Mr. JOHNSON. So, you think that the point of diversion at the All-American Canal would be the No. 1 solution for your problem, provided the Government would participate.

Mr. ALLT. Yes, sir. I haven't discussed that with Mr. Casey, but I understand he has another-type recommendation which in essence would use the present facility for delivery under a different-type contract.

Mr. JOHNSON. I was wondering if any figure could be worked out that way, administratively, that would not involve this title II of the bill with another project.

Now, as I understand it, you people are raising the problem now hoping for a solution to it in the legislation; is that your aim?

Mr. ALLT. No, let me put things straight. We agree with title I and title II of your bill, that the solution must be had for clearing up the river, however, in Utah, and even in California.

Mr. JOHNSON. We are very much interested in that.

Mr. ALLT. You know, basically we are saying that we are all for that. What the best solution is, as far as the bill goes, in reference to us, I couldn't tell you at this point. The thing that is interesting to us is the fact that there is going to be a desalting plant built. If all the product water from that plant is designated for Mexico, at some time in the future it may be economically feasible and better for us to receive some of the desalted water. If the capacity isn't in the plant, even though we have the right to it, it would eliminate the potential for us using that desalted water.

Mr. JOHNSON. Your prime interest, then, in the legislation is both title I and title II; and you would like to see additional capacity provided at the desalting plant that could eventually take care of your needs, also.

Mr. ALLT. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. And on the other hand you are interested in title II from the standpoint of salinity problems on the river per se; but you also have a problem there of delivery of your water, regardless whether good, or bad water. Actually you would like the best water possible.

Could that be a separate consideration, apart from this bill? The Bureau made that study, and you say as far as you are concerned, your recommendation would be a delivery point from the All-American

Canal.

Mr. ALLT. Mr. Chairman, let me go back just a little bit in the history of that study. All this took place prior to any knowledge whatsoever of a desalting plant, or an agreement between the United States and Mexico. We did talk to Mr. Brownell, or I did talk to Mr. Brownell when he was through the area to study the problem.

When the administration recommendation came out I failed to find the city of Yuma's problems anywhere in the report. So, we thought that perhaps people on this side of the border, 40,000 people, should have some consideration in this saline product problem if the country of Mexico received consideration. That is what energized us to be here, looking for assistance.

Mr. JOHNSON. All right.

Mr. ALLT. Incidentally, the Bureau was making this study, and we will have the final report sometime probably in June on what they think is the best process.

Mr. JOHNSON. How was that study authorized, is that a general investigation with general investigation funds from the Bureau of Reclamation?

Mr. STANLEY. Really, Mr. Moser who is here could tell you exactly. We paid $25,000 to help the Bureau finance that study.

Mr. MOSER. Yes, they paid the full cost, $25,000.

Mr. JOHNSON. That would be a reconnaissance study, and not a feasibility study?

Mr. MOSER. That is right, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from California, Mr. Hosmer.

Mr. HOSMER. Mayor Allt, in discussing this bill and the objective the city aims for later, do you have such language to suggest?

Mr. ALLT. I think the Committee of 14 recommended that the language be put in page 4, line 11, strike out the word "treasury" and put in, "The city of Yuma shall have the right of first refusal to any surplus desalted water."

We see no conflict with that, except that we think the capacity ought to be in the plant to provide for surplus water, so that it might be available and we could use it.

Mr. HOSMER. That language is to achieve your objective, that language you just mentioned, other than having to do with increased capacity?

Mr. ALLT. I didn't follow you, sir.

Mr. HOSMER. I said the language that you just referred to that the Committee of Fourteen recommended is likewise your recommendation. And you believe it would satisfy the achievement of your objective if that was added to the language of the bill. I just want to make sure that we nail down what you want.

Mr. ALLT. At this point, sir, I can't give you that language definitely. We don't know what the study is going to tell us in reference to the pipeline. The pipeline might be a more feasible solution in the desalting water; I don't know at this point, I can't tell you.

Mr. HOSMER. Well, my only point being, sir, if you go back and find there is a specific language that you would want this committee to consider realizing that we will be marking up this bill in the very near future that you can make certain that we got it.

