1950 cerned, but to all the States. Their people, as Federal taxpayers, must be concerned not only with this three- quarters - of - a - billion - dollar project which also has in it a provision whereby, by mere appropriation action, the cost is increased by another $550,000,000, mak- ing it in all a project which may entail a cost of a billion and a quarter doilars, But also with the other uneconomic projects that will follow in the wake of this one, if it is approved by the Congress. As is the case with most public ques- tions, there is an honest difference of opinion regarding this iegislation. The unfortunate fact is that there is not suffi- cient water available in the Colorado River to meet the future needs of all the lower-basin States or of the three States which are entirely within the lower basin. Of the three States which are entirely within the lower basin, two of them, Cali- fornia and Nevada, are opposed to this Jegisiation. One of them, Arizona, is for it. The Senate should not overlook this basic fact. Mr. President, the other day the open- ing remarks of my able colleague from Arizona (Mr. McFar.tanp] tended to give the impression that this was a case of the large State of California versus the small State of Arizona. His argument in that regard does not hold water at all, because, as the Senator from Arizona knows, each of the States is represented in this body on the basis of equality, and the smallest State of the Union has as much of a voice in the vote as does the largest and most populous State of the Union. So that is not the issue at all. Before he had to leave on official busi- ness, the junior Senator from Nevada {Mr. MALoneE! made it very clear that he was opposed to this bill in its present form. Nevada is even a smaller State than Arizona. So of the three States which are in that division of the lower basin, two of them, Nevada and Cali- fornia, are opposed to this bill, and one of them, Arizona, is in favor of it. The Arizona project is not financially feasible under present reclamation laws. To make it feasible the laws would have to be changed and extended. Revenues would have to be taken out of one Fed- eral pocket and put into another Fedcral pocket, instead of being returned to the United States Treasury to pay interest on the Federal debt that would be in- curred to build the project. The Bureau of Reclamation says that Arizona farmers can pay $4.50 an acre- foot for water, but the cost of delivering an irrigation supply of water to the Ari- zona project over a 50-year period under the present law would be about $18 an acre-foot, annually, or approximately four times the charge of $4.50 as esti- mated by the Bureau. The price of $4.50 would not even be sufficient to pay the operation, maintenance, and replace- ment expenses chargeable to irrigation. Even under Arizona’s proposed modifica- tions of the reclamation laws, the repay- ment period for irrigation costs would have to be extended to something like 97 to 114 years, or from 47 to 64 years longer CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE than the 50 years now permitted under our reclamation laws. The Bureau of Reclamation recom- mends a charge of 4.82 mills per kilo- watt-hour, at the end of transmission lines, for power from the proposed Ari- vona project. The Bureau’s power fig- ures are very vague and needed specifica- tions are lacking. But the proposed power charge and the proposed charge of $4.50 per acre-foot for irrigation water are far too low to pay the project costs. The price of Hoover Dam power at Los Angeles, including steam stand-by, Is from 3.50 to 3.75 mills. In order to provide sufficient revenue to secure full repayment in the required 50 years, one of the following alterna- tives would be needed for the Arizona project: (a) With irrigation water priced at $4.50, the commercial power rate would have to be increased to 8.14 mills, which is ridiculously high; or (b) A power rate of 5.17 mills would be required to cover fixed and operating costs chargeable to power; and at this rate for power the charge for irrigation water would have to be $17.80 an acre- foot, which water users could not afford to pay: or (ec) With c power rate of 5.17 mills and a water rate of $4 50 an acre-foot, a sub- sidy from the United States Treasury of $423,605,000 would be required. The Nation’s taxpayers would have to pay this to rescue 170,000 acres of privately owned land in Arizona. So the Bureau of Reclamation, which would build the proposed Arizona project, states that unless the reclamation laws are changed to meet Arizona’s proposals, the project cannot be built, nor can it be built if California’s contentions in the Colorado River controversy are sus- tained. It is interesting to compare the pro- posed central Arizona project with the Hoover Dam project, and also with the proposed St. Lawrence seaway. Hoover Dam and power plant cost approximately $160,000,000. Before it could be built, California’s municipally owned and private power companies were required to sign electrical energy contracts at rates sufficient to repay the entire cost, with interest, within 50 years. They are paying, and the American tax- payer is making money on the deal, as the interest rate is 3 percent. I may say that originally the interest rate was fixed at 4 percent, and later it was made 3 per- cent, which is more than the rate the Government has to pay today. So a profit is actually being made on the in- terest rate charged on the Hoover Dam construction. The estimated cost of the St. Lawrence seaway is $720,000,000. Of this amount, $322,000,000 would be allocated to power, and $398,000,000 to navigation. The power would be sold, and toll charges would liquidate navigation costs. The entire project is designed to be self-liqui- dating at the expense of the beneficiaries, returning the original investment to the Government, with interest. From these facts it may be seen to what extent the American taxpayer is 1639 being called upon to underwrite the pro- posed Arizona project, carrying with it a potential authorization of $1,200,- 000,600. Water is the lifeblood of our Western States, without an adequate and depend- able supply, much fertile agricultural land would revert to desert, and indus- trial expansion would come to an end. While the Colorado River has a Jong his- torical record, a realization of its poten- tialities is of but recent acquisition. The Secretary of the Interior has of- ficially told the Congress that there is not enough water in this interstate, in- ternational stream system to satisfy all claimants. Certainly the unfortunate difference of opinion between the State which I have the honor to represent in part and Arizona, over their respective rights to use the waters of the river, is known to many Members of the Senate. It is, of course, the insufficiency of the water to satisfy the aspirations of the States of Arizona, Nevada, and Califor- nia that has led to this controversy. There are three ways such differences of opinion might be settled. One, nego- tiation; two, arbitration; three, judicial determination. The Governors of Cali- fornia and Nevade have attempted time and time again to get a settlement agreed upon by negotiation or arbitra- tion. Arizona has declined. Big stakes are at issue. California thinks its position is correct, and has backed its belief with the expenditure or commitment of about $550,000,000 by the people of our State and by the vari- ous localities in our State. Arizona is just as sure it is correct, and asks this Congress to back her belief with the ex- penditure of $738,000,000, and possibly $1,250,000,000, out of the Federal Treas- ury. This is important money on both sides; but the difference is that Arizona does not seek to spend its money to back up its belief in the correctness of its po- sition, but, rather, secks to get the Fed- eral Government to put it up—and this before the rights of three States have been firmly, finally, and judicially deter- mined. For bear in mind, Mr. President, that the rights of Arizona, Nevada, and Cali- fornia, to a large part, at least, stem from the apportionment of use of Colo- rado River system waters, as made by the Colorado River Compact in 1922. That compact did not make any appor- tionment to any individual State; and for 26 years the contest has raged, to the point that neither side, apparently, can recede from its political and publicly stated position. Each State honestly in- terprets that document differently. The Boulder Canyon Project Act, adopted by the Congress in 1928, required that California adopt an act of limita- tion if Arizona failed to ratify the com- pact. Arizona at first did fail to ratify, and California adopted its limitation act; and each State has its separate inter- pretations of the Project Act and of the limitation act. The Project Act authorized the Secre- tary of the Interior to make contracts for the storage and delivery of Lake
1640 Mead water, and contracts have been made by the Secretary with Arizona and California and Nevada. But each of these contracts declares that the speci- fied water shall be delivered only if it is available to the State under the com- pact and the Project Act. So, Mr. President, the controversy goes on. None of the States has a certificate of title to its claimed water; and it is but natural that the longer the controversy lasts the hotter the fires of antagonism flame. California contends that, under the Constitution of the United States and the law, the United States Supreme Court is the proper forum for a settle- ment of this type of dispute between the lower-basin States. The American way to settle this dis- pute is to leave it to the courts. Our Federal Constitution—article III, section 10—gives the United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction in such an in- terstate controversy. However, approval by the Congress would be needed in order that the United States may be made a party to such judicial action. Yet, before a judicial determination has been made, Arizona seeks, by means of Senate bill 75, to have the Congress authorize a three-fourths-of-a-billion- dollar project, as the Senators from Ari- zona themselves admit in reporting the bill from the committee; but we intend to show that the bill will open the door to an authorization for $1,250,000,000. The proponents of this measure propose to do that in a case in which the rights to the water needed to serve the project are in dispute. We all know what the Secretary of the Interior said in 1948. I quote from his letter: The water which California projects, Fed- eral or other, now in existence or under con- struction will require when they are in full operation 1s a great deal more than the amount which that State is entitled to use if all of Arizona's contentions are taken to be true Similarly, the water which Arizon projects now in existence, under construction, or au- thorized will require when they are fully de- veloped is much more than the supply avall- able to that State if all of California’s con- tentions are taken to be true, So said Mr. Krug, then Secretary of the Interior, in his letter to the Senator from Nebraska | Mr. BuTLer] on May 13, 1948 That is the situation without the cenvral Arizona project, which is not yet authorized. It will be worse if that project is added to those bidding for the water which is not there. I personally deplore this quarrel, which can only be aggravated if either State claims more water for more projects, and makes even greater overdrafts on the water account of the already insolvent Jower Colorado River. Three-quarters of a billion dollars, which can be expanded into an authorization for $1,250,000,000, is a great deal of money to be spent on any project. That is more than the Panama Canal cost; it is more than TVA cost: it is about the estimated cost of the St. Lawrence seaway. It is a great deal of money, even if backed up with a gold bond title policy of insurance. Certainly, Mr. President, the project cannot be built if trore is the slightest question as to Arizona's rights to the necessary water to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE serve it. When, as, and if the court says that Arizona’s claims are valid, then will be time enough to consider the authori- gation of so huge an expenditure, or the authorization of any expenditure which the Congress of the United States might regard as feasible and as sound economi- cally. Any project that is authorized should be financially feasible under the recla- mation laws. With emphasis, I say to the Senators from the reclamation States that we endanger our whole reclamation policy when unsound projects are brought to the Senate floor. The present law applying to other projects requires repayments within 50 years. That is half a century, and it provides a liberal, interest-free use of funds supplied by the Federal Treasury for irrigation projects. Mr. President, I wish to expand on that point a little, as I did in the discussion I had with my colleague from California [Mr. Downey). The fact of the matter is that the Con- gress very wisely established certain yardsticks in dealing with projects of this kind. From the point of view of the Federal Government, from the point of view of the national economy, I think a very strong case can be made for the use, over a reasonable period of time, of in- terest-free money for the building of ir- rigation projects. They develop the va- rious States; they bring people into farming and into industry and into other types of business and activity. In turn, those people become taxpayers; they add to the national income. But I think it is possible to ride even a good horse to death; and if we throw away the yardstick and no longer have a@ sound basis upon which to judge the various projects, then I think we endan- ger the whole future of Western reclama- tion projects and other projects which might be comparable to them. It may well be, as some of my colleagues from other Western States have said, that 50 years is now too short a time, that the easier projects have already been built, and that the more difficult and more costly projects cannot be kept within a limitation of 50 years. I pointed out the other day to the junior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFarLanp], who now is in the Chamber, and also to the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. Haypen], I believe, for as I recall he was on the floor at that time, that I personally would have no objection, if the facts are as stated— namely, that additional time is needed for some of the more complicated proj- ects—if the period were e::tended from 50 years to 55 years, or perhaps a case might even be made for an extension to 60 years. There might even be a slightly increased period of time, beyond that. But we should do so by means of gen- eral legislation which would apply to all future projects, and we should also con- sider whether in equity the same privi- lege should be extended to the projects which already are under construction or already have been built. That should be done after full and free debate on the floor of the Senate and before the com- mittee, so that the Members of this body might know the implications of what they were doing. Again, that would FEBRUARY 8 still require a substantial subsidy from the Federal Treasury, by reason of the fact that while the principal would be repaid, the interest would not be repaid, though I think a very strong case can be made for doing that, providing a yard- stick is maintained. But one of my prin- cipal objections to the central Arizona project is the fact that the bill throws away the yardstick. It does not limit the repayment period to 50 y-ars; indeed, it does not limit it to 55 years, it does not limit it to 60 years, it does not limit it to 6F years. As a matter of fact, the authors themselves and the sponsors of the bill admit it will take at seast from 70 to 78 years, and we contend that by the loose language of the bill, the inter- pretation is left entirely to the Secretary of the Interior. If he should so deter- mine, he could extend the period for 100 years, 150 years, or even longer. It is true there are certain practical limitations. He is supposed to make his determination based upon the useful life of the project, but that is a very wide- open barn door, I submit. Some of the old Roman aqueducts and some of the old Roman roads lasted over a period of many hundreds of years. Some Sec- retary of the Interior might take it upon himself to give a very liberal] interpreta- tion to the provision and extend it, as I say, for a very much longer period of time; which would thereby greatly in- crease the hidden Federal subsidy in the case of a project of this kind. Mr. President, I know that the able junior Senator from MIllinois [Mr. Dovuc1as], who now sits in the Presiding Officer’s chair, is interested 1n maintain- ing a solvent Federal Government, that he is concerned with the fact that the Government is now operating in the red by over $5,000,000,000, and is concerned that we now have a Federal debt in excess of $250,000,000,000. So, Iam sure that he must be of the opinion that any projects of this nature should be feasi- ble, should be within reasonable limita- tions, and should be on a sound economic basis. I believe that he will give the im- plications of the pending bill the careiul study it deserves. Unfortunately, with the busy program of the Senate, with the many committee sessions which are now being held, there are very few Senators who come to the floor during the debate on this important piece of legislation. It is not legislation applying alone to the States of Arizona, California, and Ne- vada, as I fear so many of our absent colleagues may believe. To the con- trary, it is the old story of the camel’s getting his nose under the tent. Once a precedent established under the terms of the bill is allowed to have the stamp of approval of the Senate, I predict there will not be a single great reclamation project brought to the attention of the Senate in the future which ever again carries the yardstick laid down by the Federal reclamation laws. I predict that Senators will demand—and there will be considerable equity in their demand— that their sections of the country be treated just as generously as the central Arizona project is treated. I predict that, if this precedent is established, there will hardly be a project whose sponsors will not, with some equity, come
1950 forward to say, “Why should you tie our people down by the requirement to pay back the principal in 50 years, when you are giving Arizona 78 years, or perhaps 80 or 100 years in which to pay it back? We want to have what is called in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act and the Tariff Act a most-favored-nation clause, so that we shall be entitled to the same most-favored treatment you extend to the State of Arizona.” I pre- dict to the able Senator who sits in the Presiding Officer’s chair at the present time, the junior Senator from Illinois, if that happens the doors of the Federal Treasury will be open to the greatest raiding that has ever taken place in the long history of the Congress of the United States, far surpassing the old- time pork-barrel raids about which the Senator from Illinois, who is such an able student of history, knows and which used to plague the Congress of the United States. In those days when it was asked to authorize great projects there would be a reciprocal understanding, “You back my project and I will back yours.” So, with this precedent, projects would snowball and roll on until they would actually involve, not the $1,250,000,000 incident to this project, as we are under- taking to point out now to the Senate of the United States, while there is still time, but literally would involve billions upon billions of dollars to come out of the Federal Treasury for projects which could not meet the yardstick requirement of a fair and reasonable basis. That is why I am so vitally concerned. I have a very high regard for both Senators from Arizona. The senior Senator from Arizona, who has had a long and distinguished record in this body, happens to have served in the House of Representatives with my father, who served in that body from 1903 to 1915. There is no Senator upon the floor for whom the Members on both sides of the aisle have a higher regard or greater affection than they have for the senior Senator from Arizona. During the pe- riod I have been here, my relationships with the junior Senator from Arizona have been very pleasant. He has ex- tended me every courtesy on occasion, and every assistance when I have re- quested it. I tell the Senators from Arizona that in no sense is there any animosity on the part of either Senator from California toward the great State of Arizona. I am sure I can speak with authority when I say there is no animosity toward Arizona upon the part of any witness from my State of California who ap- peared in opposition to the bill, before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Isincerely wish I could join with the Senators from Arizona today in sup- porting a sound project in their State. If this project measured up to being a sound and economical project, I should like to be on their side of the fence. But, after the most careful study not only of the project itself, but of its implica- tions and the prospect of opening the door to future raids upon the Treasury, in good conscience I cannot support the bul in its present form, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, the re- port of the Bureau of Reclamation pred- icates a period of 78 years in which to pay the indebtedness. During the 78 years, as my junior colleague has already stated heretofore, all interest, upon the investment both for power and agricul- tural purposes will have been paid by the taxpayers of the United States. If that sum is figured at 2 percent for 80 years, on an anticipated investment of $1,000,- 000,000, and if there is then added to it $120,000,000, which will be the accumu- lated interest wholly borne by the tax- payers, if it takes 20 years in which to complete the project, the interest alone that will have to be borne by the tax- payers of the United States as the result of this project will amount to almost exactly $1,000,000,000. It is anticipated and expected that the profits from the sale of power will liquidate the principal of the power and irrigation indebted- nesses. I should like to ask my distinguished colleague, considering the dynamic era in which we live, the rapid advancement of technology, and the advancement in the use of atomic energy, has anyone the as- surance today, looking ahead 25 or 50 years, that hydroelectric power will still have the potentiality it now has, com- pared with other forms of power which may come into existence prior to that time? I should like then to ask the Sen- ator further, What should we anticipate? Who will bear the burden of this tremen- dous investment and the others which indubitably will follow if hydroelectric power should become less valuable than it is at the present time? Mr. KNOWLAND. I think my able col- league has raised a timely question. Of course, it would be difficult for anyone to answer it with any assurance of being right. I will say, as a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, that there can be no question that in the offing there is to be a great change in the development of electric power, perhaps with the use of nuclear fuel. How soon that will come about no one knows. Events have been moving so rapidly in the world from the time of the first ex- plosion of the atomic bomb at Alamo- gordo, N. Mex., in 1945, up to the more recent developments, that no man can predict what the future will hold 5, 10, or 20 years from today. But I think there is a general belief among many persons who are competent to judge such matters that certainly within a decade, or two decades at the most, atomic energy very possibly may become a major source of fuel for the generation of electric power. S80 I think the Senator’s point is very well taken. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I should like to make this observation: Certainly, if the Federal Government assumes the risk of that power for a period of 50 years, it is a very hazardous risk, because no one looking ahead can be assured what will be the form of power used in this technological civilization. To pro- ject that risk another 650 or 80 or 100 1641 years, a8 may be done under this bill, certainly would be casting a very heavy hazard upon the Government of the United States. Mr. KNOWLAND. As the able senior Senator from California knows, in addi- tion to that, the other side of the story is that this great dam, built alone, unless other works are built above it, may itself become silted up within a far shorter period. I think some estimates say 30 years. The Senator, who serves on the committee, can correct me if I am in error. From that point of view, there are grave questions as to whether it could last to the end of the period of tre exist- ing reclamation law, unless other major works are constructed on the river. Is that correct? Mr. DOWNEY. The reports of the agencies clearly indicate that, due to the nature of the silt flow of the Colorado River, unless large reservoirs are built above this project, the whole dam would silt up within 25 or 30 years, with pro- gressively increasing inefficiency from the very beginning. Al] agencies rec- ommend that other great projects must begin, concurrently with this project, in order to prevent silting. I think it is well to point out that in order to protect this investment, the investment of hun- dreds of millions of dollars additional must necessarily be anticipated, or the whole thing becomys folly. As to what extent the additional investments to pro- tect the dam from silting up, so it can take of the Central Arizona project, should be charged against the Central Arizona project, is something which has not yet been discussed, but which must be discussed in the future. Mr. KNOWLAND. The present law applying to other projects, as I previously pointed out, requires payments within 50 years. There is a stated 40-year period, but there is a 10-year period of grace, so that, for practical purposes, we can call it 50 years. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Iheard a part of the discussion by the senior Senator from California yesterday and the re- marks of the junior Senator from Cali- fornia today, and I have read the entire Recorp of yesterday with regard to this Project. I am aware of the discussion which was had regarding the number of acres to be affected and brought into production, but it still is not quite clear in my own mind. I should like to ask the Senator if he can give me with reason- able accuracy the approximate number of acres of land which would be brought into production as a result of the pro- posed legislation, over and above the acreage, either historically or at pres- ent, in production, in the area to be sup- plied by this proposed project. Mr. KNOWLAND. If the Senator will permit me, I should like to yield to my senior colleague from California who, I think, can supply the information more accurately than I can supply it. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. This is no re- flection on the discussion of yesterday. There was considerable dispute back and
