water; and there is an appropriation in the bill to buy approximately 23,000 acres of land.

Now, our irrigation district also has some 7,000 acres within this 5mile limit. There is a map behind page 3, that shows this land in red; and the line across there is the 5-mile limit.

Now, we feel that originally, when we are talking about 160,000 acre-feet, there is a possibility that some of this water that would be pumped would be available to the Yuma Mesa Irrigation District; but as the bill progresses down the line, we find out that is not the situation.

So, since this is part of our future development, and since the city encroaches out into our irrigation district, this land was set aside by the Federal Government with the idea that we would be able to move our agricultural water system down into that area for future develop

ment.

Right at the present time we have approximately 2,000 acres that is under city development, and the city is just starting to grow. So, I can say, looking down the road, we feel that since they are going to take out this water, with Mexico also pumping out of that 160,000 feet of water, that in checking with the geological survey we find out that there is going to be an overdraft in this area. So, the portion that is north of the line is also going to be in jeopardy, there is approximately 5,000 acres in this field. And, with an overdraft in the area, that would make it impossible, as far as the irrigation district is concerned to go into a wild field system here because eventually we would end up like Arizona, there would be no water on this land, it would all be gone and all the farms were dying and go back to desert again.

So, we feel that either we should get some water from the well field, or else have the Secretary have the ability to replace this land that's in the 5-mile limit with land up adjacent to our current project so when the city encroaches on us we can move out into these lands without too much extra construction charge to go ahead and hold up to our 25,000 acres allowable under the contract.

On the last page on there is a suggested amendment to the bill. There again, we feel that we are not bound by this language, that this would get across the idea of what we are trying to talk about, in any language that you give us similar to that, would be satisfactory. I think that is all.

Mr. JOHNSON. Does the attorney, Mr. Baker, have anything to add to that?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The contract which the district has entered into actually encompasses the land in the 5-mile zone. And although that land is not developed at the present time, we have the mechanics in the contract for development and assessment.

The problem we see in the bill at the present time is that this land within the 5-mile area that we are talking about is Federal land. We would like the opportunity, therefore, if this land is taken out and no longer available for use by our district, give the Secretary the flexibility of adding to the east side of our district.

Now, the second part of our amendment is directed to use of water at the Gila Main Gravity Canal, and we have no interest in taking anybody's capacity, particularly Wellton-Mohawk's. However, are talking about the long pull, and at some future time there may be

we

some excess capacity. We would like to be in line at that point to receive that capacity.

We would also like to have some recognition of the right to use that canal when others are not using it. At the present time, for instance, our district, in order to pump sufficient water for citrus has exceeded our capacity; in fact, we have borrowed from our neighbors. This practice has gone on for a number of years simply due to the fact that the cropping patterns are such that no one in the area is using the water at the same time.

We would like therefore some recognition because of the fact that we perhaps have a low priority, extra use of the capacity; and I would correspondingly assume that our neighbors would have the

same.

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe the same question was raised by Mr. Choules in his statement, that they want it at certain times.

Mr. BAKER. We would just like to have the recognition to make full use of that canal, regardless of the rated capacity. There will be times when they will use in excess of theirs, and we will use in excess of ours. But, for future planning purposes, if there is not some recognition of this idea, I don't think the Secretary would ever permit us to add to our district; and that is the main thrust of that.

I would to also like to comment, if I may, Tom Choules brought up an interesting point. We, too, are part of the Gila project, the legislative history of this act, and the construction of this act might have a bearing upon our water entitlement under Public Law 272, the Gila Project Act.

I concur with Tom that there should be some recognition in the report here that this act is not an amendment to Public Law 272. We have the right on the Mesa division of the Gila project to 300,000 acre-feet of beneficial consumptive use. As a matter of fact, we have filed in the Arizona versus California an amicus brief from our area with the Supreme Court, advising the court as to our interpretation of that act. And I, like Tom, would not like to see some future solicitor take the present bill, the present act, and say, well this is now construction of Public Law 272, and you have lost some of your water rights. Mr. JOHNSON. Very good, gentlemen. Mr. Udall?

Mr. UDALL. Have you discussed with Wellton-Mohawk, and the other affected districts your suggestion as to excess capacity; does that threaten them, or pose any problems for them?

Mr. BAKER. We haven't had an opportunity between the time of the notice of the hearing and now to counsel with them. We have talked about this in the past, but we want to make it crystal clear, we are not trying to steal, or take anyone's capacity. We are talking about excess.

Mr. UDALL. I don't think you would get away with it down there, anyhow.

Mr. BAKER. I know it.

Mr. UDALL. Holding a gun on each other.

Mr. Steiger and I don't want to be in the position of choosing sides. If agreeable to them, certainly one of us could offer that amendment and see what happens.

That reminds me, Thadd, a couple of years ago you were back here and we got a permit through that permitted you to build a reservoir

to extend your capacity. Is that being built, whatever happened to that?

Mr. BAKER. It is not built at the present time.

Mr. UDALL. Is there a problem?

Mr. BAKER. Well, we had, I presume, a political problem within the district, that's why we haven't resolved it.