Mr. ALLT. We would be happy to

Mr. HOSMER. I don't promise you it will get in, or won't get in; but we can't get it in if we don't have it.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Steiger.

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to advise the gentleman from California, if you are not aware of it, the Mayor has lived with this problem on a very intimate level for a long time. It is my opinion that that language, or some similar language would permit the city surplus water on a first opportunity basis, that this is the solution, since it doesn't preclude any of the other alternatives which face the city, but gives them the option to refuse any surplus. It does not, in the event that the capacity is increased contemplate the city of Yuma's use. Any water that would be surplus, the primary mission of the plant would be to furnish water for the Mexican delivery. Mr. HOSMER. So, the problem comes back to excess capacity. Mr. STEIGER. In the plant itself, and I think if we haven't had testimony to the fact this morning, the cost of anticipated increased

capacity at the level required by the city is really minimal, or virtually nonexistent. We got that testimony, I think, from the people involved in the design. We are not talking about a dramatic increase in cost.

I am hoping that will be the eventual result, that the bill will call for sufficient capacity of the plant and permit the city of Yuma first refusal of water that is not needed for Mexico. That would still leave them free to consider the pipeline approach, if that should be the best approach.

In other words, what we are doing, Mr. Chairman, is maximizing at no appreciable cost to the Federal Government, maximizing the benefit of this plant. I am sure that could be done, and I am sure the chairman would subscribe to that.

Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand the testimony so far, as far as the desalting plant is concerned, they are trying to satisfy the Mexican obligation only; they are even going to the extent of recommending the reduction in acreage in the Wellton-Mohawk district, so that the amount of drainage flow can be reduced; and the desalting plant can desalt the water. That water would be used for the Mexican Treaty only. It was my observation from the State Department and Mr. Brownell's recommendation and from those who testified representing the Administration, that the plant would be held to a minimum.

Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Chairman, I think that is right, but even with a minimum anticipation there has to be some kind of safety factor; and the safety factor would very probably include a surplus.

Mr. HOSMER. Let's find out what the Mayor is talking about. Are you talking about some water blend for the 50,000 acre-feet, or do you want to take all of your water out of this desalting plant?

Mr. ALLT. We have to talk about blend water. The production from the plant, talks about 240 parts per million, and the Department of Health recommendation is about 500 parts, so, we would be talking about blend.

Mr. HOSMER. Well, the water you are getting out of the canal

now

Mr. ALLT. Eight, or nine hundred.

Mr. HOSMER. is satisfactory in the salinity, but not in the price. Mr. ALLT. It's satisfactory because there is no alternative. But, the Public Health Service recommends 500 parts per million.

Mr. HOSMER. So, just a little water from the desalting plant would get it down to where you want it.

Mr. ALLT. Yes, sir; that would be the purpose.

Mr. HOSMER. You are not talking about a 45-percent increase in the desalting plant.

Mr. ALLT. Oh, no.

Mr. HOSMER. You are talking about a minor increase for planning purposes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I just want to ask the Mayor one question. As I understand it, you have a 40-year or a 50-year contract for 50,000 acre-feet from the Colorado River.

Mr. ALLT. I don't know if there is any time-element attached to it, sir. We know it takes only 12-plus thousand feet a year.

Mr. JOHNSON. That's what I mean. You have 50,000 acre-feet allocated to the city of Yuma forever?

Mr. ALLT. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, at the present time you are satisfied with the quality of water you have been living with, and it is the price of that delivery that is your real problem.

Mr. ALLT. Not exactly, sir. In our statement we mentioned that the drainage water out of the Yuma Irrigation District kept the salt contents higher than we would have liked at our original point of diversion.

The water which we are taking out of the siphon now, which comes from the All-American Canal runs anywhere between 800 and 900 parts per mil. Before we were forced to leave the river, it was about 700 or 800 parts at that time. But, that's the only water that is available for us to treat.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Steiger?