1642 forth regarding the number of acres, 75,- 000 to 225,000 or more, but the point in which I am interested is an accurate esti- mate as to the additional acres which will be served by this project, as it is proposed in the bill, which are not now under pro- duction with existing facilities or exist- ing water supply. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, the facts are very simple and are not in dis- pute. The facts show 75,000 acres of land not now in production will be brought into production, and that, ad- ditionally, 150,000 acres of land which would in future go out of production will be maintained in production. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I believe the Senator referred to the cost per acre in- volved in this bill. Will he please repeat that statement? Mr. DOWNEY. The Bureau of Rec- lamation allocates $400,000,000 of the $738,000,000 against irrigation. If we adopt that allocation we get a cost of between $1,700 and $1,800 an acre. We believe that all the costs should be con- sidered, because the Central Valiey farmers will get the investment from the power. They have the interest given them, and if we figure that cost against the whole $738,000,000, we then get a cost of approximately $300 per acre. If we add to that the $500,000,000 which is anticioated for future tunnels and facili- ties and apply it against the 225.000 acres, we shall have another $2500 an acre. The very minimum figure we can anticipate is approximately $1,730 an acre. The top figure would be $4,000 or $5,000 an acre. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KNOWLAND I yield. Mr. HAYDEN. The Senators from Oregon do not concede that the benefits to be received will be confined to a minor part of the Jand now irrigated in Central Arizona. We do not concede that any quantity of land which has not hereto- fore been under cultivation will be broucht under irrigation with water from the Colorado River. I want to make that fact perfectly clear. There will not be one new acre of desert land brought into cultivation What we are primarily con- cerned with is the establishment of a supplemental water supply for land which has heretofore enjoyed water and needs to continue to enjoy it, but not to supply water for lands which have not yet been cultivated. I shall develop that subject hereafter, and I hope the Sena- tor from Iowa will listen to me at that time Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. In projects of this kind I am fully aware of the de- sirability of developing economically the necessary public works. I am mindful of the fact that in my own State of Iowa, where we have not yet dared to ask for hundreds of millions of dollars of pub- lic aid, the topsoil, which is the most valuable topsoil in the world today, is washing away at the rate of millions and millions of dollars worth a year. I often wonder if perhaps my own State would not better be thinking about a billion- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE dollar appropriation, or something of the kind, to save the topsoil which remains. I am concerned about that particular phase of this matter. We are losing possessions we already have by erosion and other processes. Therefore, I am interested in clarifying, as much as pos- sible, at least, the number of new acres which may be brought into cultivation under the proposed project. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I am highly pleased that the Senator from Iowa has been able to be here during a part of the discussion. I hope he will be here during at least a part of the dis- cussion of my able colleegue from Ari- zona. I am, frankly, quite willing to let the Senate be the jury as to whether this is a sound and economic project. My only regret 1s that the pressure of com- mittee hearings which are in progress, and the other heavy obligations of Sena- tors, make it a little difficult to present the case and get it to those who will have to be the jury, particularly when so many of them will be so occupied that they may not even have a chance to read the Recorp. Iam, therefore, grateful to the Senator from Iowa for being here dur- ing a part of the discussion. I think the point. he raises is a very valid one. I think there is a wide matter of public policy which, as I have before said, af- fects not only the western reclamation States, but, indeed, is a vital policy to the Senators from everyone of the 48 States of the Union. Mr. President, the present yardstick in the reclamation law provides for a half century of noninterest money. This, I think, is a lberal interest-free use of funds supplied by the Federal Treasury for irrigation projects. There is no es- tablished limitation on the time for the repayment in regard to the proposed project. It is left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. He may make it 70, 80, or 100 years If that is done in this case, as I have previously pointed out, a precedent will be established for countless future projects With justifi- cation projects already constructed might also claim the same liberal treat- ment. Mr. President, I wish to reiterate that if after proper hearing it were decided that the present general limitation of 50 years in the reclamation law was not sufficient, then legislation should be pro- posed extending the period for 5, 10, or 15 years, or whatever period of time the proponents of the change feel would be justified. But we should not throw away the yardstick. If it is necessary to change the measuring means we now use, let us change it, but let it apply to future projects, as well as to the one we are now considering. I believe that this evasion of reasonable feasibility will tend to destroy confidence in all reclamation projects on the part of our colleagues from the nonreclamation States. Again I wish to call to the attention of the Senate the fact that, as introduced, the pending bill would authorize a $738,- 000,000 project, with an elastic provision which could expand it to a billion and a quarter dollars. As reported by the com- mittee, the amount was reduced to $738,- 000,000, but it still contains the elastic expansion provision, which would still FEBRUARY 8 bring it up to a billion and a quarter dollars. Mr. President, this is not all. If we take the bill and look at page 4 we will find this language: That construction of the tunnel and that portion of the canal hereinabove described from the reservoir above the dam ut Bridge Canyon to a junction with the aqueduct hereinafter authorized shall be deferred until Congress by making appropriation expressly therefor has determined that economic con- ditions justify its construction. Here is a bill which the junior Senator from Arizona apparently says is only an authorization for $708,000,000, as re- ported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. He apparently wants to brush aside this provision which we find on page 4 of the bill. Yet, I am sure there is not a Member of this body who, if he reads that language, docs not understand that it provides that, once Congress acts by appropriation of so much as a single dollar for this specific project, it will thereby authorize what has been estimated to be another $550,- 000,000. This is authorization by the back door, through the Committee on Appropriations and by the Congress. I think there is not a Senator who does not realize that, with the very complex appropriation bills which now come to this body, and with the uniform appro- priation bill which this year and hcre- after will come, it might be entirely pos- sible that a very small item of perhaps only a few thousand dollars could be put jnto the bill in the future which would specifically relate to the tunnels involved, and that thereafter it would be just as securely authorized, with $550,000,000, as is the original $708,000,000. For that reason, I think we are amply justified in saying that this 1s not a $738,000,000 bill, it is in fact an authorization of $1,250,- 000,000. Mr. President, I intend to discuss at a later date certain other features of the bill. Again, as my colleague the senior Senator from California found earher, it is difficult to keep Sen2tors in attend- ance on the floor of the Senate, but for the Recorp I wish to insert certain in- formation relating to the Presidential and budget messages referring to this project and certain other projects. The central Arizona bill—Senate bill 75 and House bill 934—embodies, in ag- gravated form, all the objectionable fea- tures pointed out by the messages of the President and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget with respect to other proj- ects, which culminated in the appoint- ment on January 3 of the President’s Water Resources Policy Commission, and this statement in the President’s budget message of January 1950: Some changes in present Federul legisla- tion can and should be made at this session of the Congress, but major changes should be deferred until the Commission's recom- mendations are available. I wish to call to the attention of the Senate the fact that it would certainly seem that in a major project of the kind we are considering, rather than rushing in and establishing new precedents, the Senate would be amply justified in re- committing the bill to the committee, so that the President’s Policy Commission
1950 might report and perhaps advise us as to certain changes in the yardstick which would be reasonable. The background of the Executive or- der ‘of January 3, 1950, appointing the President’s Water Resources Policy Com- mission, with particular reference to the issues embodied in the central Arizona project, is as follows: The President's explanatory covering letter said: On several occasions, during the recent session of Congress, I called attention to the need for developing a consistent and com- prehensive policy with regard to our whole water resources program. In many cases, piecemeal or partial approaches to a prob- lem as broad as water resources development tend to confuse, rather than clarify, many of the basic, underlying issues. It ts essential in my Judgment that a comprehensive study and review be made of all existing water re- sources legislation and policies and that rec- ommendations be made in the full knowledge of national needs and objectives. The text of the Executive order stated: The Commission shall give consideration in particular to (a) the extent and character of Federal Government participation in ma- jor water resources programs, (b) an ap- praisal of the priority of water resources programs from the standpoint of economic and social need, (c) criteria and standards for evaluating the feasibility of water re- sources projects, and (d) desirable legislation or changes in existing legislation relating to the development, utilization, and conuserva- tion of water resources. The budget message of January 1950 stated (p. M65): Some changes in present Federal legisla- tion can and should be made at this session of the Congress, but major changes should be deferred until the Commission's recom- mendations are available. The instances referred to by the Presi- dent’s covering letter to Mr. Cooke and the piecemeal approaches to which he referred were apparently the following, taking them in chronological order: A. CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT LETTER OF FEB- RUARY 4, 1949 On February 4, 1949, Frank Pace, Jr., Director of the Budget, wrote the Secre- tary of the Interior with respect to the central Arizona project, saying, inter alia: The Ife of certain major parte of the proj- ect is appreciably less than the recommended 78-year pay-out period The work could be authorized only with a modification of exist- ing law or as an exception thereto. Further- more, there is no assurance that there will exist the extremely important element of @& substantial quantity of Colorado River water available for diversion to central Ari- zona for irrigation and other purposes, The foregoing summary and the project report have been reviewed by the President. He has instructed me to advise you that au- thorization of the improvement is not in accord with his program at this time and that he again recommends that measures be taken to bring about prompt settlement of the water-rights controversy. On February 11, 1949, with reference to the central Arizona project, Director Pace wrote the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. O'ManHongy], supplementing the above letter of February 4, 1949, conclud- ing with the statement: If the Congress, as a matter of national policy, makes a determination that there js a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE water supply available for the central Ari- zone project, the President will consider all factors involved in any legislation to author- ise the project and will inform the Con- gress of his views respecting the specific pro- visions of this legislation. This letter did not retract the condem- nation of the project’s economics stated in the budget letter of February 4, 1949; and the Congress has not, as a matter of national policy, made the determination that there is a water supply available for the central Arizona project; to the con- trary, 8. 75, as amended by the Senate Interior und Insular Affairs Committee and reported, avoids any such determi- nation, and, instead, authorizes the con- troversy to be submitted to the Supreme Court. B. MESSAGES ON H. R. 1770 On June 13, 1949, Director Pace wrote the Secretary of the Interio. with respect to H. R. 1770, a bill to amend the Recla- mation Project Act of 1939, saying: Furthermore, H R. 1770, if enacted, would, in our opinion, have the effect of liberalizing existing reclamation laws in the sense of making it easier to authorize projects and consequently requiring increased total Fed- eral outlays coupled with less possibility of recovery by the Government. The potential budgetary impact of such action is another aspect of the problem which needs careful study. For these various reasons, I have recom- mended to the President that H. R. 1770 be held not in accord with his program at this time, pending a basic review of land and water resources development policies. The President has approved this recommendation, I think we should note that the central Arizona project, costing from $738,000,- 000 to $1,290,000,000, would cost more and have a greater budgetary impact than all of the reclametion expenditures in the 17 Western States for the 11-year period, 1939-49, which total $993,000,000. It is true that some advocates of the project in Arizona point out quit: cor- rectly that on the one hand we are deal- ing with the authorization of $1,200,000,- 000 for this one project, and on the other hand we are taiking about money which has been actually appropriated; but the fact remains that all the appropriations over that 10-year period of time for all the 17 western reclamation States amounted to a total of approximately $993,000,000 Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will my colleague yield? Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. It appearing thai the audience has been reduced to its irreduc- ible minimum, I wonder if my colleague will yield to me so I may suggest the ab- sence cf a quorum? Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield for that purpose. Mr. DOWNEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, in view of the effective nature of this quorum call, as already revealed, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be suspended. 1643 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, to resume: C, THE VERMEJO PROJECT, VETO MESSAGE On August 23, 1949, the President vetoed H. R. 3788, to authorize the con- struction of the Vermejo project, New Mexico. 1, NONREIMBURSABLES His message said, inter alia: While I consider this to be a serious defi- elency, I am more concerned about the fact that there are included in the figure of $1,170,920 proposed to be charged off against nonreimbursable benefits, classes of such benefits not now permitted under federally constructed irrigation projects. Neithcr sedi- ment control nor recreation is currently au- thorized as a benefit against which non- reimbursable allocations of cost may be made. It seems to me highly questionable to ap- prove the inclusion of such benefits with respect to this one project before the Con- gress has reviewed the desirability of making charges to such benefits generally possible under basic reclamation law. Mr. President, this is one of the points which I have been trying to stress for the information of the Senate, namely, that the central Arizona project breaks down some of the basic concepts, limita- tions, and safeguards in the reclamation law. It opens up vast new horizons of nonreimbursable projects. So the Presi- dent of the United States in vetoing the Vermejo project bill, House bill 3788, did so because, among other reasons, it opened up certain additional nonreim- bursable items, I wish to call the at- tention of both the Presiding Officer and such other Members of the Senate as are present at this time to the fact that the measure now under consideration by the Senate, Senate bill 75, adds as nonrcim- bursable items some of the vcry same items the President of the United States criticized in his veto message of House bill 3788. The veto message on House bill 3788 also objected to a nonreimbursable allo- cation to fish and wildlife, saying: While such nonreimbursable allocations are permitted in water-resources development projects, they are usually restricted in scope to the prevention of loss of and damage to wildlife. Mr. President, I think it is worthy of noting that section 3 of Senate bill 75 authorizes the Secretary to write off allocations to fish and wildlife conserva- tion without limit. &. AMORTIZATION PERIOD The veto message on the Vermefo bill, House bill 3788, also objected to the ex- tension of the amortization period from 40 to 67 years, saying: I wish also to point out to the Congress that H. R. 3788 deals with another issue which I believe should be first considered in basic law. I refer to the authorized period of re- payment. There has been a tendency during our some 465 years of experlence under the reclamation laws to increase the period of repayment of construction costs. Despite this trend, I believe the matter of further extensions to periods greatly in excess of the 40 years (plus, in some cases, a 10-year dee velopment period) now generally authorized, is a matter of such vital concern to the Nation as a whole that it should be carefully
1644 reviewed as a principle of general application. It is not a matter to be treated in piecemeal and isolated consideration on the basis of apparent needs of one or another small proj- ect to which no need for urgent action is attached. Mr. President, I wish to call to the at- tention of the Senators now present the fact that the quotation I have just read from the President’s veto message of the Vermejo bill, House bill 3788, merely underscores the remarks I made earlier, namely, that Senate bill 75 does by piece- meal change the concept of our Federal reclamation laws; and I further point out that on the basis of the veto by the President of the United States of the Vermejo bill, House bill 3788—and on that ground alone—the central Arizona project bill should be vetoed by the Pres- ident if it ever reaches him, But, Mr. President, on that ground I think it would be a bad mistake of public policy for the Congress of the United States to throw away the yardstick. I make that statement for the reasons I have already outlined and for the reasons which are so clearly stated in the veto message of the President of the United States in regard to House bill 3788. Mr. President, I think it should also be noted that section 3 of Senate bill 75 provides no repayment period other than “such reasonable period of years, not to exceed the useful life of the project, as may be determined by the Secretary.” The shortest period proposed by Ari- zona witnesses is 70 years, for a project to cost $738,000,000. If, however, the tunnels, specifically authorized by sec- tion 1 of the bill, are built, the total cost will be over $500,000,00° more—or a to- tal of $1,200,000,000—according to the Reclamation Bureau, and no repayment period for the aggregate of one and a quarter billion dollars has been sug- gested. D. THE WEBER BASIN PROJECT LETTER OF DISAPPROVAL On August 30, 1949, the President ap- proved, with reluctance, Senate bill 2391, to authorize the Weber Basin project, Utah, but issued a letter summarizing defects which he said would have to be cured by further legislation or by con- tract. They were as follows: REPAYMENT PERIOD 1. It authorizes the repayment of irriga- tion water supply cost over a period of 60 years instead of the period of 40 years which has prevailed heretofore under the reclama- tion law. NONREIMBURSABLES 2 The project report of the Regional Di- rector contemplates a nonreimbursable al- location of cost in the amount of 84,656,000 for recreation. The allocation of cost to rec- reational facilities is not now authorized under reclamation law. If the allocation authorized in connection with the project were uniformly applied as a precedent, it would ultimately involve the Government in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. Those statements are taken from the letter of the President of the United States. I think it is worthy of note on the part of the Senate that Senate bill 75, the pending measure, in section 38, authorizes the Secretary to make a non- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE reimbursable allocation to “recreation” — I refer to page 5, line 9—without limi- tation as to amount. Yet a similar item was criticized by the President of the United States. The President's message on Senate bill 2391, the Weber basin bill, continued: INTEREST COMPONENT 8. Under the proposed repayment plan for the project, the amounts repaid by munici- pal and industrial users would be applied first to the repayment of the cost allocated to municipal and industrial purposes, and then to the repayment of part of the cout allocated to irrigation—all of this on a basis which would provide total revenues over a period of 60 years sufficient only to cover the total retmbursable cost without inter- est Thus, in addition to receiving no in- terest on the reimbursable irrigation cost, the Government would also receive no tn- terest on the reimbursable cost for munici- pal and industrial uses. The Senate should note that Senate bill 75, in section 3, on page 5, lines 18 to 22, authorizes the same result. The Secre- tary is to determine the amount which can be allocated to irrigation and re- turned to the United States “by revenues derived from sources other than the de- livery of water for irrigation purposes.” The testimony showed that this meant the interest component of the power revenues. By this device no interest