serted 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:)

Hon. P. A. MCCARRAN,

CARSON CITY, NEV., May 28, 1940.

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 MCCARRAN. 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 KING. 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.

Senator ASHURST. Is there any further statement?

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. Yes; that is printed.

Senator ASHURST. That will be found by the committee.

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

be listed. We have attempted to leave off our projects to that extent. Senator HATCH. This project is rather unique, is it not, Judge Stone?

Mr. STONE. As I stated, Senator Hatch, I think the position taken by Governor Hannett and Mr. McClure is correct, that that represents probably the only way in which New Mexico can utilize its

water.

Senator HATCH. To make the enumeration of this project in the bill would not interfere at all with all of these other projects.

Senator CHAVEZ. It will not interfere with any other projects. It will not require a listing of other projects.

Senator HATCH. I want to make clear that setting forth this project in the bill, as suggested in this amendment, would not complicate matters, would not require the listing of any other projects. Is that right, Judge Stone?

Mr. STONE. I do not think it would; no.

وو

Senator CHAVEZ. Judge Stone, may I trouble you once more? You and I discussed a minor amendment on page 7 of the bill last Friday, page 7, line 3, by changing "utilization in and equitably distributed,' and we agreed to change that word "equitably" to "equally" distributed, so that Utah could get an equal share, Wyoming could get an equal share, Colorado could get an equal share, and New Mexico could get an equal share.

Mr. STONE. I stated here in the hearings last week that I thought the only equitable way to distribute the shares of the various States in this fund would be to equally distribute them. The bill now provides an equitable distribution. The Committee of Fourteen thought that was the safest way to handle it, but I think it can be truthfully said that since Colorado produces approximately 70 percent of the water of the Colorado River in the upper basin, and with perhaps more land that can be irrigated, there might be a claim made that Colorado would have a larger share. However, it is my opinion that under the theory of this bill-since it will not produce enough money to anywhere near make it possible for us to build all of our projects-under the theory of this bill all of the States should have an equal share and an equal benefit out of this fund.

Senator CHAVEZ. I want to suggest an amendment along those lines. Senator ASHURST. Are you going to delete the word "equitably" and put in "equally?"

Senator KING. I think it ought to be "equitably."

Mr. STONE. If that amendment is considered, may I call your attention to the fact that it would be necessary to change it in two places, the equal apportionment among the upper basin States, and apportionment after 1955.

Senator KING. Mr. Chairman.

Senator ASHURST. Mr. King.

Senator KING. I shall offer an amendment for the full committee. I have not drafted it, and I have asked Judge Stone to do it. The amendment is to provide that the $500,000 which shall be paid pursuant to the terms of the bill shall be used in the development of the irrigation projects in the upper basin States and none for the lower basin States. They get enough benefit anyway, California particularly. So I think the $500,000 should be a perpetual fund, so long as it is paid for the development of the irrigation projects in the

upper basin States. That would mean New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

I shall offer that amendment.
Senator ASHURST. Very good.

Is there any other person who desires to be heard? Does any Senator have a constituent who desires to be heard?

Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, I have received two or three telegrams in the last day or two, one from the mayor of Ogden City, and another one from a member of the legislature, making some objections to the bill.

I have wired them to communicate with me immediately to point out more specifically what objections they have. I reserve the right, after having heard from them and any others, to bring the matter to the full committee.

Senator ASHURST. It is understood the hearings will be closed subject to any member of the committee or any Senator, indeed, who wishes to be heard, and who may be heard at that time.

Senator MCCARRAN. I respectfully suggest that we meet again tomorrow morning with the full committee for the purpose of considering the bill in executive session.

Senator ASHURST. That is a very fine suggestion. This committee will adjourn until 10:30 tomorrow morning, at which time we will meet in executive session to consider amendments and to consider the bill, and Senator King's constituents may be heard at that time.

Senator CHAVEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission of the committee to insert in the record of committee hearings a copy of my letter of June 1, 1940, to Hon. John C. Page, Commissioner of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and a copy of Mr. Page's reply dated June 4, 1940, as follows:

Hon. JOHN C. PAGE,

Commissioner of Reclamation, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. PAGE: In connection with your testimony during the hearings on S. 4039 before the Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, I desire to obtain from you confirmation of the following interpretation of the statement you made to the committee.

You stated that the San Juan River is an important tributary of the Colorado River and that the San Juan is the only stream tributary to the Colorado which can be used to advantage in the State of New Mexico under the terms of the Colorado River compact.

You also stated that the San Juan, through the proposed transmountain diversion in the Chama, is the only source through which the deficiency in the water supply of the middle Rio Grande Valley can be supplemented.

You agreed that a portion of the flow of the San Juan could be diverted for the relief of the Rio Grande Valley and that another part of the flow of the San Juan could be used beneficially by the landowners of San Juan and adjacent counties in New Mexico, including the Navajo Tribe of Indians.

You stated that, aside from the information compiled during the joint Rio Grande investigation, no intensive study of the San Juan-Chama project had been made until an appropriation of $50,000 became recently available.

You stated that the projects on the San Juan River, being the only ones through which the State of New Mexico could possibly profit under the terms of the Colorado River compact, would be given early priority and their investigation would be carried to completion as soon as the investigation fund accruing under section 2 (d) of S. 4039 became available to the Reclamation Service. I understand this statement to be a pledge by the Commissioner of Reclamation that, as soon as the above-mentioned fund becomes available, he will allocate a sufficient sum, estimated to be not less than $50,000, for the completion of the Chama-San Juan investigation and that additional sums will be immediately available for the initiation and completion of an investigation of a