Mr. STEIGER. I would like to get the record abundantly clear on the amount, Mr. Chairman, I think that is critical. The city had a 50,000 acre-foot contract; their actual consumption is about 12,000. We are talking about lending the actual consumption of the surplus of the plant, so we are talking about something, in the foreseeable future, of about 6,000 feet to blend.

I want the record to reflect that because I don't think the record ought to reflect that we are saying we are talking about a 50,000 acre-foot surplus, nobody contemplates that.

Mr. JOHNSON. The only thing I wanted to bring that up for was the size of the plant, it might not have any surplus.

Mr. STEIGER. I would just tell the chairman, in my discussion with the people, their very unofficial view was that in order for it to be properly engineered, there has to be some safety factor involved. That safety factor will probably result in a slight consistent surplusMr. LUKEN. Ten percent.

Mr. STEIGER. The normal safety factor is 10 percent, and I would advise the chairman that the 10-percent surplus would more than satisfy the immediate need of the city. It is my desire, and I'm sure it is the mayor's desire to assure that the city has the first right in that surplus. I think the record ought to reflect that the city isn't asking for a 50-percent increase in the capacity of the plant to take care of that.

Mr. ALLT. I think the record should show that the city of Yuma is the only city taking water out of the river below Imperial Dam, between Imperial Dam and the Mexican border.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Roncalio, do you have any questions?

Mr. RONCALIO. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I came so late, I regret being tardy.

Mr. ALLT. We are happy to meet you, thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Casey, do you have any questions here? Your name was mentioned, if you have a solution to this problem, I would like to hear it.

Mr. CASEY. I'm not on the witness list, Mr. Chairman, but J think I can make my point if I can ask the mayor a couple of leading questions.

From your knowledge and from your discussions, the pipeline would be an advantage over the present system that you have now. Mr. ALLT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CASEY. Could both you and the city of Yuma live with your present mode of service if you had a better, more manageable contract; one that stems from law and would be supervised by the Secretary, and that gave you a fixed charge for that service for a period of time and which might indeed be much less than you are paying now?

Mr. ALLT. We would give that pretty deep consideration, yes. We would like to see what the terms are.

Mr. CASEY. If that resulted in an official contract, that would save you a lot of money-and this is hypothetical-you could live with your quality problems and the operational disadvantage of taking water out of the Colorado River?

Mr. ALLT. I think so. And if you are saying in essence that at some point in history our capital cost would cease, and operation maintenance would continue, I would follow that, and I think that is a solution.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, what I had in mind here is the fact the canal from which the city of Yuma is deriving water is a feature of a single-purpose Federal reclamation project, and that purpose is irrigation.

It has, according to testimony, been operated, at least in part, for municipal and industrial water supply for eleven years. Not being a lawyer, or a judge I cannot really make the statement that it is a violation of the law, but it would appear to me to be outside of the authority of the Secretary to allow his agent to operate a single-purpose irrigation facility without allocating some of the costs to municipal water in accordance with the benefits; and thereafter proposing that that allocation be repaid with interest in accordance with all the laws and precedents of the Federal reclamation program.

Now, it appears that we will have to pass a law. I think that is the kind of law we ought to be considering here and we should get a recommendation from Interior. It would have to be on another bill. as I don't think we could do it in the time-frame of this one.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think it would have to be a general law, too. I am sure in other projects the same thing is being done, irrigation facilities deliver municipal water in certain instances. So, I think that is a solution to it.

I have no objection to solving your problem, either with the project, or some general statute that would allow you to be a part of it, and pay the right and proper cost to the Federal Government; I have no objection to that, either.

But, I don't think it should be in this particular bill, that is my personal observation.

Mr. ALLT. Mr. Chairman, we agree with that, sir. I would like to make one comment about the Bureau of Reclamation and the use of the siphon. At the time that we were forced to move it, if we could not have gone to the siphon, we would not have had water for our people. While it may seem like a violation, not looking at the law specifically, at that time it was a great service and great help to the city. But the economics have proved to be a burden, and I think they could be improved. Mr. Casey's solution has a lot of merit.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that's fine. Are there any other questions concerning the problem of the mayor? Mr. Luken?