on any feature of the project would be re- paid to the Treasury in compensation for the use of the Government’s money. The total amount of interest foregone is $465 600,000. REVIEW BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS The President’s veto message on Sen- ate bill 2391, the Weber Basin bill, said, with reference to review by the Army: 4 On the basis of such study as he has had time to make, however, the Chief of Engineers raises serious questions as to the amount allocated for flood control. The Senate should note that as to the central Arizona project, the report of the Chief of Engineers stated—and I cal) attention to the minority views on Senate bill 75, Senate Report No. 832, Eighty- first Congress, first session, at page 31: The legal and economic premises upon which the project as a whole is based appear to be open to serious question, particularly with respect to water rights and to the analysis of the economics of the works. REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The President's veto message on Sen- ate bill 2391, the Weber Basin bill, con- tinued: 5. The report on the project was not made available to the Department of Agriculture Consequently, it has not been possible for that Department to express its views with regard to the agricultural and economic possibility of the proposed plan, I believe the Senate should note the fact that the central Arizona project was reviewed by the Department of Agri- culture, and that the Department re- ported—and I call attention to an extract from the minority views, Senate Report No. 832, Eighty-first Congress, first ses- sion, page 30—as follows: Frankly, we were unable to determine from your report whether or not the benefits actually would exceed the costs. * * ¢ In at least the respects mentioned above, the Frepruary 8 benefits and costs used in testing the eco- nomic soundness of the project are in error RE PIECEMEAL LEGISLATION In concluding his message on Senate bill 2391, the Weber Basin project bill, the President said: I consider it essential that the program be not jeopardized by premature authorization of projects in advance of resolution of ques- tionable features. To do so may lead to un- sound action which will endanger the success of our whole reclamation program. I call the attention of the Fresiding Officer and other Members of the Senate to the fact that this is the very point which I raised heretofore, that this un- sound, infeasible central Arizona project, in it. present form, will tend to jeopard- iz> future sound reclamation project in the West. It is the very point which has been underscored also by the President of the United States, in his letter. ¥E. COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON VETO On October 14, 1949, the President vetoed H. R. 5134, a bill relating to the Colorado-Big Thompson project, and au- thorizing the Secretary of the Interior to make nonreimbursable allocations of cost to recreation. His veto message said: I am unable to approve this bill because of two major objections. First, this bill would establish, for this one project only, certain policies which present an important departure from present law, but which have not been studied sufficiently to know whether or not they form a desirable basis for a new national policy. The basic laws do not authorize the allo- cation of any part of joint-project costs to recreation; in the few cases where recreation facilities have been built so far, they have been separately justified and financed. This bill, however, would require nonreimbursable allocations to recreation as part of the cost of joint features of the Colorado-Big Thomp- son project. It would clearly be unwise to adopt such a policy in connection with this one project, before it had been decided whether the adoption of such a general policy is in the national interest. Furthermore, if such a general policy is to be adopted, there should certainly be provision for careful standards to guide its application to a par- ticular case—standards which are not pro- vided for in this bill. I again point out, Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, that the Presi- dent in his veto message has underscored the objection which the opponents to the bill have pointed out, for the bill also sets up certain evasions of the standards now in the reclamation laws; and, if it is done in this case, as the President quite prop- erly pointed out in his veto message, it will be done to break down all the stand- ars in the future. I am only sorry that not more Members of the Senate can be here to understand that it is not merely a controversy between Nevada and Cali- fornia on the one hand and Arizona on the other. On the contrary, it affects the Nation’s basic reclamation laws. It goes to the very basic question of a sound public policy. As the able Presiding Offi- cer, the junior Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN] knows, the Senator from California has not been narrow in his belief in the importance of sound proj- ects throughout the country. I happen to have visited not so very long ago in his State and the Tennessee Valley,
1950 which is in his general area. I think the Senator who is now presiding recognizes the fact that when measures of a sound nature for his section have been under consideration by this body, the junior Senator from California has supported them. So long as they have a sound basis and sound standards, I believe proj- ects can be justified, whether they be in the great Tennessee Valley, in the West, in the New England States, or in the great Middie West. But I say to you, Mr. President, that if once the standards are broken down, if the door is opened wide, if the yardstick {s thrown away, it will not only jeopardize in the minds of the American people, particularly in the minds of the American taxpayers, the unsound projects, but it will, in my opin- ion jeopardize sound public works every- where. It is for that reason that I be- lieve the issue is basically important, so important that we felt it necessary, in view of the sparse attendance in the Sen- ate of the United States, that there should be an opportunity by speeches on the floor, by reiteration, by questioning, by running debate over a period of time, finally to bring home to the consciousness of the American people, including Mem- bers of the Senate and Members of the House of Representatives, the fact that here is a project which jeopardizes all sound reclamation projects and all other sound projects in every section of the country. F. SECOND BUDGET LETTER ON H R 1770 On January 27, 1950, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget wrote to the Secretary of the Interior requiring cer- tain amendments in H. R. 1770, referred to above. This is a bill which would amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. The amendments proposed by the Bureau of the Budget would— First. Delete language which contem- plates diversion of the interest compo- nent of power revenues to subsidize irri- gation. The language stricken is virtu- ally identical with that found in S. 75, page 5, line 18. Second. Delete Janguage which would have expanded the hst of nonre- imbursable allocations to include ‘“(1v) recreation; (v) general salinity control; (vi) sediment control; (vii) the improve- ment of public transportation; (viii) protection of the public health; (x) promotion of national defense; and (x) the fulfillment of international obliga- tions.” I think the Senate should know that Senate bill 75, page 5, line 7, would au- thorize write-offs in addition to naviga- tion, flood control, and fish and wild- life, all of which are found in existing law—and I think the Senate should pay particular attention to this—to silt con- trol, river regulation, recreation, gen- eral salinity control and any other pur- poses “which may hereafter be made nonreimbursable by law.” 8S. 75 imposes no limitation on the Secretary's discre- tion to make these write-offs, but the Interior Department's testimony on 5S. 75 indicates that they expect to write off about $80,000,000 for these purposes. So that will be an amount which will not be repaid, even without interest. The budget letter of January 27, 1950, pro- XCVI——104 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE poses that sediment control, insofar as it is related to reimbursable features such as power, irrigation, or municipal water supply should not be written off; to the contrary, it is expected that “the allocation will reflect such cost and that provision will be made for its return to the United States;” and that sediment control allocations be made nonreim- bursable only insofar as sediment control relates to navigation and flood-control functions. The budget letter added that these subjects should be referred for study by the Water Resources Policy Commission. I may say again that the opponents of the pending bill believe that, inasmuch as the President of the United States has established the Water Resources Policy Commission, the members of that Com- mission, with us, presumably are going to study the question as to whether the yardstick should be changed somewhat, and as to whether, instead of having a foot rule, we should have a yardstick, or just what standards should be fixed. Certainly it would seem to me that before we break them down entirely we should have the report of the President’s Water Resources Policy Commission. With respect to the provision ot S. 75, making nonreimbursable allocations to any other purpose which may hereafter be made nonreimbursable by law,” the budget letter of January 27, 1950, on H. R. 1770, goes in the opposite direction by requiring an amendment which would prevent the Secretary from making reallocations, once a project has been approved by Congress, and would re- quire such reallocations to be submitted to Congress and approved by it. The budget letter concluded by stat- ing there should be referred to the Presi- dent’s Water Commission such questions as (a) repayment period for irrigation, (b) subsidy to irrigation, particularly from utilization of the interest compo- nent, and (c) repayment period for other reimbursable features of the project. 8. 75 is inconsistent with this reserva- tion of policy matters for consideration by the President’s Water Policy Com- mission. Mr. President, I wish to insert, as part of my remarks—I shall not read it to the Senate at this time, because of the small attendance of Senators on the fioor, but I think it should be made a part of my remarks—the minority views of the Committee on Interior and In- sular Affairs, and I ask that, starting on page 18 of the committee report, the minority views be printed as a part of my remarks, together with the appendix which immediately follows. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SparKMAN in the chair). Is there ob- jection? There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: MinorITY Views The undersigned minority of the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs sub- mits the following views in opposition to the pending bill: t SUMMARY I. What the bill would authorize: 1. A grandiose irrigation scheme to pump water 1,000 feet high and transport it over 1645 800 miles to irrigate ordinary field crops, such as cotton, grains, and hay. 2. An admittedly infeasible 80-mile tunnel which would cost 8550,000,000. 3. A power dam loaded with uneconomic commitments, one-third of the power gen- erated to be donated for project pumping, the other two-thirds to pay the entire reim- bursable construction cost of the project, irrigation as well as power. II. The cost is excessive: initially, $738,- 000,000; ultimately over one billion and & quarter dollars—more than has been appro- priated for reclamation in the last 11 years. III. Federal subsidies are unprecedented: 1, Nonreimbursables written off, $73,000,- 000. 2 Interest, $465,600,000 8. Contributed in electric energy, $315,- 000,00. Total, 850,000,000. IV. Results would not justify the cost; the project would ball cut large landowners who have speculated in a war-bvom development in the face of a known shortage of under- ground water and also permit irrigation of @ iarge acreage of new lands. The works would, at ¢ cost of $1,750 per acre, irrigate land worth, with water, $300 per acre. V Estimates of Colorado River water needed are exaggerated: the United States Geological Survey indicates the basic factors on which the actual need should be evaluated are unknown and should be investigated. VI. The plan of repayment cannot work out: 1. The irrigators cannot pay 1 cent of ir- rigation-construction cost, even for their local distribution system or drainage system. 2. Power must pay all reimbursable con- struction cost. 8 Determination of the repayment period is delegated to the discretion of the Secre- tary of the Interior. 4 (a) Bridge Canyon power would not pay out the project over the assumed 70-year period or ever. By the Watkins amendment, Bluff Dam is eliminated from the project. The Bureau estimates of Bridge power reve- nues are predicated on the existence of Bluff Dam. Without it, Bridge Canyon Reservoir would be completely filled with silt in 30 years. The amendinent renders the Bu- reau’s revenue estimates totally invalid and the project totally infeasible. (b) Estimates of Bridge Canyon returns are based on idcal operation under condi- tions of river flow assumed to be known in advance. (c) To attain Bureau estimates of power revenues would require invasion of legal rights of Hoover Dam power contractors. (da) Estimates of irrigation revenues will not be realized. VII. All departmental reports except that of Interior are highly critical of economic and engineering features of the project; the President has declared that it is not in ac- cord with his program. VIII. The project has no dependable water supply; the Secretary of the Interior states that the right of Arizona to water for the project is involved in long-standing con- troversy and that if contentions of California are correct, there will be no dependable water supply available for the project. The situation should be cleared up by adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 4, permitting the United States to be joined in an interstate suit in the Supreme Court. The approach taken in 8S. 75, by authorizing the entire project, then waiving the immunity of the United States to suit, and then suspending expenditures for the aqueduct to central Arizona pending the suit, is unprecedented and wrong. The United States Treasury should not be committed to build the aque- duct at all when the basic feature of water supply is an unknown quantity.
1646 1, WHAT THE BILL WOULD AUTHORIZE 1. A grandtose irrigation scheme The main objective of the bill is to furnish a supplemental irrigation water supply to an area in Arizona called the central Arizona project. To do this it is proposed to pump water from the Colorado River to a height of 987 feet, nearly twice the height of the Washington Monument. The water is then to be transported through a main canal 315 miles long, @ much greater distance than from Washington to New York. The irriga- tion use then to be made of the water is, almost exclusively, for the growing of ordi- nary field crops, such as cotton, grains, and hay. The use of such extravagant means to reach such a moderate result is, on the face of it, utterly fantastic and economically un- sound. No comparable irrigation system, public or private, has ever been constructed. 2. An admittedly infeastble tunnel The bill would authorize a tunnel 60 miles long running under several mountain ranges, by which the water might be conveyed by gravity from the river to the proposed main canal. Sponsors of the project freely admit that the tunnel is now economically infeas- ible. No official cost estimate was submitted to the committee. The bill (p. 8, line 19) says that construction of the tunnel shall be Geferred “until Congress by making appropri- ation therefor has determined that economic conditions justify its construction.” No evi- dence indicates what such economic condi- tions might be. Thus, for the first time in history, the Congress is besought to authorize a project, without even a cost estimate, when its own sponsors say it is infeasible. As a result, the unprecedented responsibility for deter- mining when, if ever, the tunnel may be feasible would be improperly cast upon the Appropriations Committee. 3. A power dam loaded with uneconomic commitments The bill would authorize Bridge Canyon Dam on the Colorado River. This dam, the size of Hoover Dam, would be built solely for power generation. One-third of the power generated (1,500,- 000,000 kilowatt-hours each year) would be committed for pumping water up the 1,000- foot lift for the irrigation scheme. That is more electric energy than was used in the entire State of Arizona (1,206,000,000 k!lo- watt-hours) in 1943. All the energy which can be generated at Bridge Canyon is badly needed in the present power market of the Pacific Southwest. To commit one-third of the Bridge Canyon power to the extreme pump lift required for the central Arizona project entails the consequence that 2,500,- 000 barrels of fuel oll per year must be con- sumed to serve other power needs in the Sovthwest for which the Bridge Canyon power could be used. As is later shown, there is no water supply available for the project, except by taking it from existing projects, and the welfare of the United States, as a whole, cannot therefore be bettered by such ® process. Under these circumstances to commit one-third of the Bridge Canyon power to the extreme pump lift, with the modest production of crops to be achieved, would be an egregious waste of the Nation's natural resources, The remaining two-thirds of the Bridge Canyon power would be sold. The rates for that power would have to pay the entire cost of the dam and power installations. In ad~- dition, it is proposed to make the rates suffi- ciently high to pay the entire capital cost of the irrigation system. Use of Federal funds to develop low-cost electric power for the benefit of the people of a region is justifiable. But the result here, as the Federal Power Commission has indicated (see appendix A), would not be jow-cost power. The power CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE eonsumers of the Pacific Southwest would be saddled with an unreasonable aud un- justiMable burden. Bridge Canyon Dam, as the Federal Power Commission points out, has no physical re- lation to the central Arizona project. The minority favors construction of this dam and does not object to its contributing for the benefit of irrigation in a reasonable measure. It objecte to burdens on Bridge Canyon which are exceseive. TI. Cost Is EXCESSIVE The project is by far the most costly single reclamation project, for the primary benefit of a single State, that has ever been con- ceived or presented to the Congress. <Ac- cording to Bureau of Reclamation estimates, the cost of the initial works would be $738,- 000,000. This amount excludes the cost of the 80- mile tunnel and appurtenances, which is understood to be an additional 550,000,000. The total ultimate cost would be $1,288,000,- 000. The minority believes that these cost esti- mates are insufficiently grounded and that actual costs would greatly exceed the esti- mates, But on the Bureau's estimates, the initial cost would be twice the cost of the Panama Canal. It would equal or exceed that of the Tennessee Valley Authority. It would equal that of the proposed St. Lawrence seaway. It would be nearly five times the cost of the Boulder Canyon project. The aggregate amount appropriated for all reclamation projects in the 17 Western States in the last 11 years has been 6593 ,307.- 017 The ultimate cost of the single central Arizona project would far exceed that amount. Til. FEDERAL SUBSIDIES ARE UNPRECEDENTED The taxpayers of the United States would make an outright gift of the following sub- sidies, totaling 850,000,000: 1. Nonreimdursables written off, $73,000,000 Of this amount, $33,000,000 is accounted for by one item, “Recreation,” chiefly ($81,000,000) at one reservoir, Bridge Canyon, which is relatively small (one-tenth the ca- pacity of Lake Mead, behind Hoover Dam) and is located at the bottom of a deep and inaccessible canyon. The minority believes that an independent bill appropriating $31,000,000 to the National Park Service for establishing recreation facilities at such a spot would receive, and would deserve, scant consideration. Nor should such a consider- able item be more easily favored because it is tucked away as an incident to this project. Another item of $3,000,000 is set up for “Fish and wildlife.” Like the “Recreation” item, it is not supported by any showing of the amounts which the Government would expend as the costs of the functions men- tioned. The only explanations presented are imaginative estimates of national benefits on an annual basis, measured by no rational yardstick and apparently picked out of thin air. These national benefits are then capi- talized at 2.56 percent to produce the large figures named. The minority has no quarrel with the prin- ciple that actual expenditures made for the service of Federal functions should be non- reimbursable. It insists that sound and scrupulous proof should be made of the real costs involved and that “blue sky” estimates should not be used to bolster up an unsound project at the expense of the Nation’s tax- payers. A third allocation of $5,000,000 is for “Sa- lintty control.” This item ts nothing more nor less than land drainage, Heretofore, the farmers on all reclamation projects have paid for thelr own drainage works. The benefits are private, not national, No rea- son is seen why, by the use of a new label, FEBRUARY 8 the farmers on this project should be singled out for a special favor at the expense of the Nation's taxpayers. &. Interest, $465,600,000 The reimbursable indebtedness would be $665,000,000. At 2 percent, over the least repayment period proposed in the hearings, 0 years, not including a 15-year construc- tion period, the average annual interest paid by the taxpayers of the United States on that part of the national debt would be #6,650,- 000 and the total, $465,600,000. No interest on any feature of the project would be repaid to the Treasury as compen~ sation for the use of the Government's money. It ts said that interest would be charged on the commercial~power features of the project, but the statement is essen- tially untrue. It is actually proposed to di- vert this so-called interest, amounting to €350,000,000, and apply it to repayment of the capital costs allocated to irrigation. The minority does not dissent from the wisdom of the reclamation law, under which no interest is charged on irrigation features of a reclamation project during the repay- ment period fixed by that law, 50 years. It sees, however, no excuse for relieving com- mercial power plants, transmission lines, and related factlities from paying into the Treasury interest on the money advanced by the taxpayers of the United States to build them. It calls attention, moreover, to the way in which the interest actually borne by the Government is magnified by this process, taken together with the exten- sion of the repayment period beyond 50 years. 3. Contributed in electric energy, $315,000,000 One-third of the energy output of Bridge Canyon (1,500,000,000 kilowatt-hours per year) is committed to the pumping of irri- gation water. The irrigators pay no capital charge therefor. If sold as commercial power, that energy would produce an addi- tional revenue of $4,500,000 a year, or in 70 years, an aggregate of $315,000,000. The total Federal subsidy is at least $850, 000,000. Iv. RESULTS WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE COST The ends sought to be attained by the bill furnish no recognizable justification for @ project of such tremendous magnitude. The objective is said, primarily, to be to “rescue” 150,000 acres which might otherwise have to go out of production. This area is about equal to that put under irrigation for the first time, tn central Arizona, during the war boom 1n agricultural prices. It is owned by fewer than 600 individuals, who have proba- bly already recouped their investment from wartime profits. The development has oc- curred in the face of a well-known deficiency of the underground water supply and is char- acterized by Arizona witnesses as a “mining” operation. In addition, it is said that the project will irrigate 73,500 acres of land represented as having an “irrigation history,”’ but asserted to be idle for lack of water. Proponents of 8. 75 admit that no such area can be de- fined or located. As a matter of fact, such an acreage is roughly equal to that normally idle at any one time, in any irrigation enter- prise of comparable size. In irrigation proj- ects, 10 to 12 percent of the acreage is ex- pected, for various reasons, to be idle in any one year. It does not use irrigation water. A Water supply is not required for such idle land. Surprisingly, according to the Bureau testimony, nearly half of the project water to be applied to irrigation would be required for this 73,500 acres. The United States is, then, asked to com~ mit itself to an expenditure of over $1,000,- $00,000, to pump water a thousand feet high, and transport it over 300 miles, to “rescue” 150,000 acres now in cultivation to ordinary
