could be removed annually which would reduce total dissolved solids concentrations at Imperial Dam by about 9 mg/1.

The feasibility report on the La Verkin Springs Unit is undergoing an inhouse review at the present time. One alternative could consist of the diversion of normal riverflows around the area of the springs. The springs' flows could be pumped to a reverse osmosis desalting plant. The product water would be returned to the Virgin River, and the brine would be pumped to an evaporation pond near Hurricane, Utah.

The Littlefield Springs discharge along the Virgin River near Littlefield, Arizona. These springs have a combined outflow of about 6 cfs and contribute about 17,000 tons of dissolved solids to the river system annually. Feasibility investigations of this unit started in 1973 and are scheduled to be completed in FY 1976. Alternative plans have not yet been identified.

The Glenwood-Dotsero group of springs discharge to the Colorado River at opposite ends of Glenwood Canyon in Colorado. These springs are estimated to contribute 25,000 acre-feet of water and 500,000 tons of salt to the river annually. The removal of 200,000 tons of salt each year would result in the salinity concentration at Imperial Dam being reduced by about 19 mg/1. The investigations were started in 1972 and 18 separate saline springs were identified. Alternatives under consideration include deep well injection, plugging springs, collection and evaporation, and several desalting options. The feasibility studies are scheduled for completion in FY 1979.

Diffuse Source Control

Major diffuse sources in the Colorado River Basin include the Price, San Rafael, and Dirty Devil Rivers in Utah; McElmo Creek in Colorado, and the Big Sandy River in Wyoming. There is a paucity of data regarding these sources. Current efforts are directed toward data collection and research. Alternatives have not been fully evaluated at these sources.

The Price, San Rafael, and Dirty Devil Rivers originate in the mountains of the Wasatch and Aquarius Plateaus and are tributary to the Green and Colorado Rivers in east-central Utah. The estimated total dissolved solids contributed by the Price, San Rafael, and Dirty Devil Rivers are 240,000, 190,000, and 200,000 tons, respectively. The estimated annual removal of salt by various measures is 100,000 tons on the Price River and 80,000 tons each for the San Rafael and Dirty Devil Rivers. One alternative is to selectively remove the higher concentrated flows and evaporate or desalt them.

McElmo Creek is tributary to the San Juan River near the Colorado-Utah State line. Although the creek's drainage area is only 350 square miles, the salt loading is estimated to be 115,000 tons per year. Perhaps 40,000 tons could be removed by selective withdrawal and evaporation or desalting. Studies being made so far include measurements of return flow from irrigated areas near Cortez, Colorado, and possible impoundment and evaporation of Mud Creek, a tributary of McElmo Creek.

Big Sandy River in Wyoming contributes approximately 180,000 tons of dissolved solids annually to the Green River. Most of this salt enters the Big Sandy from numerous seeps in a particular reach of the river. It is estimated that about 80,000 tons could be removed by treatment of the more saline flows when the stream discharge is low. Because of the low winter temperatures in the region, it may be possible to apply natural freezing methods to treat the water. Water would be pumped from the Big Sandy River, sprinkled to produce ice piles, and then separated by natural freezing and thawing. A pilot plant is currently in operation to test this concept.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for giving us a very comprehensive report on the pending legislation and, although adverse, we appreciate your comments concerning title II. I am referring to title II of the bill that is pending before this committee which was introduced by a number of Basin State Congressmen. It deals with the problem of our treaty obligations to the Republic of Mexico in title I and with the broader problems of the Colorado River in title II.

I am sure that many questions will be asked of you concerning the activities that have heretofore taken place on the Colorado River, and some question in response to some of your statements here. So, if you could stay with us, we would appreciate it. I know you are being asked to be in two places, Mr. Secretary, and you will have to be the judge of which is the most important. This is a fairly comprehensive statement on the part of the Department of Interior and I am certain that many of our members here will want to go into it in some detail, as far as title II is concerned, and the position taken by the Department with respect to it.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am now making telephone arrangements to ask a former member of this committee to stand by for me at the Senate Interior Committee where they are marking up the BLM Organic Act. Assistant Secretary John Kyl will be there, so I think we are very well covered. Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON. We thank you for those arrangements because we would like to have you stay with us.

