Mr. PAGE. Under the present investigation, that is the fact. Senator CHAVEZ. And the San Juan is the only source of water supply from which New Mexico could get its proportionate share of the 7,500,000 acre-feet that is allotted under the original compact? Mr. PAGE. That seems to be the only opportunity we found. Senator CHAVEZ. So, you feel New Mexico, as far as your end of it is concerned, is on the right road to get that water, if it is at all feasible or proper? Mr. PAGE. Definitely so; yes. Senator ASHURST. Did you wish to interrogate Mr. Page on any other matter, just now? Senator CHAVEZ. That is about all. Senator ASHURST. Mr. Page, you are at liberty to make any statement you choose for the record. Mr. PAGE. I am in no position to make a statement. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. WALLACE, CHAIRMAN, UTAH STATE WATER STORAGE COMMISSION Mr. WALLACE. I would like to say for the record that in the origiinal writing of the Colorado River Dam Act, we did succeed in getting in section 15, under which this comprehensive plan is being developed. Further, I would like to read a small statement, because the only thing we are particularly interested in is to have the seven States of this basin cooperatively and enthusiastically work together for the development of the entire basin. This is a statement by William R. Wallace, chairman of the Utah State Water Storage Commission, which is charged with the duty of planning the "ultimate development" of the State water resources and is specifically charged with that duty as to the Colorado River, executive vice chairman-the Governor being chairman of the Utah State Planning Board, a member of the Seven States Committee of Fourteen and of the Committee of Sixteen. The other Utah member of these committees is Grover A. Giles, assistant attorney general. The Utah State Water Storage Commission was created by the legislature 20 years ago. It consists of 12 members and, ex officio, the State engineer, always 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans, and always, Mr. Chairman, its decision as to policy and selection of projects for analysis and construction have been unanimous. The Governor of the State of Utah, the Honorable Henry H. Blood, has for years acted as the chairman of the upper States Governors' conferences and of the seven States conferences. Under his guidance it has come about that all these States are working together for the good of all. These statements are made so that the committee may know that the Utah officials have made a most careful and painstaking study of the proposed legislation. By unanimous vote the Utah State Water Storage Commission expressed its approval thereof and respectfully recommended its passage by the Congress. The Governor of Utah made suggestions on behalf of the States of the upper basin, as also did members of the Utah congressional delegation. These suggestions have been accepted by the power allottees. The passage of this legislation will result in the completion of the comprehensive analysis of the resources of the Colorado River now Senator CHAVEZ You have not! Mr. DE ARMOND. NO. Senator CHAVEZ. What happened to the money? Mr. DE ARMOND. There is not any as yet. Senator CHAVEZ. Where do you get your 18 percent! Mr. DE ARMOND. That is 1834 percent. We assume next year we might get some of it, but up to the present time we have jeveroi none of it. Senator CHAVEZ. Are you getting any indirect benefits from power ? Mr. De Armond. Well, we get some indirect benefits from power. certainly, but I am speaking of the use of water, the development of water and the use of water within the State. We have none of that up to the present time. We have some projects around 1 Vegas, probably chiefly for domestic use, that will require wome water from the Colorado River. There are some in the Moapa Val ley, a little in the southwestern part of the State. I jrt Want to make the statement that Nevada has not put to beneficial my ant water of the Colorado River itself except the rights, as I stated, i the Moapa Valley and the Virgin Valley under old perbly had rights. Senator DowNEY. I would like to express Hit mitment of the bill and my earnest hope that it will reported out. Senator ASHURST. Thank you, Senator cat in rom immediat STATEMENT OF IVAN A. SCHWAB, BUREAU OF Kbel Ai ION Senator ASHURST. Will you state your name and your position? Mr. SCHWAB. Ivan A. Schwab; attorney with the Bureau of Roc lamation. Senator ASHURST. You may proceed. Mr. SCHWAB. I wanted to submit one thing that I believe will help to clarify your record. When Judge Stone was testifying the other day, he produced four charts that were used by Mr. R. J. Tipton in his testimony before the House committee, and those charts were introduced in the record here. As was developed by Senator O'Mahoney in questioning Judge Stone, each one of those charts was based on a financial study that had been prepared by the Burea of Reclamation. I have here copies of those four financial studies and I suggest that they be incorporated in your record, each one t follow the particular chart to which it refers. Senator ASHURST. Is there objection to the request of M: S to print certain matter in our committee journal? Senator CHAVEZ. No. Senator ASHURST. It is so ordered, in the absence of (The financial studies were attached to the charts podere Senator ASHURST. If there be other witnesses in th ington, or outside