1950 field crops-—-cotton, grains, and hay—and to permit 78,500 acres, evidently new desert lands, to be brought under cultivation to like crops. The costs of the projects allocated to irri- gation alone will be at least $1,750 per acre for the land in both categories. That is $280,000 for a 160-acre farm. General farm- ing land in Arizona, with water, is worth not to exceed $300 per acre, or $48,000 for the same 160-acre farm. The project's sponsors say that this project is required to prevent a total collapse of the economy of the State of Arizona, This claim is patently exaggerated. As to the 73,500 acres asserted to have had an irrigation his- tory, it is evident from the testimony of Bureau witnesses that this land has not been irrigated for a generation. The economy of Arizona has for many years been adjusted to its not being irrigated. As to the 150,000 acres of land presently irrigated and sought to be rescued, it must be remembered that the irrigation of this land has been a specu- lative wartime venture, dependent on mining a known insuffictent water supply. It is, un- fortunately, always necessary to make adjust- ments when a mined resource is exhausted. Further, as a Bureau witness testified, it could hardly be expected that appropriations would be made for the project at a greater rate than $50,000,000 a year. At that rate, 15 to 25 years would be required to complete the project. Long before such a period elapses, the economy of Arizona will have adjusted itself, whether on the prewar basis or on some new basis, arrived at by a change of crops or otherwise. The claim that the project would accomplish the asserted rescue is, thus, wholly specious. V. ESTIMATES OF COLORADO RIVER WATER NEEDED ARE EXAGGERATED The Bureau's estimate of water supply re- quired to be imported for the project is be- lieved to be bused on insufficient and incon- clusive data and to be greatly exaggerated. It is probable that the tremendous cost of the aqueduct work and the perpetual high annual pumping cost could be reduced to a marked degree by more realistic evaluation of the need for imported water From a letter in the record from the Di- rector of the United States Geological Sur- vey, dated June 9, 1949, it appears that a great many factors relating to the safe yleld of the underground basin and the possibility of increasing the availability of local water sources are as yet not adequately known or evaluated. Among these factors are: 1. Actual surface and ground water flow into the area 2, Actual surface and ground water flow out of the area. 3. Augmentation of the local supplies hy spreading of floodwaters to recharge the un- derground basin. 4. Extent to which waste of underground water absorbed by nonbeneficial vegetation in swamp areas can be reduced. By elimina- tion of such vegetation, it is known that several hundred thousand acre-feet of water per year can be saved for beneficial use 5. Rates of consumptive use of water by crops. 6. Extent to which quality of irrigation water can be improved by elimination of salt springs and other sources of contamination. 7. Development of unused local water sources. It is tndicated by the Director's letter that these important subjects, which control any conclusion as to the amount of water which should as an economic matter be sought to be imported from the Colorado River, have not been adequately investigated. He sug- gests an outline of a “comprehensive and in- tensive water investigation needed for the maximum utilization of the available water supplies in the area.” The time required for such investigation, 3 years, and the cost, $600,000, appear moderate and justified, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE It is apparent that the estimate of the need for imported supply used by the Bureau of Reclamation, 1,200,000 acre-feet a year, is not based on adequate investigation of actual need and is definitely exaggerated. Impor- tation of such a quantity from the Colorado River would, in the long run, lead to one of two results: Either the water logging of large parts of the area, or, contrary to the pro- fessed object of proponents of S. 75, a great expansion of the irrigated area of central Arizona. There is good ground to believe that, upon thorough study, a far less costly solution for the rescue of central Arizona can be found than is proposed by S. 75. VI, THE PLAN OF REPAYMENT CANNOT WORK OUT 1. The irrigators cannot pay their way The central Arizona project is the first reclamation proposal ever presented to the Congress on which the irrigators cannot pay $1 on the construction cost of their irriga- tion works. Indeed, the costs of the project are, Without dispute, so great that the irriga- tors cannot even pay as much as the costs normally assigned to operation and main- tenance. Ordinarily such costs include a component of capital cost for the power used for pump- ing. In the central Arizona project that com- ponent is omitted. It is about half os large as the total sum which the irrigators are to pay. In other words, they are able to pay only two-thirds of normal operation and maintenance costs. Again, the irrigators are not able to pay the cost of their irrigation distribution sys- tem or their drainage system, which have in all previous reclamation projects been re- quired to be repaid by the irrigators The estimated cost of the distribution system is $54,900,000 and of the drainage system 810,000,000. 2 Power pays all reimbursable construction costs Consequently, the power revenues from two-tnirds of the energy generated at Bridge Canyon must, except for nonreimbursables, pay the entire bill for construction of the dam and all of the power works, including generating plants, transmission lines, and substations, etc. They must also pay for all the irrigation works, including the distribu- tion system, and the portion—85,000,000—of the drainage system which jis not forgiven as nonreimbursable As stated, they must even pay the capital costs attributable to the power capacity which 1s assigned to be used for irrigation pumping, although this is nor- mally a component of the price of such power and paid by the irrigators as an expense of operation. 3. Determination of the repayment period is delegated to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior The Congress has invariably, up to now, determined the period within which repay- ment must be made for the construction costs of réclamation projects. S. 75, tn this respect, is a violent departure from this set- tled rule. Section 3 provides that the repay- ment period shall be “such reasonable period of years, not to exceed the useful life of the project, as may be determined by the Secre- tary.” Considering the fact that some of the Roman aqueducts and the Roman roads, over 2,000 years old, are still in use, this formula, for which the Bureau of Reclamation has been reaching out for several years, does not seem to be a prudent one. No one can now know the worth of hydro power in the far future. The reduction of annual payments to near zero cannot be sanctioned. The ab- sorption of interest by the United States over centuries cannot be justified. However, Bureau witnesses, after using a variety of bases in reports and testimony, concluded by suggesting a perlod of 70 years. Accordingly, the possibility of repayment of 1647 the costs of the particular project may be tested by that period. 4, The project costs will not be paid (a) Bridge Canyon estimated power reve- nues would not be realized through 70 years: Bridge Canyon Reservoir would have rela- tively small capacity (one-tenth of Lake Mend). The river's flow is erratic and carries great volumes of silt. Only a great dam with very large storage capacity, constructed upstream from Bridge Canyon, such as is possible at or near Glen Canyon, would impound the silt and regulate the flow of the river so as to enable Bridge Canyon to produce the constant production of firm energy which must be sold through- out 70 years. Witnesses for the Bureau of Reclamation admitted that the Glen Canyon Dam is indispensable as a protection to the Bridge Canyon power output, and said that the Bureau is now making studies of such an additional dam The cost of a Glen Canyon Dam is under- stood to be much in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars. No provision for its financ- ing or repayment is made in 8. 75. The amendment to section 1, proposed by Sena- tor Watkins and accepted by the committee, would definitely prevent its construction as an adjunct to Bridge Canyon. It may be said that Glen Canyon Dam will someday be built. But it is not Known whether Glen Canyon Dam will stand on its own fect financially. It may or may not pro- duce sufficient revenues to amortize its cost without subsidization from Bridge Canyon power revenues, or from the Federal Treasury The Watkins amendment demonstrates that Glen Canyon Dam cannot be leaned on by the project, as furnishing either water storage or silt control. It makes it evident that tf and when Glen Canyon is authorized and built, it will be designed and operated to serve the purposes of the upper basin in which it lies. Upon this basis, it is quite unlikely that Glen Canyon would be built within the useful life of Bridge Canyon Reservoir, which, as shown hereinafter, is only 30 years. Again, the project, as proposed by the Bu- reau of Reclamation, includes construction of the Bluff Dam on the San Juan River in the upper basin. The Bluff Dam would be a stopgap which would give Bridge Canyon temporary and partial aid by river regula- tion and silt detention The Watkins amendment also excludes this dam from the project The engineering evidence is clear that without the silt storage afforded by the Bluff Dam, the Bridge Canyon Reservoir would be filled with silt to the dam's spillway level in 30 years. Even with Bluff constructed, Bridge Canyon Reservoir would be filled with sil in from 40 to 50 years. Long before the reservoir is completely silted up, the lack of storage capacity would seriously impair the firm power production. During the balance of the 70-year period it is improbable that a high-head power plant could be operated at all, because the silt flowing through the generating works would destroy them Regardless of this fact it would be a mere run-of-the-river plant, pro- ducing a minimum of firm or guaranteed power. During the few months of the flood season, large amounts of dump power would be produced, but during the many months of the low-flow period hardly enough power would be produced to meet the requirements of the project's irrigation pumping load. Also, as shown by Bureau reports, without Bluff the capacity of the spillway at Bridge Canyon Dam must be greatly increased, at an additional cost of many millions of dollars. Neither this cost nor ita repayment has been included in the Bureau's financial studies. The Burenu’s estimates of Bridge Canyon power production and resulting revenues are totally invalid without a Glen Canyon Dam.
1648 Without either Glen or Bluff, it is self-evi- dent that Bridge Canyon revenues would be go reduced that they would not pay the proj- ect out, either in 70 years or in any period at all, (b) Estimates of revenues from Bridge Canyon are unduly optimistic: The estimates of revenues from the Bridge Canyon power plant are based upon an ideai operation of the power plant at Bridge Canyon Dam, which could only be obtained through a fore- knowledge, several years in advance, of pre- cipitation and run-off of the Colorado River. Such ideal operating conditions could not be realized under normal circumstances. The flow of the Colorado River is erratic. It was varied within extremes as wide as from 6,000,000 to 25,000,000 acre-feet per annum. The tremendous snow storms of the past winter were anticipated in March of this year to produce unusual flood flows, but the actual result has been only an average run- off. It ts easy, working from records of known rast series of years, to produce on paper & plan of optimum operation of power works and estimates of maximum revenues. It js not possible to have any assurance that, for any period in the future in which the river's flow unknown, such estimates will prove out. If they do not, the financial feasibility of the project is impaired. (c) To attaln Bureau estimates of power revenues would require the invasion of rights of Hoover Dam power contractors: To make “firm” power of practically all the energy produced at Bridge Canyon, the Bureau plans to “coordinate” Bridge Canyon pro- duction with that at Hoover Dam, in such a way as to violate the contracts of the Hoover Dam power contractors, to their sub- stantial detriment. The Bureau would credit Bridge Canyon with power produced at Hoover, without charging any of the cost of the Hoover plant to the Bridge Canyon project. Without such handling of the two plants, only a small part of the energy pro- duced at Bridge Canyon could be sold as firm power and produce the revenues which firm power commands. The revenues esti- mated by the Bureau cannot be realized without violation of existing contracts exe- cuted by the United States (d) Estimates of irrigation revenues will not be realized: The estimutes of revenues f-om the delivery of irrigation water assume that irrigators in central Arizona will, year in and yoar out, take and pay for the full supply of water. Without that assumption, the financial feasibility of the project is again tmpatred. The climate of central Arizona is shown by nearly a century of records to be char- acterized by alternating cycles or series of years of high and low rainfall. During wet cycles, which have lasted from 11 to 18 years consecutively, the local water supplies of central Arizona “ave been suffictent to sup- ply all irrigation needs and to build up un- Gerground water tables to the point that large areas were threatened with water- logging and pumping of large numbers of wells had to be employed to drain them. During such extended periods, which will, of course, recur many times within the pro- posed repayment period, ft is not to be ex- pected that farmer: will buy and pay for high- priced Colorado River water for which they have no use. The estimates of irrigation revenues used by the sponsors of the project are, therefore, mere paper estimates and do not carry con- viction. VII. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS ARE CRITICAL The reports of the Government Depart- ments, other than Intciior (Bureau of the Budget, --griculture, Federal Power Commis- sion, and Army) indicate serious questions as to the engineering and economic features of the project and as tu methods employed CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE in computing benefits. Excerpta from such reports are appended hereto (appendix A). Special attention is called to the conclud- ing paragraph of the letter of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget: “The foregoing summary and the project report have been reviewed by the President. He has instructed me to advise you that au- thortzation of the improvement is not in ac- cord with his program at this time and that he again recommends that measures be taken to bring about prompt settlement of the water-rights controversy.” VUI THE PROJECT HAS NO DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLY The testimony shows that all of the water supply available under the Colorado River compact to the States of the lower basin (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) will be required for projects which are now in existence and operating. Accord- ingly, the central Arizona project can only have a water supply for the new use which is proposed, by taking it from some other project. From an economic standpoint, it cannot be seen that the welfare of the United States can be bettered by spending @ billion dollars to deprive one area of water in order to supply it to another. No national benefit would ensue. The lack of assured legal right to the water, however, is even more important. The Secretary of the Interior, in reporting on the central Arizona project, says: “Assurance of a water supply is an im- portant element of the plan yet to be re- solved. * * * If the contentions of the State of Arizona are correct, there is an ample water supply for this project. If the contentions of California are correct, there will be no dependable water supply avail- able from the Colorado River for this diver- sion. * * * The Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Intertor cannot authoritatively resolve this conflict. It can be resolved only by agreement among the States, by court action, or by an agency having proper jurisdiction.” Obviously the expenditure of the vast sums of money proposed should not be authorized in the absence of a legal right to a depend- able water supply. The Senators from Ne- yada and California have submitted, in Sen- ate Joint Resolution 4, an affirmative and clean-cut method whereby the long-standing controversy over rights to the lower basin water can be expeditiously resolved. The resolution waives Federal immunity to sult in the Supreme Court, which is necessary to enable the States to litigate the issues and solve the problem. An attempt has been made by supporters of S. 75 to cure the situation by a different approach, viz, the enactment of that bill with the addition of sections 12 and 13. Those sections would provide that Federal tmmu- nity to suit be waived in any action brought by any State within 6 months after the effec- tive date of the act “to determine the right to the use of water for diversion from the main stream of the Colorado River through aqueducts or tunnels to be constructed pur- suant to this act for beneficial consumptive use in Arizona.” They would further provide that no moneys shall be expended for the construction of works authorized by the act which are required solely for delivery of water from the river for use in Arizona “during a period of 6 months after the enactment of this act and during the pendency of any suit or suits in which the United States shall be joined as a party under and by virtue of the consent granted in section 12 of this act.” The committee should have taken pains to correct many glaring defects of form in sec- tions 12 and 13, only one of which need be cited for illustration. Section 18 would sus- pend the construction of the aqueduct to central Arizona during the pendency of the tigation only. It would permit such con- FEBRUARY 8 struction to in the event the Su- preme Court holds that Arizona has no water right for the project whatsoever. During the hearings supporters of 8. 75 vigorously opposed Senate Joint Resolution 4 upon the ground that the proposed lawsuit was not justiciable within the decisions of the Supreme Court. Conceding the neces- sity of the litigation, they urged that it was necessary that some project in Arizona be authorized before California could have a justiciable case. It is presumably for that reason that they have urged the extraordi- nary step of approving the hybrid measure, S. 76, plus a waiver of immunity of the United States to suit. The proposition that authorization of a project is needed to make the case justiciable rests solely on assertion. Not one decision of the Court so holds. On the contrary, its last relevant decision, Nebraska v, Wyoming (325 U. 8. 589), supports strongly the view that the case is at present justiciable. What proponents of 8. 75 hope is that the author- ization of the project will throw the weight of Congress into the scales in the Supreme Court. Proponents have testified that such authorization would have value to them a6 evidence before the Court. The approach sought in sections 12 and 13 is wrong. It purports to commit the Tress- ury of the United States to the expenditure of a billion dollars or more when the Con- gress has been clearly and directly informed by the responsible department that the claims of Arizona to a water supply are in grave controversy. Until the Supreme Court speaks, the Con- gress will not have information as to whether Arizona has a right to a sufficient water sup- ply upon which to predicate an authorization of the central Arizona project. The Bureau's report shows that the proj- ect, as designed, requires & water supply of 1,200,000 acre-feet per annum. When the Court speaks, it may be that Arizona has no right to any water supply for the project, or its right may be for some quantity inter- mediate between 1,200,000 acre-feet and zero. If the decree shows a supply available which is materially less than 1,200,000 acre-feet, the project, if feasible at all, must be redesigned to fit the supply. To authorize a project now, when it is designed upon an assumption unsupported by any information upon which the Congress may rely, defies all precedent. It is not good legislation. IX. CONCLUSION As a matter of course, it is incumbent on proponcnts of a project to show that a legal right to a dependable water supply for the project exists. Here the right to a water supply is embroiled in grave and long-stand- ing interstate controversy. The majority of the committee has chosen the extraordinary course of authorizing the project when that course could only be the sound one if Ari- zona’s claims in a very complex and aifficult lawsuit were known in advance to be 100 percent correct. That is not known. Entirely independent of this, the project as proposed is hopelessly uneconamic and infeasible; it would be an unjustified burden on the Nation’s taxpayers and on the con- sumers of Bridge Canyon power, and an un- reasonable waste of the Nation's natural resources. To pump water 1,000 feet high, or carry it through an 80-mile tunnel, and transport it over 300 miles to irrigate common field crops, some of which are already subsidized by the Federal Treasury; to obligate the Treasury for over #1,250,000,000 for such a mediocre end; to allow unprecedented Federal sub- sidies, including a vastly inflated item for recreation, and the epplication of the in- terest component of power rates to pay irri- gation capital costs, rather than return it to the Treasury as compensation for the use of the money loaned to build power works;