Mr. UDALL. I presume that shouldn't be opened up here, I won't pursue it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Hosmer?

Mr. HOSMER. If we are going to get through this morning, I think I am going to forego any further questions at this point, thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Steiger, do you have any comments?

Mr. STEIGER. Yes; I would just like to make clear for the record, again that when the Yuma Mesa project is designated is that the Secretary shall exchange land for those lands outside of the 5-mile. area; and these exchanges be resolved in land being added to Yuma Mesa District adjacent to their current land.

My only question is of the witnesses, are these lands in blue on the map predominantly Federal lands now, or all Federal land?

Mr. WAITS. No; it's intermingled. But, this part would be strictly a boundary change and there is the question if this land is irrigable land; the Bureau would see how it is classified.

Mr. STEIGER. So, all you are really asking is designation, and not acquisition.

Mr. WAITS. That is correct.

Mr. STEIGER. I think the record ought to reflect that, Mr. Chairman, that we are not talking about the Federal Government acquiring new land; in other words, we are not talking about any expense.

Mr. JOHNSON. As I understood you to say, these are undeveloped Federal lands within your district.

Mr. STEIGER. And private.

Mr. JOHNSON. And if these other lands were irrigable you could make an exchange.

Mr. WAITS. That is right.

Mr. STEIGER. It would be an exchange, Mr. Chairman, that's all. Mr. JOHNSON. Any further questions? Gentlemen, we want to thank you for giving us the benefit of your testimony, your statement, and comments.

[The written statement of Elliott Waits is as follows:]

STATEMENT OF ELLIOTT WAITS, REPRESENTING THE YUMA MESA IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Elliott Waits. I am a farmer by occupation residing in Yuma, Arizona, past president and present member of the Board of Directors of the Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District. On behalf of the Board of Directors of the District, I would like to direct my comments to H.R. 12165. Our purpose in being here today and comments are not concerned with philosophy or purpose of H.R. 12165, but confined to a narrow problem concerning one of the sections of this Legislation. Let me say, however, that as a farmer and resident of Yuma County that I am in accord with the purposes of this bill and the resolution of the Mexican water problem.

Briefly, and by way of background, the Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District is a part of the Yuma Mesa Division of the Gila Project as authorized by Congress under the Gila Project Reauthorization Act 1947. Pursuant to this Act, there are 25,000 authorized irrigable acres in the District and constructed works for 19,970 acres. The District is substantially all planted to citrus and is a major force in the economy of Yuma and in the State of Arizona. The District lies immediately to the South and East of the City of Yuma. By reason of the expansion of the City and increased activity of the Yuma Marine Corps Air Station, the present service area of the District has been reduced to 18,372 acres. Attached to this statement is a small map of the Irrigation District (Appendix A). The present farming area and for which irrigation facilities exist is indicated by a black line on the map. The area indicated in red is within the boundaries of the Irrigation District approximating 12,000 acres of undeveloped lands and for which no irrigation facilities have been constructed. Title to these lands are either in the State of Arizona or in the United States. Throughout the past years, and particularly since the encroachment of the City of Yuma has become evident, the District has been concerned with possible new developments in this area in order to spread our tax base and reduce operating costs for the whole district. In the past, the District has advanced funds to the Bureau of Reclamation in contemplation of feasibility studies to consider a possible alternative development of this area, either as a pumping district or part pump and part gravity development.

Section 103 (A) (2) of House Bill 12165 contemplates the purchase or exchange of 23,500 acres along a five-mile strip adjacent to the Mexican Border. This number of acres, it would appear, are in addition to lands still titled in the United States. This acquisition will take out approximately 7,040 acres of lands lying within our Irrigation District. As the attached map demonstrates, this taking will emasculate the lower end of our District and render further planning impractical. Under development by our District, we estimate this acreage to have had a potential full cash value for county and district assessments of some $42,240,000.00. The withdrawal, therefore, removes a potential asset to the District for which no compensation is possible. Since the Government presently owns the acreage, this loss to us under the present bill would go uncompensated. As an alternate to this provision, we would suggest that authority be given the Secretary of Interior to substitute an additional 5,000 acres of land which are adjacent to our present constructed works and which can be more readily brought into our service area. These lands are indicated in blue on the attached map. At the same time, we request that authority be granted to service this area by authorizing the use of any excess and/or unused capacity in the Gila Gravity Main Canal. This authority would remove technical objections to the use of these additional lands. To implement this exchange, we have prepared a suggested amendment to the Legislation which appears in Appendix B to this statement. We, therefore, respectfully urge that the Committee amend the bill accordingly. Thank you for your consideration.

Section 103 (A) (2) is hereby amended by adding thereto the following additional language:

66

Appropriate lands will be substituted by the Secretary for any lands removed from the jurisdiction of the Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District. Any excess or unused water capacity in the Gila Main Gravity Canal shall be available for use by the substituted lands."

Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness will be Mr. Frank M. Clinton, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of southern California.

STATEMENT OF FRANK M. CLINTON

Mr. CLINTON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Frank M. Clinton, and I am general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of southern California.