Now our next witness will be Ambassador William G. Bowdler, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.

I believe you received a new title since my witness list was made? Mr. BOWDLER. I have recently been assigned to Washington, Mr. Chairman, and that accounts for the new title.

Mr. JOHNSON. Very good, we are now ready to have your statement, Mr. Bowdler.

INTER-AMERICAN

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR WILLIAM G. BOWDLER, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. BOWDLER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and chairman emeritus of the committee, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to appear before you with Hon. Herbert Brownell, Assistant Secretary Horton, and Commissioner Friedkin, to recommend enactment of legislation to implement the agreement Mr. Brownell concluded with Mexico last August to resolve the Colorado River salinity problem.

That problem has been with us for some 12 years. Under the 1944 Water Treaty, the United States delivers to Mexico annually 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water. In 1961, highly saline drainage water pumped in the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District of Arizona began to enter the river.

About the same time, completion of storage works in the United States resulted in reducing flows to Mexico to about the treaty requirement. This combination of highly saline drainage and less excess water practically doubled the salinity of the water received by Mexico.

The Mexican Government protested that water of that salinity was not acceptable under the Water Treaty, and that its water was being contaminated contrary to international law. The United States began at once taking emergency measures to reduce the salinity, and the two governments joined in studies to find a solution.

In 1965, they concluded Minute No. 218 through the International Boundary and Water Commission. Under this agreement, the United

States gradually reduced further the salinity of the water delivered to Mexico, but in 1972, the salinity of that water was still, on an annual average, about 400 parts per million higher than that being delivered to U.S. users just across the boundary, and considerably higher than what it had been in 1961.

In June 1972, President Echeverria of Mexico visited Washington. He spoke before the Congress and with President Nixon. He asked for water of the same quality as that delivered to U.S. users on the border. The Department of State and the Department of the Interior advised the President that Mexico was entitled to water of a better quality than that of the water then being delivered.

The President, then-Secretary Rogers, and Dr. Kissinger, were all deeply conscious of the effect the problem was having on our relations with our good neighbor to the south, Mexico. Our closest friends in Mexico found themselves hard pressed to explain why the United States continued to expect Mexico to accept water so much more saline than that which our adjoining U.S. farmers were using. Mexican officials had suggested international adjudication of the issue. This procedure would have entailed delays and the outcome would have been uncertain. Mexico alleged extensive damages where Colorado River water was used for irrigation. Whenever an issue arose in our relations with Mexico, whenever opportunities appeared for cooperation between the two Governments, when our parliamentarians met in joint meetings, as they do every year, the salinity problem invariably confronted our spokesmen.

Determined to put an end to this controversy, President Nixon ordered an immediate improvement in the water being delivered, and appointed Mr. Brownell as his special representative to recommend a solution.

Assisted by an inter-agency task force, Mr. Brownell began an intensive review of the problem and a study of possible solutions. On December 28, 1972, he submitted to the President the report of which the committee already has copies. With the President's approval, then-Secretary Rogers presented the recommended solution to President Echeverria in May 1973.

That proposal became the basis of the agreement which Mr. Brownell concluded last August and which he has just described and assessed for you. The Department of State concurs in his views, and commends the agreement to the Congress with deep satisfaction.

We now turn to the Congress, Mr. Chairman, for implementation of the agreement. Many of its provisions are dependent on the construction of works or on other measures requiring the expenditure of funds. The agreement specifies that these provisions will not become effective until the Congress authorizes the funds for them.

The Department has accordingly submitted to the Congress the administration's draft bill which would authorize the minimum works and other measures necessary for performance by the United States of its commitments under the agreement.

The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Haley, has graciously introduced this bill by request, and that is H.R. 12834. The Department's letter to the Speaker, dated February 7, describes and analyzes the bill in detail and I will not attempt to repeat that analysis.

Commissioner Friedkin, the U.S. Commissioner on the International Boundary and Water Commission, who accompanies me, will describe the proposed works and other measures for you shortly.