1950 to irrigate land, at a cost of $1,750 per acre, which will be worth $300 per acre with water; to do this when the actual need for the esti- mated quantity of imported water is shown by a disinterested and highly respected Gov- ernment agency to be unknown; to base estimates of repayment on figures of power revenues, when physical conditions will pre- clude thelr being realized and on irrigation revenues that will obviously not be received; to do these things when the reports of all Government departments except Interior are sharply critical of basic economic features of the project and the President has declared that it is not in accord with his program; all this the minority conceives to be pre- posterous. For these major reasons, the minority recommends that S. 75 be not adopted, APPENDIX A ExTRacts From COMMENTS OF FEDERAL AGEN- CIES ON REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON PROPOSED CENTRAL ARIZONA PrRosEcT PROJECT PLANNING REPORT NO. 3—8B.4¢.2 DATED DECEMBER 1947 The following comments with respect to various aspects and features of the proposed central Arizona project are quoted from re- ports of Federal agencies as follows: Depart- ment of Agriculture, May 5, 1948; Depart- ment of the Army, May 12, 1948; Federal Power Commission, May 21, 1948; Bureau of the Budget, February 4, 1949. UNRELATED FEATURES INCLUDED IN PROJECT Comments of the Federal Power Commis- sion and of the Department of the Army with respect to certain project features are quoted as follows: Federal Power Commission “The Commission staff has reviewed the Bureau’s report and points out that the Bridge Canyon project and its two auxiliaries, Bluff and Coconino Reservoirs, have no es- sential physical relationship with the central Arizona diversion project. These reservoirs are not ueeded to regulate flow for the cen- tral Arizona diversion, nor would the Bridge Canyon power plant necessarily be the only source of power available for pumping from Lake Havasu into the Granite Reef aqueduct The only relationship between the three res- ervoirs as a group and the diversion project appears to be the assumed financial relation in order to provide means for repayment of a large percentage of the reimbursable costs of the diversion project chargeable to irriga- tion.” Department of the Army “However, since the central Arizona proj- ect is composed of individual units and inte1- related groups of units which are not mu- tually interdependent for adequate tunction- ing, it is believed that action on certain of these units and groups necd not be delayed pending settlement of legal and economic questions for the project as a whole but that they may properly be considered on their own merits as separate units or groups of related units.” “The Corps of Engineers is now studying a group of related units included in the cen- tral Arizona project. These units consist of improvements in the Safford Valley, the Buttes Dam and power plant, the Charleston Dam, and the Tucson water supply aqueduct. This group is urgently needed and does not depend on importation of Colorado River water or on subsidization by Colorado River power. This group will be reported upon separately by this Department at a later date.” FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT Comments of the Department of the Army, the Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Power Commission with respect to certain engineering and economic aspects of the project are quoted as follows: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Department of the Arm, “The legal and economic premises upon which the project as a whole is based appear to be open to serious question, particularly with respect to water rights and to the analysis of the economics of the works.” Department of Agriculture “The first and most important question that must be asked about any proposed public work is, Will the total benefits pro- duced equal or exceed the total costs? Our first concern then, was to find out if the central Arizona project would satisfy this re- quirement. Frankly, we were unable to de- termine from your report whether or not the benefits actually would exceed the costs. In the estimation of benefits, gross, rather than net, crop values have been used in the calcu- lation of irrigation benefits. You will recall that in commenting upon previous reports prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation, we have pointed out that this procedure disre- gards the cost o. producing the crops. In the present report, it is indicated that this cost of production is assumed to equal the indirect benefits accruing to the project. But, in our opinion, this is not a valid way of estimating indirect benefits. In this con- nection, we want to make it clear that we are not questioning the propriety of utllizing indirect benefits in justifying the project, but merely pointing out that an incorrect procedure has been used in estimating these benefits. “The actual relation of benefits to costs is still further obscured by what appears to be a failure to use the market value of power in estimating for evaluation purposes, the cost of pumping the water supply. Market value must be used in economic evaluation because the power has alternative uses. (This does not mean, of course, that market value must be used in fixing rates to be charged for water—an Operation separate and apart from economic evaluation) Here again it is to be understood that we are pointing out a procedural error; not questioning the esti- mates of construction cost “In at least the respects mentioned above, the benefits and costs used in testing the economic soundness of the project are in error. We would recommend, therefore, that further and more careful consideration be given to the economic evaluation of the pro- posed irrigation project. It is not possible to predict the effect that the suggested pro- codural changes might have on the benefit- cost ratios set out in the report. “Sound economics and common sense re- quire, first, the consideration of possible alternatives; and, second, the choice of that alternative yiclding the largest return on the investment. We presume that the Bureau of Reclamation has given consideration to vari- ous alternative solutions for the water prob- lems of the central Arizona area, This leads us to suggest that these be briefly reviewed in the report so that the Congress and the public will be assured that optimum returns will result from the investment of the public funds required ” Federal Power Commission “Tt is observed that the burden of irrigation costs on power would be considerable and that costs of commercial power would be ap- proaching a level that cannot be classed as low-cost power in the region. This raises the question of whether subsidies for irrigation should not be looked for from sources other than power if the irrigation features of the project are adopted. “The staff 1s not prepared at this time to comment on the justification for the pro- posed allocation of 860,715,000 of the cost of the Bridge Canyon, Bluff, and Coconino Reservoirs to silt control, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation. It is pointed out, however, that this cost, which would be non- reimbursable and which includes about $36,- 000,000 allucated to recreation, amounts to 1649 more than 25 percent of the estimated cost of these reservoirs.” ADEQUACY OF PROJECT PLANS Comments of the Federal Power Commis- sion and the Department of Agriculture with respect to the adequacy of the proposed plans of the project to carry out proposed func- tions over the proposed life of repayment are quoted as follows: Federal Power Commission “The Commission staff believes that the Glen Canyon Reservoir project on the Colo- rado River upstream from the Bridge Can- yon site should be initiated very soon after the Bridge Canyon Reservoir is constructed. This will be necessary to prolong the period of usefulness of the storage capacity at Bridge Canyon which would otherwise prob- ably be entirely filled with silt in from 40 to 50 years, even with the Bluff and Coco- nino Reservoirs constructed with the capaci- ties proposed in the report. Bluff and Coco- nino Reservoirs, being off the main stream, would be of no assistance in reregulating the depleted flows fror. the upper basin above the confluence of the San Juan River, to meet the 10-year average requirements under the Colorado River compact Without major upstream storage on the main Colorado River, such as at the Glen Canyon site, as the Bridge Canyon active storage capacity is gradually reduced by silt deposits, this proj- ect and the firm power available therefrom, would become more sensitive to upper basin depletions and withholdings of water in headwater storage, and would gradually as- sume the character of a run-of-river plant. The Glen Canyon Reservoir would obviate the necessity of the Bluff Reservoir, insofar as silt storage is concerned, or at least would defer the necessity of Bluff.” Department of Agriculture “The contemplated reservoirs will be ren- dered useless by sediment within a com- paratively few years if nothing is done to reduce erosion, It seems clear from the fore- going that the 'roposed central Arizona project must be supported by projects and activities not contemplated in the report; in particular, by upper basin reservoirs and a program of land treatment.” GENERAL JUSTIFICATION—-COMMENTS OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET The concluding comments of the Bureau of the Budget with respect to the proposed project are as follows: Bureau of the Budget “From an examination of the report, of the comments of the affected States, and of the remarks of other interested Federal agencies, it is apparent that there are a number of important questions and unre- solved issues connected with the proposed central Arizona project. The provision of adequate water supply, if found to be avail- able, is admittedly a high-cost venture which is justified in the report essentially on the basis of an urgent need to eliminate the threat of a serious disruption of the area's e-onomy. Even so, the life of certain major parts of the project is appreciably less than the recommended 178-year-pay-out period. The work could be authorized only with a modification of existing law or as an excep- tion thereto. Furthermore, there is no ase surance that there will exist the extremely important element of a substantial quantity of Colorado River water available for diver- sion to central Arizona for irrigation and other purposes. “The foregoing summary and the project report have been reviewed by the President. He has instructed me to advise you that au- thorization of the improvement is not in accord with his program at this time and that he again recommends that measures be taken to bring about prompt sett'ement of the waler-rights controversy.” SHERIDAN DOWNEY,
1650 Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, be- cause I think it is important that the Senate of the United States have the full text of some of these documents, and so that no one can say they have been taken out of context, which I would not want to happen, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed as part of my re- marks, at this point in the Recorp, the letter from the Bureau of the Budget to the Secretary of the Interior, dated February 4, 1949, which appears on page 2 of House Document No. 136, Eighty-first Congress, first session, dealing with the central Arizona project. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: Exxcurive OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Bourxav or THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C., February ¢, 1949. The honorable the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. My Dear Me. Secererary: In Director Webb’s letter of September 16, 1948, con- cerning your report on the central Arizona project, he pointed out that the Bureau of the Budget had not compieted its review and analysis but agreed with your suggestion that the report should be forwarded to the Congress. I am now abie to advise you that the Bureau of the Budget has completed its study of the report and a determination has beeen made of the relationship of the pro- posed project to the program of the Presi- dent. The report proposes the construction of the Bridge Canyon Dam and power plant, a pumping plant at Lake Havasu, and an aque- duct from there to Granite Reef Dam in central Arizona, together with other appur- tenant works for the purpose of providing supplemental water to irrigation areas in central Arizona and hydroelectric power in the Arizona-southern California area. The total estimated cost of the project as of January 1948 is $738,408,000, of which (based on existing law 420,000,000 would be allo- cated to irrigation, $291,000,000 to electric power, $18,000,000 to municipal water supply, $6,000,000 to flood control, and about §3,000,- 000 to fish and wildlife. It is proposed to install 750,000-kilowatt capacity of power generation at Bridge Canyon Dam, with about 2 percent additional generation at smaller dams on the project. The report calls for an ultimate annual diversion of 1,200,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River at Lake Havasu (Parker Dam) with a pump lift of 985 feet to the Granite Reef aqueduct through which it would be conveyed for a distance of 241 miles to the Phoenix area of Arizona as a supple- mental supply of irrigation water. The use of such supplemental water would be ‘(1) to replace the overdraft on the ground-water basins, (2) to permit the drainage of excess salts out of the area and maintain a salt balance, (8) to provide a supplemental sup- ply to lands now in production but not ade- quately irrigated, (4) to increase the water supply for the city of Tucson, and (5) to maintain irrigation of 73,500 acres of land formerly irrigated but now idle for lack of water.” It 1s proposed to charge the district €450 per acre-foot of water. The duty of water varies between projects and between surface and pumped water. However, diver- sion demand of surface water at district head gate is given as an average of something about 5 acre-feet per acre. The rate for power would be (under existing law) 6.22 mills. It is the opinion of the regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation that the “proj- ect has engineering feasibility in the sense that there are no physical obstacies * © * that could not be overcome.” He states, however, that “financial feasibility of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE project is more dificult to determine” and further, in his report to the Commisatoner of Reclamation, he raises the question of ade- quacy of the water supply for this project. It 1s pointed out in the report, that the project as proposed is economically infea- sible under existing reclamation laws and that it is essentially a “rescue” project designed to eliminate the threat of a serious disrup- tion of the area’s economy. Modifications in these laws are therefore proposed in the report to extend the repayment period for the entire project, including power, to 78 years and to use one-fifth of the interest com- ponent on the commercial-power investment to ald’ tn the repayment of irrigation fea- tures. The Btate of Arizona says that under the Colorado River compact, other agreements, and California's self-limitation act, Arizona has allocated to its use 8,670,000 acre-feet of water per year. It states that it is now using from the mainstream of the Colorado and its tributaries in Arizona a grand total of 1,408,000 acre-feet of water per year, thus leaving 2,262,000 acre-feet for additional con- sumption which cannot be lawfully used else- where than in Arizona. It estimates the (consumptive) use for the central Arizona project at 1,077,000 acre-feet, which together with the other planned uses will still leave in the mainstream, according to the State's estimate, a balance of 619,000 acre-feet ap- portioned to Arisona for future use and for reservoir losses. Arizona bases its case for diversion of water from the Colorado River upon these figures and proposes to use such water as & supplemental supply for lands now inadequately irrigated. It states fur- ther that the irrigation of lands in central Arizona has been expanded beyond the water supply of central Arizona and that this is resulting in an exhaustion of their un- derground supply with insufficient surface stream flow to maintain production in the lands now irrigated. To avoid the danger to the entire economy of the Btate, it con- siders it essential that the central Arizona project be expedited : The Commissioner of Reclamation states that assurance of a water supply is an ex- tremely important element of the pian yet to be resolved; that the showing in the report of there being a substantial quantity of Colorado River water for diversion to central Arizona for irrigation and other purposes is based upon the assumption that claims of the State of Arizona to this water are valid. He states that the State of California chal- lenges the validity of Arizona’s claim and that if the contentions of the 8&tate of Cali- fornia are correct, there will be no dependa- ble water supply from the Colorado River for this diversion. He further states that the Bureau of Recla- mation and the Department of the Interior cannot authoritatively resolve this conflict between States and that it can be resolved only by agreement among the States, by court action, or by an agency having proper jurisdiction. The comments of the several affected State governments and interested Federal agencies with respect to his report contain a number of objections and reservations with respect to the proposed project. Specifically, the Department of Agriculture questions whether the benefits actually exceed costs, It ques- tions, as it has on numerous other occasions in commenting on proposed reclamation projects, the use of the gross rather than the net crop return method of computing bene- fits. The Department further says: “The actual relation of benefits to costs is stili further obscured by what appears to be & failure to use the market value of power in estimating, for evaluation purposes, the ¢ost of pumping the water supply. Market value must be used in economic evaluation because the power has alternative uses.” FEBRUARY 8 Cammenting further on benefits, the Secre- tary of Agriculture states: “While tt is necessary that benefits excsed costs 1f a project is to be considered eco- nomically justified, this slone is not suf- ficient. Sound economics and common sense require: First, the consideration of possible alternatives; and, second, the choice of that alternative yielding the largest return on the imvestment.” The comments of the Department of Agri- culture go even further and state: “At least in the respects mentioned above the benefits used in testing the economic soundness of the project are in error. We ‘would recommend, therefore, that further and more careful consideration be given to the economic evaluation of the proposed project.” The Federal Power Commission points out that there is no essential physical relation- ship between the Bridge Canyon power proJ- ect and the central Arizona diversion proj- ect, but that the two are linked together in the report because of the need for subsidies from electric-power income to help finance the irrigation tmprovement. It also indicates that the burden of the irrigation costs are considerable and that the proposed charges for electric power consequently approach a level where such power cannot be classed as low-cost in this region. The Federal Power Commission also suggests that further studies are required before the proper in- stalied capacity at Bridge Canyon power plant can be finally determined and that it could probably be considerably more than the 750,000 kilowatts proposed. The State of Nevada says: “There is a grave question regarding the availability of water to Arizona to supply the project. ' * * Studies have been made by California and Nevada engineers which show there will be little or no water for the central Arizona project. * * * Investigations and reports should be held up or be only prelimi- nary in character where there is a question as to availability of water.” The State of Nevada further says that some engineers have expressed an opinion that the Bridge Canyon Dam and reservoir cannot be utilized properly and to its full extent as a power project because of the limited storage behind the dam which in a few years would fill with silt and power service would depend on natural fluctuating river flow. They raise questions as to whether it would not be desirable to con- struct Glen Canyon, which would provide much additional storage capacity, at the same time at Bridge Canyon. The State of Nevada, in commenting on the economic justification of the project, computes the net irrigation constructicn costs on the acreage which will be salvaged by the project at $1,469 per acre and ques- tions the justification of such costs in the face of an estimated farm-land value with irrigation of $300 per acre. The State of California says that a contro- versy has existed between California and Arizona for many years as to their respective claims to Colorado River water and that con- ferences held on this subject throughout have not brought a solution. The State further says that until there is a final settle- ment of the water rights, the aggregate of Arizona and California claims to Colorado River water will exceed the amount of water available to the lower-basin States under the Colorado River Compact and relevant statutes and decisions. It states that as long as the present unsettled situation exists, each State in the lower basin must, of neces- sity, interest itself in the others’ projects which would overlap its claims. Accord- ingly, the State of California submits the following conclusions: (a) The plan for con- struction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project is not financially feasible
1950 under existing Federal reclamation law and the modifications thereof considered in the report; (b) consideration of an authorization for the central Arizona project should be withheld until a determination has been made of the respective rights of the lower- basin States to the waters of the Colorado River system; and (c) extensive and detailed studies and investigations should be made by the Bureau of Reclamation of local water supply and use in order to determine accu- rately the amount of supplemental water needed for existing irrigated lands in the Salt River and middle Gila River Valleys and to formulate plans for additional conser- vation of local water supplies. With reference to the controversy that exists between the claims of the States of the lower basin, it is concluded that the situation has not changed since your interim report of July 14, 1947, on the status of your investigations of potential water-resource developments in the Colorado River Basin. In the report of the Commissioner of Recla- mation, approved by you, it is stated “that further development of the water resources of the Colorado River Basin, particularly large-scale development, is seriously handi- capped, if not barred, by lack of a determi- nation of the rights of the individual States to utilize the waters of the Colorado River system.” On July 23, 1947, Director Webb replied to your letter of July 19, 1947, as follows: “Acting under authority of the President's directive of July 2, 1946, I am able to advise you that there would be no objection to sub- mission of the proposed interim report to the Congress, but that the authorization of any of the projects inventoried in your report should not be considered to be in accord with the program of the President until a determi- nation is made of the rights of the individual States to utilize the waters of the Colorado River system.” From an examination of the report, of the comments of the affected States, and of the remarks of other interested Fedcral agencies, it is apparent that there are a number of important questions and unresolved issues connected with the proposed central Arizona project. The provision of adequate water supply, if found to be available, is admittedly a high-cost venture which is justified in the report essentially on the basis of an urgent need to eliminate the threat of a serious disruption of the area’s economy. Even s0, the life of certain major parts of the project is appreciably less than the recommended 78-year-pay-out period. The work could be authorized only with a modification of exist- ing law or as an exception thereto. Further- more, there is no assurance that there will exist the extremely important element of a substantial quantity of Colorado River water available for diversion to central Arizona for irrigation and other purposes, The foregoing summary and the project report have been reviewed by the President. He has instructed me to advise you that authorization of the improvement is not in accord with his program at this time and that he again recommends that measures be taken to bring about prompt settlement of the water-rights controversy. Sincerely yours, Frank Pace, Jr., Director. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask that there also be printed as a part of my remarks, at this point in the Rec- orp, a letter from the Bureau of the Budget to the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. O'Manoney], dated February 11, 1949, which appears on pase 6 of the same House document to which I have referred, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BuREAU OF THE BUDGET, February 11, 1949. Hon. Joseru C. O’MAHONEY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. My Dear SENATOR O'MAHONEY: Members of the Congress have raised a question as to the interpretation to be placed upon the last clause of the last sentence of my letter of February 4, 1949, addressed to the Secretary of the Interior advising him of the relation- ship to the program of the President of the central Arizona project. The clause referred to reads as follows: “And that he (the President) again rec- ommends that measures be taken to bring about prompt settlement of the water-rights controversy.” During the last Congress in connection with consideration of Senate Joint Resolu- tion 145 and House Joint Resolution 227, this office advised the Attorney General that it would be in accord with the program of the President to resolve the water-rights con- troversy by waiving immunity of the United States to suit and by granting permission to the States to bring such actions as they might desire, if the Congress felt it to be necessary to take such action. This advice was transmitted to the Congress by the At- torney General. Similar advice was also transmitted by the Secretary of the Inte- rior, together with specific suggestions as to a form of a resolution which the Congress might consider. In order that there may be no misunder- standing of the President's position, I shall be grateful if you will advise the members of your committee that the President has not at any time indicated that suit in the Supreme Court is the only method of resolv- ing the water-rights controversy which is acceptable to him. On the contrary, the let- ters addressed to the Congress last year, as indicated above, stated specifically that en- actment of the resolution authorizing sult would be acceptable to the President “if the Congress feels that it is necessary to take such action in order to compose differences among the States with reference to the wa- ters of the Colorado River.” The project report and materials relating to the positions of the several States affected are now before your committee for considera- tion. If the Congress, as a matter of na- tional policy, mskes a determination that there is a water supply available for the central Arizona project, the President will consider all factors involved in any legisla- tion to authorize the project and will inform the Congress of his views respecting the spe- cific provisions of this legislation. Sincerely yours, FRANK Pace, Jr., Director, Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of comment from the Secretary of the Army, dated May 12, 1948, which appears on page 102 of the same House document, be printed as part of my remarks. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., May 12, 1948. The honorable the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. Dear Mr. SECRETARY: Reference is made to the letters from the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation dated February 5 and 6, 1948, to the Secretary of the Army and 1651 Chief of Engineers, respectively, with which there were enclosed for the information and comment of the Department of the Army copies of your proposed -eport on the central Arizona project. Your proposed report recommends the con- struction of dams, power plants, transmis- sion lines, pumping plants, aqueducts, irri- gation and drainage systems, and other in- cidental works at a total estimated cost, based on July 1947 price levels, of $738,408,000, of which 8658,096,000 would be reimbursed from charges made for power, irrigation, and mu- nicipal water supply. The project would in- clude a dam and power plant on the Colorado River at the Bridge Canyon site to develop power for California and the lower Colorado River basin and to provide energy for pump- ing Colorado River water to irrigated areas in the central portion of Arizona. The legal and economic premises upon which the project as a whole is based appear to be open to serious question, particularly with respect to water rights and to the analy- sis of the economics of the works. However, since the central Arizona project is composed of individual units and interrelated groups of units which are not mutually interdepend- ent for adequate functioning, it is believed that action on certain of these units and groups need not be delayed pending settle- ment of legal and economic questions for the project as a whole but that they may properly be considered on their own merits as separate units or groups of related units. The Corps of Engineers is now studying a group of related units included in the cen- tral Arizona project These units consist of improvements in the Safford Valley, the Buttes Dam and power plant, the Charleston Dam, and the Tucson water-supply aqueduct. This group is urgently needed and does not depend on importation of Colorado River water or on subsidization by Colorado River power. This group will be reported upon separately by this Department at a later date. Other than as outlined in the foregoing comments, the extent to which plans of the Department of the Army would be affected by the plan recommended in your proposed report cannot be determined until presently authorized investigations by the Corps of Engineers in the Colorado River Basin are completed. Sincerely yours, KENNETH C. ROYALL, Secretary of the Army. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the letter of comment from the Secretary of Agriculture, dated May 5, 1948, which appears on page 103 of the document to which I have referred, be printed in the Recorp as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, May 5, 1948. Mr. MICHAEL W. STRAUS, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior. Dear Mr. Straus: In compliance with your request of February 6, 1948, the Department of Agriculture has reviewed the proposed re- port of the Secretary of the Interior, dated December 1947, on the central Arizona proj- ect. Our review has been limited to a study o* the report by technicians, economists, engineers, and agriculturists—under instruc- tions to make an objective analysis and to Bubmit suggestions that might be of real value to you in improving the proposed proj- ect In the following the principal results of the analysis are briefly set out.
1652 Your report deserves the most careful and sympathetic consideration of all those con- cerned with the social and economic well- being of the Southwest and of the Nation. As the Federal agency most concerned with the health and prosperity of the Nation's agriculture, this Department, quite naturally, would like nothing better than to be able to say that your proposed remedy for the agri- cultural problems of central Arizona cone stituted an acceptable and final solution, However, the present report does not, in our opinion, provide satisfactory answers to all of the questions that must be raised in con- sidering a project of this nature. The first and most important question that must be asked about any proposed public work is: Will the total benefits produced equal or exceed the total costa? Our firat concern then, was to find out if the central Arizona project would satisfy this require- ment. Frankly, we were unable to deter- mine from your report whether or not the benefits actually would exceed the costs. In the estimation of benefits, gross, rather than net, crop values have been used in the calcu- lation of irrigation benefits. You will re- call that in commenting upon previous re- ports prepared by the Bureau of Reclama- tion, we have pointed out that this pro- cedure disregards the cost of producing the crops. In the present report, it is indicated that this cost of production ig assumed to equal the indirect benefita accruing to the project. But, in our opinion, this is not a valid way of estimating indirect benefits. In this connection we want to make !t clear that we are not questioning the propriety of utilizing indirect benefits in justifying the project, but merely pointing out that an in- correct procedure has been used in estimating these benefits. The actual relation of benefits to costs is etill further obscured by what appears to be a failure to use the market value of power in estimating, for evaluation purposes, the cost of pumping the water supply. Market value must be used tn economic evaluation be- cause the powcr has alternative uses. (This does not mean, of course, that market value must be used in fixing rates to be charged for water—an operation separate and apart from economic evaluation ) Here again it is to be understood that we are pointing out a procedural error, not questioning the esti- mates of construction cost. In at least the respect mentioned above, the benefits and costs used in testing the eco- nomic soundness of the project are in error. We would recommend, therefore, that fur- ther and more careful consideration be given to the economic evaluation of the proposed irrigation project. It is not possible to pre- dict the effect that the suggested procedural changes might have on the benefit-cost ra- tios set out in the report. While it is necessary that benefits exceed costs if a project is to be considered eco- nomically justified, this alone ts not sufi- cient. Sound economics and common sense require: First, the consideration of possible alternatives; and, second, the choice of that alternative yielding the largest return on the investment. We presume that the Bu- reau of Reclamation has given considera- tion to various alternative solutions for the water problems of the central Arizona area. This leads us to suggest that these be briefly reviewed in the report so that the Congress and the public will be assured that optimum returns will result from the investment of the public funds required. Turning now to a consideration of the scope of the proposal, we suggest that, de- spite the magnitude of the project, it can- not stand alone; that it must be consid- ered as an integral part of an even broader scheme of development. This is because the proposed project is related to, and dependent upon, numerous other projects and programs needed in the Colorado River Basin. As an CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE illustration, optimum. returns cannot be ob- tained from the proposed Bridge Canyon Dam without the construction of storage reservoirs in the upper basin to regulate the flow through the Bridge Canyon power- houses. This, of course, you recognized in your March 1946 report on the Colorado River, in which consideration was given to the need for a basin-wide engineering plan. As you will recall, our comments upon that report were favorable to the principle of basin-wide planning, although critical of the plan presented on the grounds that it ‘was not sufficiently comprehensive. In par- ticular, we pointed out that a truly com- prehensive program would have to provide for measures to minimize erosion and slow down the rate at which reservoirs would fill with sediment. We must repeat this warning with respect to your present pro- posal. The contemplated reservoirs will be rendered useless by sediment within a com- paratively few years if nothing 1s done to reduce erosion. It seems clear from the foregoing that the proposed central Arizona project must be supported by projects and activities not contemplated in the report; in particular, by upper-basin reservoirs and a program of land treatment. We are persuaded, there- fore, to urge a return to the basin-wide program concept underlying your March 1946 report; at the same time, again calling your attention to the need for a truly com- prehensive plan in the Colorado Basin, pre- pared jointly by all agencies able to make worth-while contributions thereto. We cannot help but feel that, in the long run, piecemeal planning and authorization of the basin program will be inefficient and waste- ful. The present report seems to be deficient in still another important respect. 8o far as we can determine, once the new water supply became available there could be a repetition of the unfortunate overexpan- sion that gave rise to the present problems of the central Arizona area. We suggest that in revising the report, Federal participation be conditioned upon dependable assurances that the area to be irrigated will be limited, in perpetuity, to that acreage for which an adequate water supply will be available. The requirement that a State ground water con- trol law be enacted is a step in the right direction. The Department of Agriculture will be very glad to assist you in any way possible, As we have indicated previously, we would be particularly pleased to participate in the preparation of a comprehensive basin-wide plan for the development, utilization, and conservation of both the land and water resources of the Colorado Basin. Sincerely, CHARLES F, BRANNAN, Assistant Secretary. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the com- ments of the Federal Power Commission, dated May 21, 1948, starting on page 105 of the same House document, be printed as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: FepEeraL Power CoMMISSION, Washington, May 21, 1948. Mr. MicHag. W. Srravs, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Srravs: The comments herein with respect to the Secretary of the Interior's proposed report on the central Arizona proj- ect, approved by the Secretary on February 5, 1948, and the regional director’s report dated December 19, 1947, are transmitted in re- sponse to your letter of February 6, 1048. FEBRUARY 8 This is in accordance with the established procedures of the Federal Interagency River Basin Committee. The project, described in the regional di- rector’s report, involves the construction of the Bridge Canyon Dam and power plant on the Colorado River above Hoover Dam, to develop power for California and the lower Colorado River Basin and provide energy for pumping water from Lake Havasu behind Parker Dam for diversion to the irrigated area in central Arizona, The project also in- volves the construction of pumping plants, aqueducts, related dams, irrigation and drainage systems, power plants, transmis- sion lines, and incidental works. The recommendations of the report for construction of the project are contingent on the establishment of the validity of the claims of the State of Arizona to the right to divert Colorado River water to central Arizona for irrigation and other purposes. This right is challenged by the State of Call- fornia. It is expected that the Congress will give full consideration to the divergent views of these two States before providing funds for construction of the project. The report shows the estimated total cost of the project, based on prices as of July 1, 1947, to be €738,408,000. Of this amount, $658,096,000 is indicated as chargeable to ir- rigation, power, and municipal water sup- ply, and $80,312,000 to flood control, fish and wiidlife conservation, silt control, recreation, and salinity control. The regional director recommends that the former group be treated as reimbursable and the latter as nonreim- bursable. The money required to repay the reimbursable cost of the project would be obtained by the sale of water to the irrigation district at @4.60 per acre-foot delivered to the farms, the sale of power in Arizona and southern California at a rate of 4.82 mills per kilowatt-hour delivered to the load cen- ters, $0.15 per thousand gallons of water de- livered to the city of Tucson, and taxes to be levied by a conservancy district which would include all of the area affected by the project and would have the power to levy taxes on all of the area benefited. The amount of revenue to be obtained from the conservancy district has not been estimated, as the dis- trict has not yet been formed. The report of the regional director shows that the central Arizona project is infeasible under the terms of existing reclamation law. However, the project would be economically feasible with the modifications to these laws provided by the terms of pending legislation, Acsuming an amortization period of 78 years and an interest rate of 2 percent, the annual benefits were estimated in the report at $41,971,000, the annual charges at $25,783,500, and the benefit-cost ratio at 1.63 to 1.0. Under the plan shown tn the report, it ts intended to divert to the central Arizona area from Lake Havasu, formed by Parker Dam, approximately 1,200,000 acre-feet of water per year. Diversion would be made by pumping, with a total lift of 985 feet in four lifts to Granite Reef aqueduct. This aque- duct would terminate on the Salt River at the existing Granite Reef Dam. Water would be delivered through the aqueduct at a con- stant monthly rate, except for a 1 month shut-down each year for repairs. Initial di- versions would be 850,000 acre-feet annually, which would increase uniformly to 1,200,000 acre-feet in 50 years. The McDowell pumping plant and reservoir would be constructed near the terminus of the Granite Reef aqueduct to raise and store any water that could not be immediately used for irrigation. There would also be a power plant constructed at the McDowell Dam, using the pumped water and additional natural and regulated inflow; an aqueduct from the Salt River above the existing Stew= art Mountain Dam and power plant to the Gila River; the enlarged Horseshoe Dam,
1950 Reservoir, and power plant on the Verde River; the Hooker Dam and Reservoir on the upper Gila River; improvements to the irri- gation system in Safford Valley; the Buttes Dam, Reservoir, and power plant on the Gila River; the Charleston Dam and Reservoir on the San Pedro River and an aqueduct from that reservoir to Tucson; an irrigation dis- tribution system; a drainage system for salin- ity control; and an extensive power trans- mission system. Power for pumping and for commercial uses would be obtained from the Bridge Canyon power plant. The Bluff Dam and Reservoir on the San Juan River and the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Coconino Dam and Reservoir on the Little Colorado River would be constructed pri- marily for storage of silt to protect Bridge Canyon Reservoir. The Bureau proposes as a part of the cen- tral Arizona project the installation of four power plants—at the Bridge Canyon, Mc- Dowell, Horseshoe, and Buttes Dam, respcce tively. The project plan includes four addi- tional dam and reservoir projects—Bluff, Coconino, Charleston, and Hooker-—at which no provision is made for the generation of power. The power features of the Bureau's plan are summarized in the report as follows: Annual firm energy at plant (millions of kilowatt-hours) Cross Inst abled average Power plants ath Yo hower Average watts) head Initial | during | Ultimate (feet) coud first 50 condl- tions years of tions operation Bridge Canyon.....---..---------- 780, 000 612 4,075 4, 305 4,114 Horseshoe . - 10, 000 141 40 40 40 McDowell. - 4, 100 54 24 21 1a A 6, 000 144 35 35 35 Votul.....- 2-2 eee een nee ee nee eee eee eee 770, 100 4, 773 4,491 4, 208 Energy replacement at Stewart Mountain 25 28 31 Total... .-. 2-2 ene ne enn ee ene nnn [ene eee ne Leer ew ee eee 4, 748 4, 463 4,177 Energy requirements at Havasu and McDowell pumping Plants. oe cee eee cee eee enn eee e eee eee eee 1,154 1, 302 1, 633 Firm commercial energy 3, 604 3, 070 2, 544 The plan of development presented in the report is predicated on the assumption that the Congress will give the full consideration that it deserves to the conflict between the States of Arizona and California as to the right of Arizona to divert from the Colorado River the additional amounts of water con- templated in the report. The Commission has no jurisdiction in the determination of the respective rights of the two States to divert water from the Colorado River The comments herein, therefore, are not to be construed in any manner as being directed to or prejudicial to the respective claims of these two States. The comments herein are made objectively from the viewpoint of the Commission’s statutory interest in the con- servation and utilization of the water-power values inherent in river basins and in indi- vidual project sites. The Commission staff has reviewed the Bureau's report and points out that the Bridge Canyon project and its two auxiliaries, Bluff and Coconino Reservoirs, have no essen- tial physical relationship with the central Arizona diversion project. These reservoirs are not necded to regulate flow for the cen- tral Arizona diversion, nor would the Bridge Canyon power plant necessarily be the only source of power available for pumping from Lake Havasu into the Granite Reef aqueduct. The only relationship between the three reservoirs as a group and the diversion proj- ect appears to be the assumed financial re- lation in order to provide means for repay- ment of a large percentage of the relmburs- able costs of the diversion project chargeable to irrigation. The staff is not prepared at this time to comment on the justification for the pro- posed allocation of $60,715,000 of the cost of the Bridge Canyon, Bluff, and Coconino Res- ervoirs to silt control, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation. It is pointed out, however, that this cost, which would be non- reimburegable and which includes about $36,- 000,000 allocated to recreation, amounts to more than 265 percent of the estimated cost of these reservoirs. The report states that the return from the sale of commercial power at the proposed rate of 4.82 mills per kilowatt-hour will yield an estimated annual revenue from power of $12,918,000. The generation from the plants other than Bridge Canyon 1s rel- atively inconsequential in amount, and on this basis it appears that your Department anticipates the sale commercially of some 2,700,000,000 kilowattt-hours of Bridge Can- yon power This amounts to approximately two-thirds of the net Bridge Canyon gen- eration, one-third being utilized for pump- ing from Lake Havasu into the central Ari- zona irrigation conduit. The rate of 4.82 mills for the commercial sale of power has been estimated in the report upon the basis of a 78-year amortization period and an in- terest rate of 2 percent, and in general ac- cordance with other features of recently pro- posed legislation which would modify the existing Reclamation Project Act. As com- pared with this rate, the report estimates that the rate would be 6 22 mills per kilo- watt-hour on the same busis of sale of 2,- 700,000,000 kilowatt-hours if computed in accordance with the existing Reclamation Project Act, which provides for an amorti- zation period of 50 yeus and an interest rate of 3 percent. If it is assumed that Bridge Canyon, Bluff, and Coconino Reservoirs are constructed solely for power, including incidental bene- fits of silt control, etc, but without money allowance therefor, and also without allow- ance for purposes of the irrigation project, the staff estimates the cost of power at 41 mills per kilowatt-hour on the usual basis of 50 years amortization period and 21 per- cent interest rate. Thus it appears that power users would be directly contributing, as a subsidy to Iirri- gation, the difference between 4.1 mills per kilowatt-hour and the 4.82 mills per kilo- watt-hour proposed in your report It is observed that the burden of irriga- tion costs on power would be considerable and that costs of commercial power would be approaching a level that cannot be classed as low-cost power in the region. This raises the question of whether subsidies for irri- gation should not be looked for from sources other than power if the irrigation features of the project are adopted. The staff is of the opinion that consider- able further studies must be carried forward before the proper installed capacity at Bridge Canyon power plant can be finally deter- mined. At present the staff believes that 1653 the installation of 750,000 kilowatts sug- gested in the report represents the minimum capacity that should be provided for at this project. The installation should be deter- mined having in view the maximum reason- able upstream regulation and with regard for future depletions of water supply. The Commission staff believes that the Glen Canyon Reservoir project on the Colo- rado River upstream from the Bridge Canyon site should be initiated very soon after the Bridge Canyon Reservoir is constructed. This will be necessary to prolong the period of usefulness of the storage capacity at Bridge Canyon, which would otherwise prob- ably be entirely filled with silt in from 40 to 50 years, even with the Bluff and Coco- nino Reservoirs constructed with the capaci- ties proposed in the report. Bluff and Coco- nino Reservoirs, being off the main stream, would be of no assistance in reregulating the depleted flows from the upper basin above the confluence of the San Juan River to meet the 10-year average requirements under the Colorado River compact. Without major upstream storage on the main Colo- rado River, such as at the Glen Canyon aite, as the Bridge Canyon active storage capacity is gradually reduced by silt deposits, this project and the firm power available there- from would become more sensitive to upper- basin depletions and withholdings of water in headwater storage and would gradually assume the character of a run-of-river plant. The Glen Canyon Reservoir would obviate the necessity of the Bluff Reservoir, insofar as silt storage is concerned, or at least would defer the necessity of Bluff. If the Bluff and Coconino Reservoirs are to be constructed with storage capacities comparable to those shown in the report, provision should be made for the genera- tion of power at each of those reservoirs, in view of the proposed heights of dams, the average flows, and the Bureau’s estimated rates of sedimentation and consequent length of useful life of the respective reser- voirs. It is noted that the report of your Department on the Colorado River dated March 1946 suggested an installation of 52,- 000 kilowatts for the Bluff project. In regard to the McDowell power plant, !f local conditions at the terminus of the Gran- ite Reef aqueduct are favorable, it might be feasible to construct a pond of sufficient capacity to serve as a combined forebay tor the McDowell pumping plant and afterbay for the McDowell power plant, thus per- mitting a large installation at the latter plant for peaking operation. The McDowell plant would be within short transmission distance of the Phoenix load area. The staff believes that the generating Ca- pacity at the proposed enlarged Horseshoe Reservoir and power plant on the Verde River should be considered upon tho basis of its use for peaking operations, with the fluctu- ating discharges being reregulated by the ex- isting Bartlett Reservoir. This plant would also be within short transmission distance of the Phoenix area. It is noted that the development of power at the Bartlett Dam was suggested in your report of March 1946 on the Colorado River. Power possibilities at the proposed Charles- ton Reservoir on San Pedro River do not ap- pear attractive, as this reservoir would be depended upon increasingly for municipal water supply for the city of Tucson, requir- ing hold-over storage in an area subject to severe protracted droughts and excessive rates of evaporation. The Hooker Reservoir on the upper Gila River does not appear at- tractive for power, although detail studies might indicate that small amounts of sea- sonal byproduct energy could be economically produced. The Colorado River report of your Department showed an installation of 3,000 kilowatts at the Hooker Dam.
