam bill H. R. 9877 have conferred with attorney general and Colorado River Commissioners Caton and Clark. Commissioner Smith ill and cannot be reached. Bill present form has approval attorney general, Caton, and myself. Clark opposes measure because of elimination "in lieu of taxes,” stating this would deprive Clark County of opportunity presenting basis for portion of money for that county. Attorney general says “In my opinion the bill as amended eliminating ‘in lieu of taxes,' is entirely constitutional and legal and the whole bill is more satisfactory than as originally drawn." Caton says, “I am in favor of bill as amended and hope it will go through.” I approve bill in its present amended form and consider Nevada amply protected.
E. P. CARVILLE, Governor. Senator McCARRAN. Mr. Chairman. Senator ASHURST. Senator McCarran.
Senator MoCARRAN. I draw the committee's attention to section 15 of H. R. 9877. It is not in the Senate bill before this committee, but is before the Committee on Rules, as I understand it, in the House at the present time.
Senator ASHURST. Yes, Senator,
Senator McCARRAN. With that in mind, may I say to the committee that this amendment, section 15 of the House bill, has been the subject of very careful and really extensive study by those of us who are interested in the labor angle of this, by the Interior Department, and by, I think, every interested group, and out of that study we have agreed on, and I am now submitting to the committee, and asking to be incorporated in the record a provision to take the place of section 15 of the House bill. Please understand it is not in the bill before the Senate.
Senator ASHURST. The secretary will read the amendment proposed by Senator McCarran.
Senator McCARRAN. To take the place of section 15.
Senator ASHURST. Your amendment will become section 15 of the Senate bill, is that right?
Senator McCARRAN. Yes; I guess that is right. The CLERK (reading): All laborers and mechanics employed in the construction of any part of the project, or in the operation, maintenance, or replacement of any part of the Boulder Dam shall be paid not less than the prevailing rate of wages or compensation for work of a similar nature prevailing in the locality of the project. In the event any dispute arises as to what are the prevailing rates, the determination thereof shall be made by the Secretary of the Interior, and his decision, subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of Labor, shall be final.
Senator McCARRAN. Now, let me say, Mr. Chairman, by way of repetition, for which I apologize, that this matter has been worked out meticulously, and has, I am advised, the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, and is pursuant to law as the law now exists. In other words, the Government being the employer, if controversies arise as to the rate of pay the matter would be submitted to the
Labor Department under the law for conciliation. But it is the desire of some of us, and the desire of the Department of the Interior, inasmuch as the Department of the Interior has control of the dam, that the Secretary of the Interior should have the right and privilege, and it should be his prerogative to have the decision, subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of Labor.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator ASHURST. Your amendment will be on the table ready for action.
Senator King, do you want to be heard at this time or later?
Senator ASHURST. Judge Stone, will you come forward a moment, please?
STATEMENT OF CLIFFORN H. STONE-Continued
Mr. STONE. I testified here on 2 days in the previous hearings before this committee, and there is little that I want to add, except, in view of the amendment which was suggested here by Senator Chavez, I have an additional statement to make. I have read it, and if that amendment should be favorably considered by this committee, may I suggest that it ought to be clarified a bit, because it might be so construed as to mean the money set aside by this bill for use in the upper basin could or might be used for this one project. I do not believe that Senator Chavez intended it that way, but it says, “that any moneys appropriated pursuant to the authorizations contained in this subsection shall be available for," and then it goes on and designates the one project. May I suggest that if this amendment is faborably considered that it be so worded that the portion which is made available to the State of New Mexico shall be available for this project. I think that is the intent, but it could be misconstrued.
Senator CHAVEZ. That is the intent.
Mr. STONE. Now, there is one other thing. Lest there be a misunderstanding about the action of the upper basin States, may I call your attention to the resolution passed at Denver in March 1939 which approved the essential features of the bill now before you.
Governor Hannett referred to Wyoming being in disagreement at a certain point in the proceedings at Phoenix. Before that Phoenix meeting was completed Wyoming approved this bill, or the essential and controlling features in the bill, and in this hearing the other day may I call your attention to the fact that Senator O'Mahoney put in the record the communications from the Governor and the attorney general of the State of Wyoming expressing approval of the State of Wyoming of this legislation.
I explained, I believe, the position of New Mexico the other day just as Governor Hannett has explained it, that they were not satisfied, but they said they would not oppose the bill.
Senator CHAVEZ. We are not opposed to the bill. I want you to understand it. We just want to be sure that we are getting our proportionate share.
Mr. STONE. Now, with respect to the consultants which the upper basin States employed, may I call the committee's attention to the testimony of R. J. Tipton concerning this present bill in the hearings in the House. He was one of the consultants referred to by Governor Hannett, and testified extensively in the House proceedings. He explained the position of these engineering consultants.
Senator ASHURST. That is printed, is it not?
Mr. STONE. There is one other thing, Mr. Chairman, mentioned by Governor Hannett, and I believe by Mr. McClure, and, as a representative of the State of Colorado, may I emphasize the fact that with respect to this Chama-San Juan diversion the Rio Grande compact contains a clause which provides that the principle long recognized in Colorado shall be observed, namely, that present and prospective uses of water in Colorado for the Colorado Basin shall be recognized in any trans-mountain diversion.
I do not believe any of the gentlemen from New Mexico question that.
Senator King. That would apply to all the States in the upper basin, would it not?
Mr. STONE. That principle has been recognized in Colorado. I could not speak for the other States. I believe it can be generally said that it is recognized. I believe that the Reclamation Bureau has more or less followed that principle.
Senator King. If there is any controversy as to whether this bill would permit it, I shall insist upon an amendment that will permit transmountain diversion.
Mr. STONE. With respect to that, there is no question as to whether it will permit it. That was cleared up in the course of drafting this bill, by one of the Congressmen from Utah.
Senator KING. I want to be sure that is in the bill.
Mr. STONE. That is in the bill wherein it says that these funds may be used within the States of the upper division as distinguished from the upper basin States, or the basin of the upper States. So that any water utilized and taken from the Colorado River Basin—the funds made available under this bill can be used within the States and it is not limited to the basin. That has been specifically taken care of in the bill.
Senator ASHURST. Very good. Now, Judge, will you, during the afternoon, confer with Senator Chavez and Senator Hatch, and if necessary revise this amendment so that tomorrow we will be ready for it?
Mr. STONE. Yes; I will be glad to do so.
Mr. Chairman, there is one other thing. May I explain that the committee have attempted to avoid specific projects on the theory that every State would have a number of projects, and that this was a bill providing for the distribution of revenue rather than determining projects.
I think those of us in Colorado recognize what Governor Hannett and Mr. McClure have said, and it has been emphasized by Senator Chavez, that their use of this water probably is—and I should perhaps eliminate the word “probably”—is limited largely to the project which they have mentioned here, but there are a number of major projects in other States in which we are interested, and to attempt to list all projects would just end in failure of the bill, because it would create a controversy in some of the States as to what projects should