H.R. 12165 is also before the committee. The chairman and members of the committee who introduced this bill regrettably did not have the Department's draft at that time. Speaking from the international standpoint, the Department recommends that the administration bill be substituted for H.R. 12165. The administration bill would authorize all the works and measures required for the implementation of the agreement with Mexico.

H.R. 12165 differs from the administration bill in three important respects. Section 103 of title I of H.R. 12165 would authorize a border well field entailing an added estimated cost of possibly $34 million.

Second, title II of H.R. 12165 would initiate an entirely new water quality improvement program above Imperial Dam, adding even more significantly to the amount being authorized for appropriation.

These two undertakings are not required by the agreement, and are not parts of the President's program at this time. They are essentially domestic rather than international programs. It would seem that if the committee wishes to take up such domestic matters, it might more appropriately do so in separate pieces of legislation.

Third, H.R. 12165 would assign jurisdiction over the proposed works and measures to the Department of the Interior. The administration bill would assign jurisdiction to the U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission.

The U.S. section is a Federal agency long experienced in construction having an international relationship. Its principal function is the implementation of the 1944 Water Treaty, including the construction and operation of those works necessary to manage waters in accordance with the treaty:

The salinity agreement, concluded pursuant to the treaty, requires the construction of such works. The treaty itself provides, in article 24, that "works constructed or used on or along the boundary, and those to be constructed or used exclusively for the discharge of treaty stipulations, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Commission or of the respective section ***"

In carrying out the construction of such works, the sections may, the treaty provides, utilize the services of public or private organizations in accordance with the laws of their respective countries. Therefore, because the proposed works and measures are along or on, or actually crossing, the international boundary, and because they are intended almost exclusively for the discharge of treaty obligations, the administration bill assigns jurisdiction to the U.S. section of the IBWC. The section would plan to utilize the Department of the Interior in the performance of most of the work.

Throughout the 12 years of controversy with Mexico, the Department of State and the Department of the Interior have worked in close consultation with the Colorado River Basin States.

At the State Department's suggestion, their seven Governors reconstituted a Committee of Fourteen to represent them in this consultation. The counsel provided by the committee has been of great value. Similarly, the committee has worked with Mr. Brownell and contributed to his success in finding a solution. I take this op

portunity, Mr. Chairman, to express publicly the Department's gratitude to the members of the committee and their respective Governors.

I repeat that I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. I shall be glad to join with Mr. Brownell and Commissioner Friedkin and Assistant Secretary Horton in trying to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Ambassador, you have given us a very comprehensive statement covering the problem in which we are most interested the United States-Mexican Agreement that has been executed. However, you have noted throughout that H.R. 12165 was developed in the committee and deals with other aspects of the salinity problems on the Colorado River.

I am somewhat familiar with that area, having worked there long before the all-American Canal or the Wellton-Mohawk was built, or for that matter, before much water was being used on the Mexican side. In later years, I have watched the development in the Mexicali Valley of the irrigation operations there, as well as their latest developments in the geothermal field for power generation. I have also served on seven of the interparliamentary groups with the Government of Mexico, where their legislators and our own legislators met first in Mexico and then in the United States, So I know how keenly they are looking for a solution to this problem, and they are naturally pleased to have reached an agreement on it. This concern goes back to at least two of their presidents before President Echeverria.

We have a obligation here to work and work very hard, for a solution to these problems, but we are as interested in title II of H.R. 12165, dealing with other problems, as we are the problems concerning the country of Mexico and ourselves.

I think we will now go to Mr. Friedkin, the U.S. Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission. Mr. Friedkin has much expertise on these matters and I am sure he has a very good statement for us.

There have been many problems between the two countries, but seemingly they have always been resolved. I hope this can be resolved,

too.

STATEMENT OF U.S. COMMISSIONER J. F. FRIEDKIN, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

Mr. FRIEDKIN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman Emeritus, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you with the Honorable Herbert Brownell, Secretary Horton, and Ambassador Bowdler.

I appear before you in technical support of the proposal for implementation of the Salinity Agreement with Mexico discussed by Mr. Brownell and by Mr. Bowdler.

My purpose is to summarize the works required to implement the agreement with Mexico, as provided in the bill H.R. 12834, and to review how these works would operate.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will limit my oral statements to the more important points in the bill. And I would also