1654 An application for a preliminary permit for a dam and power plant to be constructed at the Bridge Canyon site on the Colorado River (project No. 1503) was filed with the Commission on August 8, 1988, by the State of Arizona. Public hearing on the applica- tion has been postponed from time to time on request of the applicant, Further action on the application by the Federal Power Com- mission is being held in abeyance at the present time. The Commission appreciates the oppor- tunity of reviewing and commenting on the Bureau’s report on the central Arizona project. Sincerely yours, Nrvson Lee SMITH, Chairman. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I desire that there be printed in the Rrc- orp following my remarks on the cen- tral Arizona project, and in continuation of them, the three budget messages of the President from which I quoted, be- cause I think it is important that the Members of the Senate have opportunity to read the entire messages, to be sure that the quotations which have been made were not taken out of context. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask that the President’s budget message of August 23, 1949, on the Vermejo reclamation project, New Mexico, be printed as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the message was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: To the House of Representatives: I am returning without my approval H. R. 8788, to authorize the Secretary of the Inte- rior to construct, operate, and maintain the Vermejo reclamation project, New Mexico. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Rec- lamation, to construct, operate, and main- tain the Vermejo reclamation project for the purposes of irrigating approximately 7,200 acies of semiarid land in Colfax County, N. Mex; controlling floods; providing for the preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife; and providing recreational facili- ties. The total cost of this project is estimated to ve #2,959,000 with tentative allocations as follows: Reimbursable: Irrigation....... $1, 788, 080 Nonreimbursable: Sediment control.....-.... - 222, 000 Fish and wildlife.. 718, 590 Recreation..--..... 134, 880 Flood control 95, 450 The project report shows the benefit-cost ratio to be 176 to 1. It is estimated that the reimbursable costs would be repaid by the water users without interest in 67 years (plus a 7-year development period). This estimate is based upon an economic analysis which indicates that the water users will be able to meet an- nual water charges of $6.30 per acre. Of this amount $2.61 per acre will be required for operation and maintenance, thus leaving $3.69 per acre available for application against construction charges. These estimates of the ability of the water users to repay the costs allocated to irriga- tion were not officially reviewed by the De- partment of Agriculture in the usual man- ner before the Congress took action on this bill. Time has not permitted such review to be made within the period allowed for Presi- dential action on enrolled bilis, Therefore, I am unable to report to the Congress whether the conclusions reached by the Bu- reau of Reclamation with regard to the agri- cultural and economic feasibility of the pro- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE posed plan are concurred in by the Depart- ment of Agriculture. While I consider this to be a serious de- ficiency, I am more concerned about the fact that there are included in the $1,170,920, proposed to be charged off against nonreim- bursable benefits, classes of such benefits not now permitted under federally con- structed irrigation projects. Neither sedi- ment control nor recreation is currently au- thorized as a benefit against which nonre- imbursable allocations of costs may be made. It seems to me highly questionable to ap- prove the inclusion of such benefits with respect to this one project before the Con- gress has reviewed the desirability of making charges to such benefits generally possible under basic reclamation law. Furthermore, it is proposed to allocate $718,590 for fish and wildlife. While such nonreimbursable allocations are permitted in water resources development projects, they are usually restricted in scope to the prevention of loss of and damage to wildlife. In this project, about one-half of the alloca- tion is proposed as a benefit from the crea- tion of a wildlife management and develop- ment area of 5,200 acres not required for op- eration of the irrigation project or for pro- tection of existing wildlife resources of this specific area. There are instances where waterfowl eventually discover and use some of the backwater areas of federally owned reservoirs where no allocation of cost is as- signed for wildlife benefits. If such use develops into substantial proportions, an appropriate area may later be established as a refuge for such waterfowl] without in any manner affecting cost allocations. Such areas are then operated and maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The creation of new wildlife areas is normally a part of the regular program of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In this instance because the area is made up of low-lying land in the district and since it is located along an important fiy-way, the establishment of resting and nesting areas for waterfowl has been included in the project. It seems to me this estab- lishes a dangerous precedent for charging off an appreciable amount of the actual project costs, The costs allocated to flood control are relatively small and permitted under recla- mation law. However, they have been dif- ferently computed by the Secretary of the Army. His letter of May 19, 1949, to the Sec- retary of the Interior points out that assum- ing a 60-year useful project life and a 3 per- cent interest rate, the annual flood-control benefits are considered to justify flood-con- trol costs of only 872,800 as compared with the $95,450 figure computed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The relationship between this allocation and that for sediment control, which was inserted by the Congress, 1s not apparent. I wish also to point out to the Congress that H. R. 3788 deals with another issue which I believe should be first considered in basic law. I refer to the authorized period of repayment. There has been a tendency during our some 45 years of experience under the reclamation laws to increase the period of repayment of construction costs, Despite this trend I believe the matter of further extensions to periods greatly in excess of the 40 years (plus, in some cases, a 10-year de- velopment period) now generally authorized, is a matter of such vital concern to the Na- tion as a whole that it should be carefully reviewed as a principle of general applica- tion. It is not a matter to be treated in piecemeal and isolated consideration on the basis of apparent needs of one or another small project to which no need for urgent action is attached, The policy with respect to the repayment period for rehabilitation and betterment of federally constructed reclamation projects FEBRUARY 8 has not yet been established although two measures dealing with this problem are now pending (H. R. 1694 and 8. 1238). There seems to be no reason why rehabilitation and betterment of a single nonfederally con- atructed reclamation project should receive treatment which may be different from that finally authorized for Federal projects. On July 29, 1949, when I approved the bill authorizing the Federal Government to take over the Fort Sumner irrigation project, I indicated that my action was in recognition of an emergency created by the unsafe con- dition of the dam, which is threatened with destruction if a flood should occur. I fur- ther pointed out that approval of that bill did not constitute a precedent for the ap- proval in the future of other bills authoriz- ing Federal assistance for individual projects where no emergency exists. None of the facts before me supports the conclusion of emergency in connection with the Vermejo project. The Vermejo project can no longer be self- sustaining because the financial resources of the landowners are insufficient to accom- plish the needed rehabilitation. Similar conditions undoubtedly prevail in other irri- gation districts. I believe that an equitable and just basis for granting Federal aid to any irrigation district which is in financial distress should be established by enactment of legislation similar to that under which the Federal Government formerly carried on & program for extending assistance to non- Federal irrigation districts. The records indicate that there are 86 landowners and 45 farm operators within the Vermejo district. I sympathize fully with the situation in which they find them- selves, and I recognize that in disapprov- ing H. R. 3788 I am taking an action which they may at first find it difficult to under- stand. Nevertheless, I believe that they will accept my action as an indication of the need for basic legislation under which all projects requiring Federal assistance will be treated alike. Recommendations for such legislation are being developed for presenta- tion to the next session of the Congress, If the Congress acts upon them promptly, little time will have been lost and there will be established principles for Federal aid which can be equitably administered over the years as needs arise. Harry S Truman. THE Wurte Hovse, August 23, 1949, Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I also ask to have printed the statement by the President of August 30, 1949, relative to the Weber Basin reclamation project, Utah. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, aS follows: Aucust 30, 1949, STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT I have approved 8. 2391, to authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Weber Basin reclamation project, Utah. This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to construct, operate, and maintain the Weber Basin project for the purpose of sup- plying irrigation water to 70,000 acres of new lands and supplemental weter to 30,000 acres of land now inadequately irrigated; supply- ing municipal, industrial, and domestic water; controlling floods; generating and selling electricity; and for other beneficial purposes, I have signed this bill with reluctance be- cause it was enacted without following the normal procedures for obtaining full infor- mation and adequate review concerning irri- gation projects before authorization. The bill appears to have been enacted on the basis of the information contained in a preliminary
1950 report of the Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation. This report had not been reviewed by other interested agencies or by the Executive Office. So far as I know, there has been no final report on the project by the Secretary of the Interlor or the Commissioner of Reclamation. The enactment of this bill under these circumstances raises a number of serious questions. These questions are raised be- cause there has not been sufficient oppor- tunity to review the adequacy of the data contained in the report of the regional di- rector, and because the bill represents in some respects basic departures from the established reclamation law. I have given my approval to the bill only because I am convinced, after careful study and after discussions with several Members of Congress from Utah that the project is basically sound and that it will be possible to overcome the most serious difficulties arising from the lack of adequate consideration be- fore the project was authorized. The provisions of the bill which appear to be most questionable are as follows: 1. It authorizes the repayment of frriga- tion water supply costs over a period of 60 years instead of the period of 40 years which has prevailed heretofore under the reclama- tion law. ‘ 2 The project report of the Regional Di- rector contemplates a nonreimbursable allo- cation of cost in the amount of $4,656,000 for recreation The allocation of cost to recre- ational facilities is not now authorized under reclamation law. If the allocation author- ized in connection with the project were uniformly applied as a precedent, it would ultimately involve the Government in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dol- lars. 83. Under the proposed repayment plan for the project, the amounts repaid by munici- pal and industrial users would be applied first to the repayment of the cost allocuted to municipal and industrial purposes, and then to the repayment of part of the cost allocated to irrigation—all of this on a basis which would provide total revenues over a period of 60 years sufficient only to cover the total retmbursable cost without interest. Thus, in addition to receiving no interest on the reimbursable irrigation cost, the Gov- ernment would also receive no interest on the reimbursable cost for municipal and in- dustrial uses. 4 The report on the project was not re- ferred to the Department of the Army for review and comment by the Chief of Engi- neers in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1044. Consequently, the Corps of Engineers has had no adequate opportunity to consider the phases of the project in which it is inter- ested. On the basis of such study as he has had time to make, however, the Chief of Engineers raises serious questions as to the amount allocated for flood control. 5 The report on the project was not made available to the Department of Agriculture. Consequently, it has not been possible for that Department to express its views with regard to the agricultural and economic feasibility of the proposed plan. There is no urgency for immediate con- struction of the Weber Basin project. In fact, the plans of the Bureau of Reclamation call for construction to be spread over a period of 12 years. I believe, therefore, that the objections to the present authorization can, for the most part, be eliminated—some of them by future action of the Congress, and some by the exercise of the discretion which the bill fortunately permits. The bill does not commit the Secretary of the Interior to the cost allocations made in the report of the regional director. It is flexible enough to permit an apportionment of the cost on an equitable and sound basis consistent with the facilities and system of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE operation finally adopted for the project. The construction of the proposed recrea- tional facilities can be postponed until such time as the Congress has enacted basic standards for the allocation of costs to recrea- tional purposes !n connection with reclama- tion projects. The questions of proper al- location of flood-control benefits and con- struction costs can be resolved between the Secretaries of the Interior and the Army. Additional information concerning the ability of water users to repay the costs of irrigation features of the project can be de- veloped in consultation with the Department of Agriculture The questions of a 60-year repayment period and interest on the relm- bursable costs for municipal and industrial water users will be reconsidered when a com- plete study of this project is available. For the foregoing reasons, I am directing the Secretary of the Interior to take the fol- lowing steps: To complete his study of this project and submit a final report; to defer initiation of construction of any of the recreational facilities pending determination of a national policy on recreation at water resources development projects; to work out with the Department of the Army a sound flood-control plan and cost allocations; to consult with the Department of Agriculture on the ability of the water users to repay the costs of the irrigation features; to make such other adjustments in the plans, esti- metes, cost allocations, and repayment obli- gations as may be required on the basis of the above and the data which will become availa- ble when detailed surveys, engineering de- signs, and refined estimates are completed; and to defer final negotiations on any repay- ment contracts with the water users until definite repayment amounts and conditions are settled. I do not intend to submit any requests for construction appropriations unti] the above preparation has been accomplished and it is known as surely as possible what is going to be done, how much it will cost, how much is going to be repaid and when, It would seem that this plan for proceeding with the Weber Basin project is only fair to the water users who will eventually have to return to the United States the invest- ment allocated to irrigation and municipal water supplies, I have always favored a sound water-re- sources development program and the au- thorization of additional projects as needs arise and as they are found to be justified. I consider it essential that the program be not jeopardized by premature authorization of projects in advance of resolution of ques- tionable features. To do so may lead to unsound action which will endanger the success of our whole reclamation program. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I also ask that the message of the Presi- dent dated October 14, 1949, on the Colo- rado-Big Thompson sederal reclama- tion project, be printed in the REcorpD as @ part of my remarks. There being no objection, the message was ordered to be printed in the REc- ORD, as follows: To the House of Representatives: Iam returning without my approval H. R. 6134, to promote development in coopera- lion with the State of Colorado of the fish, wildlife, and recreational aspects of the Colorado Big Thompson Federal reclamation project. This bill is intended to provide for the planning, construction, and operation of fish, wildlife, game, and recreational facili- ties in connection with the Colorado-Big Thompson project. To this end, it includes several major provisions. It would author- ize the Secretary of the Interior to plan joint programs under cooperative agree- ments with State, Federal, municipal, or 1655 local agencies, and to advance funds to such agencies in connection with the planning or execution of these programs. It would also authorize the Secretary to construct, oper- ate, and maintain fish, wildlife, game, pub- lic park, and recreational facilities, including the purchase of land or other rights or prop- erty where necessary. The bill would direct the Secretary to make nonreimbursable allo- cations of such portion of the construction costs of the Colorado-Big Thompson proj- ect, heretofore or hereafter incurred, as in his judgment represents the cost of fish, wildlife, game, and recreational development. The bill provides that in the event the Sec- retary, the interested State agencies, and the local interests were unable to agree on any of the major features of any plan or program proposed by the Secretary under this bill, the matter would have to be re- ferred to the Congress and the proposed work could not proceed, except on approval by an act of Congress. Finally, the bill would authorize the appropriation of not to exceed $100,000 to carry out its provisions. Iam unable to approve this bill because of two major objections. First, this bill would establish, for this one project only, certain policies which represent an important de- parture from present national law, but which have not been studied sufficiently to know whether or not they form a desirable basis for a new national policy. I am particularly concerned about the recreation features of this bill. Almost all multiple-purpose projects for developing our water resources present opportunities to realize valuable recreational benefits, espe- cially where large reservoir-lakes nre created. Those recreational benefits should clearly be realized, for the benefit of the people who live nearby and those who may visit. But there are serious questions of national policy which must be answered before such recrea- tional development can proceed on a sound basis. For example, are the benefits of such recre- ational development, in connection with reclamation projects or flood-control proj- ects, of sufficient national importance to justify the investment of Federal funds, or should some or all of the costs be borne by State and local interests? This bill contains no policy guidance on these questions, They are, however, clearly matters of national policy which should be considered with re- spect to water-resources projects generally, before embarking on large-scale individual projects. Another example of a major policy ques- tion raised by this bill which needs further study is what part, if any, of the construction cost of multiple-purpose water-control proj- ects should be allocated to recreation. Until now, the basic laws have authorized the allo- cation of the costs of multiple-purpose proj- ects to flood-control, navigation, irrigation, power, and municipal water supply, as appro- priate in particular cases In certain cases, where the development of facilities to pro- tect fish and wildlife has been incidental to other work on a project or necessary to prevent damage to those resources, the law also authorizes the allocation of part of the cost of multiple-purpose projects to the pres- ervation and propagation of fish and wildlife. The basic Jaws do not authorize the alloca- tion of any part of joint project costs to recreation; in the few cases where recreation facilities have been built so far, they have been separately justified and financed. This bill, however, would require nonreimbursable allocations to recreation of part of the cost of joint features of the Coloradu-Big Thomp- son project. It would clearly be unwise to adopt such a policy in connection with this one project, before it has been decide whether adoption of such a general policy is in the national] interest. Furthermore, if such a general policy is to be adopted, there should certainly be provision for careful