the city of Washington, they me day following the witnesses presented by Senator We will meet at 10:30 o'clock Monday morning (Whereupon, at 11:20 a. m., a recess was taket Monday, June 3, 1940.) BOULDER CANYON PROJECT ADJUSTMENT ACT MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1940 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:30 a. m., in room 101, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry F. Ashurst, presiding. Present: Senators Ashurst, McCarran, Hatch, Chavez, and Thomas. Also present: Senator King. Senator ASHURST. The committee will come to order. Senator Chavez, you and Senator Hatch have some constituents that you wish to be heard; is that right? Senator CHAVEZ. That is right, Senator. We have Governor Hannett, who is special assistant to the attorney general of the State, also attorney for the Water Commission of the State of New Mexico, and Mr. Thomas McClure, our State engineer. Senator ASHURST. You may present them as you choose. Who is your first witness? Senator CHAVEZ. We will have Governor Hannett first. Senator CHAVEZ. Yes, sir. STATEMENT OF ARTHUR T. HANNETT, SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO Senator ASHURST. Will you please give the reporter your full name and occupation for the record? Mr. HANNETT. Arthur T. Hannett, lawyer; post-office box 497, Albuquerque, N. Mex.; special assistant attorney general; attorney before the United States Supreme Court; also attorney general for a good many years, 25 or 26 years. Senator ASHURST. Governor, you may proceed to make any statement that you wish. Mr. HANNETT. As you gentlemen all well know, this particular bill has been debated over a period of years by the States involved. The four upper-basin States formed an organization-more or less of an organization-and employed an electrical engineer of national reputation by the name of Sands, also Mr. Tipton of Colorado, a hydraulic engineer, to advise us on the practical effect that this bill would have on the various States and the revenues produced from the sale of electric energy at Boulder Dam. Mr. Sands made a report, and from that report deduced certain conclusions. California, with its experts, differed on many of those conclusions. We held, as I said, numerous meetings, and the final meeting was held at Phoenix, Ariz. New Mexico and its representatives felt at all times that under the original bill the rights and interests of the upper-basin States were inadequately protected. We feel that that is true as to this proposed bill. At Phoenix, Ariz., the four upper-basin States, in a meeting, voted 2 to 2 as to whether the bill in the form then proposed would have the backing of the upper-basin States-Wyoming and New Mexico voting "No." The meeting broke up about midnight. Mr. McClure and I were leaving the next morning early, and I think it was about 4 o'clock in the morning when we had a conference with Judge Stone and Dr. Harlan H. Barrows of the National Resources Commission, in which we finally agreed that New Mexico would take the position that it would not fight the bill; but we wanted the record to show, and the record does show, that while we were not going to fight the bill we did not approve of it, nor did we claim to have the power to control any action that woud be taken either by our Congressman or our Senators. I would like to make a brief statement as to why we feel that the bill as it stands now does not adequately protect New Mexico. Under the terms of the bill, as we see it, based upon the report of Mr. Sands and Mr. Tipton, the State of California will benefit, over the period of time, not less than $100,000,000, probably $150,000,000. That is not a nebulous thing, it is capable of being figured out in dollars and cents. The States of Nevada and Arizona will benefit definitely, without any question, substantially $300,000 each year. Under the bill, as we see it, as far as the State of New Mexico and the other upper-basin States are concerned, there is nothing definite as to what any State is going to get. We have gone along we have been a compact State, and we have gone along with the four upper-basin States, and our relations have been very pleasant, but we feel that this bill should have made some definite provision as to what New Mexico was going to derive, if anything. As it stands now, as we conceive it, we have not nothing under the old bill, and we think the old bill was inequitable. We think the new bill is inequitable. We think, under Mr. Sands' report, it shows that instead of getting $500,000 a year we should receive $1,000,000 a year. That report was available to us at a meeting in Denver, and it was available at the Phoenix meeting, together with Mr. Tipton's report. At that time each of the four upper-basin States were in accord and backing up Mr. Stands' report, and it is our firm belief that it was a fair, able, and honest report. Utah was particularly vigorous in denouncing the bill, and Wyoming, likewise, and Colorado to some lesser extent. When we met in Phoenix, Utah's position had been reversed and Colorado's position very much modified. Wyoming and New Mexico finally stood as opponents to the bill. Senator MCCARRAN. Wyoming and New Mexico were opposed to the bill? Mr. HANNETT. Wyoming and New Mexico were opposed to the bill, I do not claim to have any technical knowledge either as a hydraulic engineer or as an electrical engineer, but from the discussions that we |