1656 standards to guide its application to par- ticular cases—standards which are not prow vided for in this bill. My second major objection to this bill is that it contains certain specific features which, it is clear without further study, are unwise. One of these is the provision that State agencies and local interests could pre- vent the Secretary of the Interior from pro- ceeding with any major action under the bill if they disagreed with him in any respect, It seems to me that this carries to an illogi- cal extreme the desirable principle that State and local interests should participate in Fed- eral programs for developing water resources. Surely it is possible to provide for adequate cooperation among Federal, State, and local agencies without giving State and local agencies a complete veto over the adminis- tration of a Federal law by a Federal ad- ministrative officer. Another specific provision of this bill which is objectionable is that it authorizes only $100,000 to be appropriated to carry out its provisions. The legislative history of the bill contains no explanation of this figure, It is such a small part of the probable total cost of the bill that it is relatively meaning- less and certatnly misleading. The Secretary of the Interior has estimated that the ulti- mate development costs for the purposes stated in the bill would be in the neighbor- hood of €2,000,000—and this figure does not appear to include any allocation of construc- tion costs heretofore incurred in connection with irrigation and power features which, under this bill, would be reallocated and written off as nonreimbursable. It does not seem to me to be appropriate, particularly in connection with a Federal public works proj- ect, to authorize extensive work to be done by the Government unless the full cost of that work 1s simultaneously understood and approved. For these reasons, I believe that further study is required in both the executive and legislative branches before we shall be in a position to establish sound, long-range policies for recreational development in con- nection with water-resources projects gen- erally, and for the Colorado-Big Thompson project in particular. Consequently, I feel impelled to withhold my approval from this bill. Harry S. TRUMAN. Tur Write House, Ottober 14, 1949. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sec- retary will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the roll call be rescinded, and that further proceedings under the call be suspended. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is granted. TRIBUTE TO SAMUEL GOMPERS Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, it was my intention to say a few words on Friday, January 27, 1950, the anniversary of the date of the birth of Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Fed- eration of Labor. I had planned to pay tribute to this great American on that day. However, the Senate was not in session, and therefore I take this occa- sion to pay my respects to Mr, Gompers, I ask that the remarks which I had tended to deliver from the floor of the nate be incorporated as a statement, and that following that there be printed an article entitled “What Gompers Be- queathed,” published in the Reporter, “three headings: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE written by one of the outstanding schol- ars of the labor movement in America, Prof, Selig Perlman, of the University of Wisconsin. There being no objection, Mr. Hum- PHREY’s statement and the article were ordered to be printed in the Recor», a8 follows: BAMUEL GOMPERS The American success story is usually @ story of accumulation of wealth. On this day I want to memorialize a success story of a different sort. The hero of my success story was born a poor man, And died a poor man—that is, poor in worldly goods. My man specialized in accumulating ideas and ideals. His all-consuming ideal was the vision of a great American labor movement, And, he lived long enough to see the fruition of that ideal. I am talking about Samuel Gompers, of course, and January 27, 1950, is the one hundredth anniversary of his birth. Not that Samuel Gompers invented unton- ism. In a very real sense the striving of men and women to improve their conditions of living through self-organization is as old as history itself. Nor was Samuel Gompers even the first to preach the cause of unionism in the United States. The union as a perma- nent organization of working people dates with the founding of our Republic. Even before the Constitution of the United States was adopted groups of craftsmen—shoe- makers, carpenters, printers—banded to- gether in societies to improve their condi- tions of work. And as a byproduct they organized mutual-aid burial societies to give the artisan a decent burial. Unionism is rooted deeply in our American tradition. History reveals that in no democratic couns try has unionism had a harder row to hoe. When the forces of law and order, through the injunction and other devices, were not adequate to beat back the efforts of workers to form organizations of their own choosing, some employers resorted to an arsenal of savage tactics—strikebreakers recruited from the boweries and flophouses of the Nation, spies hired through industrial espionage agencies, the militia, the National Guard, the tear-gas bombs—all were used in a primi- tive and savage attempt to keep men and women from organizing into unions. In spite of this hostile environment, unions grew—slowly, it is true—but they grew with a kind of inexorable recognition of the right- ness of their cause. And if any man has the right to be called the chief architect of a movement as great and as strong as the American labor move- ment, it is that immigrant lad born in 1860, Samuel Gompers. For almost 75 years before Gompers came upon the American labor scene national fed- erations had come and gone. The hostility of the environment and, in part, the bewll- dered idealism of some of the early labor leaders prevented their organizations from persevering. It was Samuel Gompers who, by studying history and also what was hap- pening around him, developed pragmatically the ingredients of effective labor organi- gation. Gompers’ contributions can be put under “Free untonism,” “Demo- cratic unionism,” and “Permanent union- ism.” Gompers had studied hard the experience of early American unionism and of untonism in Europe. He saw very soon that if unions were to persevere in the United States and weather the storms of conflicting political philosophies that untons would have to divorce themselves from exclusive reliance on Government or on particular political parties. In short, Gompers saw the basic respon- sibility of unions as collective bargaining on FEBRUARY 8 their own strength. To build a hard core of union membership which would persist in d times as well as bad times, Gompers insisted that wages, hours, and working con- ditions were the central concern of the Amer- jean labor movement, and that no lasting movement could be built on slogans alone. Gompers’ critics called this “pure and sim- ple unionism” and “business unionism.” Despite the good intentions of most of Gom- pers’ critics, Gompers had read labor history more effectively than his critics. He knew that the manifestos, the banners, the slogans, the catch words were no substitute for the stock and trade of unionism—organizing workers into unions that would last; and that the first (not necessarily the only) concern was improving the conditions of work. And so while the dual unionisms of Gompers’ days with their more ambitious programs dropped from sight, victims of the hard facts of life, Gompers’ unionism “muddled through” and gradually caught hold. To this day the United States is one of the few countries in the world with a labor movement whose fate is not inextricably in- tertwined with the fate of a government. Democratic unionism owes much to Samuel Gompers. Gompers’ experience in the Enights of Labor had taught him that no over-all labor organization was wise enough and strong enough to deal with the infinite variety of problems that confronted unions in our complex industrial civilization, It was Gompers who developed the idea of what he called trade-union autonomy—an idea which owes much to our theory of the separation of powers between the States and the Federal Government. As Gompers saw the structure of the American labor move- ment, an over-all labor organization like the A. F. of L. was comparable to the Federal Government; the international unions were comparable to the States. (Glib commen- tators who talk about the A. F. of L. or the CIO standing for this or standing for that have not mastered the most important fact about the American labor movement—that authority resides in the international unions, not in the federations.) In a very real sense then neither the A. F. of L. nor the CIO are unions at all, with the minor exceptions of the Federal labor unions in the case of the A. F. of L., and local in- dustrial unions in the case of the CIO. Neither the A. F, of L. nor the CIO call strikes, negotiate agreements, or do any of the day to day work, which are the bench marks of unionism in the United States, The center of the American labor movement is the 100 or so international unions in the A. F. of L. and the forty-odd international unions in the CIO, the great railroad broth. erhoods, and international machinists. With respect to the A. F. of L. or CIO the interna- tional unions are free agents in the fullest senee of the term. The fact that this is so, is directly trace- able to Gompers’ concern over the excessive concentration of authority and power in a federation of unions. The American labor movement is, therefore, a decentralized movement. Gompers had a Keen insight in what it takes to keep an organization going in an antagonistic environment. He had seen too Many organizations rise with prosperity and disappear with the first signs of depression. From the very beginning Gompers felt that dues ought to be adequate enough to permit the union to hold its head above water in slack periods. Gompers’ conception of the union went beyond that of the union as a dues-collec- tion society. He saw it also as an expression of the desire for mutual aid and assistance among workers. Here again Gompers read his labor history soundly. One of the first things that the early unions did was to try to protect themselves from the indignity of @ burial in a potters’ Neld. From provision
1950 for death benefits, Gompers envisioned the union as providing other Kinds of insurance. In addition to providing a useful service to union members, Gompers shrewdly saw that the insurance benefits would also serve as @ tie between the member and his union which he would not easily relinquish when the going got tough. What was Gompers’ essential genius? I think it was his penetrating understanding of the American culture and what a union had to have to survive and grow in that culture, As an American, I take an enormous sat- isfaction in the Gompers’ story because it serves to give additional strength to the American heritage of equal opportunity ir- respective of national origin, creed, and color. Sam Gompers had many strains in him. His family origins include German, Dutch influences. Rabbis and merchants are found in the Gompers’ lineage. Samuel Gompers himself was born in England and received his first training in a Jewish free school where he learned to read the Talmud. Upon his arrival in New York he was thrown in with a circle of German socialists and untonists. Yet these diverse strains produced through Gompers a form and shape of unionism pe- cullarly American and integrated in American life as nothing in the past history of labor had been. The career of Samuc] Gompers illuminates the way in which our cultural diversity has been a source of strength in building an effective democracy. If the labor movement is one of the great pillars of our democracy, and I believe tt is, Gompers, as the man who has given it shape, substance, and meaning, deserves to be ranked as one of the social architects of our times. [From the Reporter of January 31, 1950] WHAT GOMPERS BEQUEATHED When the immigrant Samuel Gompers appeared on the American labor scene, the native union movement, almost 50 years old, had been periodically yielding to urges that were most creditable to its idealism, but dis- ruptive of its organizational stability. Al- though in his youth Gompers took part in these searches for panaceas, he was capable, under instruction, of discovering underlying realities, and he finally distilled, from his own and others’ experience, some historic rules of conduct for Amcrican labor: First, labor must organize separately from the other producing classes. Second, the capitalist system had come to stay, and there was no desirable escape from it, by way of either producers’ cooperatives or state socialism. Third, labor parties merely expose labor's weakness as a vote-getter and cause internal dissension, It is, however, important for labor to have a collective-bargaining arrange- ment with one of the existing parties during any particular election. Fourth, it is safest to build unions around the job-interest common to all wage earners, whatever their politics, religion, or ethnic origin, since the American working class is notably divided into such vertical groups. Fifth, the strongest unity comes when those whose jobs come out of the same job reservoir, due to a common trade skill, are joined in one organization. Finally, labor must strive, by all means of economic coercion or persuasion, to bring employers around to recognizing unions as coadministrators with themselves of the available jobs. But Gompers insisted that labor should never run the risk of being called subversive by advocating any sort of workers’ control, socialism, or nationaliza- tion of industry. Gompers had no millennium to offer—only @ process and a structure that were termed, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE although not by Gompers himself, “industrial government.” It was an intergroup govern- ment by the employer and the recognized “legitimate” union (not a company union). The employer was guaranteed uninterrupted production; the employee a safeguarded wage and freedom from abuses of power by the foreman or shop boss; and the union was given security through the closed shop or union shop. It was recognized that, for the system to function effectively, management must go on receiving its mandates from ownership, individual or corporate, and not fror: either government or labor. Management's profit-spurred drive for changes in technology and wage remunera- tion had, Gompers maintained, to be watched with a sentinel’s alertness. This meant that the umon had to exact guaranties for con- senting to such changes. Finally, Gompers believed that, with the necessary safeguards studding this “government of the job,” the fears voiced by the Socialists that capitalism was, by its very nature, identical with labor exploitation, and a menace to democracy and peace, were the fears of immature minds. Gompers’ dicta prevailed during his 37 years as president of the American Federa- tion of Labor, and beyond. Only in 1931 did the A. F. of L. convention reverse the master’s stand against compulsory unemployment in- surance. “Voluntarism” seemed to have lost its appeal in the depressed economic state of the country. The New Deal supplied the federation with much-needed external impulses, and thus opened the doors to the heretofore inaccessi- ble mass-production industries. Unfortu- nately, the leaders of the A. F. of L. managed to offset these blessings with the curse of a labor civil war on the issue of industrial ver- sus craft unionism. Gompers, who had stretched his principal of nonpartisan politi- cal action by getting his executive council to endorse La Follette for President in 1924, would surely have found a way to bring to- gether craft unionists and progressives in a joint expansion campaign. For Gompers, who had supported the organizing campaigns in meat packing and steel in the war period— William Z Foster was his appointee as man- ager of this drive—was never a dogmatic craft unionist if he knew that he was not endangering the stability of the federation. In 1934-35 the progressives, who later led the CIO, might easily have been satisfied within the framework of the A F. of L., even though Gompers had passionatcly denounced their predecessors, the Socialist industrial- ists, as people of the radical blueprint. The New Deal also effected a revolution in American Government which had an enor- mous bearing on labor’s strategy. Rooseveit’s attack on the United States Supreme Court, followed as it was by the Court’s counter- reformation, changed the Government into a much more integrated law-making in- strument For the first time the low-wage standards in the South could be effectively changed by congressional action. Gompers’ “pure and simple” unionism now truly looked like a museum piece tn the face of the many prolabor laws that the Court validated. Gompers’ objectives were now being pursued with the aid of a legislative instrument which had suddenly acquired a cutting edge. Nor was this such a startling innovation for American labor. The railway unions, of which Gompers highly approved (the strong- est ones, the Brotherhoods, were outside the federation, but the shop crafts were in it), and whose industry, being in interstate com- merce, was, on most issues, subject to one Government instead of 49, had already built up one of the most effective lobbies, and had also shown their political awareness as La Follette’s warmest supporters for President, Gompers preferred economic action not be- cause he had swallowed Herbert Spencer's anti-state philosophy whole, but because of his experience with hostile government, and because he feared that employers would use 1657 protective labor laws as grounds for denying union demands. (“The minimum will be- come the maximum.”) In the present campaign for pensions, even those union leaders brought up in the anti- Gompers wing of the labor movement are unexpectedly finding themselves traveling his road. How, then, does Gompers-ism as a whole look 25 years after its founder's death? The behavior of the CIO, born out of a struggle against those who officially wore Gompers’ robes, should offer decisive evi- dence. Had the CIO emblazoned socialism on its standard, and had it sponsored an independent labor or farm-labor party, it would have spelled out its belief in the out-of-dateness of Gompers-ism. Instead, it treats the free-enterprise system as one that is not to be questioned, and is now sum- marily expelling Red-tinged unions. In politics the CIO is making bargains with the Truman Democrats, and showing its complete confidence in professional old- party politicians by mobilizing its own political action committee in the service of this partnership. The stock argument of the old left-wingers that labor could only trust its own party, and never any old party, carries little weight when the latter must depend on labor for its election finances and for ringing doorbells in a campaign. In no other respect is Gompers more en- titled to contemporary recognition than in the fleld of international relations. Gom- pers, the immigrant from London, considered himself a living link with European labor, and he showed equal concern for workers in Latin America. He deplored European labor’s devotion to socialism without realize ing that in a caste society such a challenge to capitalism was labor's most telling way of convincing itself and the ruling class that the days of the workingman’s social in- feriority were over. For this reason, Gom- pers’ contacts with Europe’s labor leaders were not always happy ones. In their eyes, he was an anachronism; in his, they were utopians. Nevertheless, Gompers’ educa- tional work within the federation has kept the native-born elements in it from forming an isolationist wing. Even Gompers’ detrac- tors will not dispute his role at Versailles, where President Wilson's high regard for him was instrumental in the creation of the International Labor Office The spirit of internationalism that he tmplanted in the federation continues after his death. That no voices of hate have ever been heard in American labor circles is doubtless Gompers’ most valuable legacy. The highly constructive role recently played by the American labor leadership in strengthening the spirit of the unionists in western Europe, in their struggle to avoid being reduced to mere Soviet tools, would also have been im- possible without the Gompers’ tradition. The recent success of the AFL and CIO in shaping the outlook of the International Confederation of Free Trade Uniong has been interpreted by some Europeans as dictation by rich America to impoverished Britain. Yet who can be certain that after another quarter of a century this American dictation will not be seen as the beginning of the recognition of Gompers as the leading in- tellectual, not only of American labor, but of free labor throughout the world? SELIG PERLMAN. FOSTPONEMENT OF STRIKE OF TELE- PHONE WORKERS Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I wish to make a statement in reference to the negotiations which are now being conducted between the Communications Workers of America and the Bell Tele- phone system. We were all pleased to learn that the Nation-wide strike in the telephone in- dustry, scheduled to begin this morning,