MBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 MITTEE ON-pBIGATION OF AEID LANDS 
 CHOUSE e REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 SIXTY-SEVENTH ^CONGRESS 
 
 FOURTH SESSION 
 644 ON 
 
 S. 3808 
 
 A BILL AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 
 
 TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT TO CONGRESS UPON 
 
 THE COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT 
 
 DECEMBER 6, 7, AND 13, 1922 
 
 Or CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 JUN26 1958 
 
 LIBRARY 
 GOVT. PUBS. ROOM 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 122
 
 COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS. 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, FOURTH SESSION. 
 
 ADDISON T. SMITH, Chairman, Idaho. 
 
 NICHOLAS J. SINNOTT, Oregon. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona. 
 
 EDWARD C. LITTLE, Kansas. C. B. HUDSPETH, Texas. 
 
 JOHN W. SUMMERS, Washington. JOHN E. RAKER, California. 
 
 HENRY E. HARBOUR, California. HOMER L. LYON, North Carolina. 
 
 E. O. LEATHERWOOD, Utah. WILLIAM B. BANKHE AD, Alabama. 
 
 WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, South Dakota. 
 SAMUEL S. ARENTZ, Nevada. 
 MANUEL HERRICK, Oklahoma, 
 A. R. HUMPHREY, Nebraska. 
 
 II
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IREIGATION PBOJECT. 
 
 COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS, 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Wednesday, December 6, 1922. 
 
 The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Addison T. Smith (chairman), 
 presiding. 
 
 There were present before the committee: Hon. J. Stanley Webster, a Repre- 
 sentative in Congress from the State of Washington; Mr. Francis M. Goodwin, Assistant 
 Secretary of the Interior; Gen. George W. Goethals, consulting engineer, Columbia 
 Basin survey; Mr. J. B. Beadle, assistant to the Director of Reclamation; Mr. Ivan E. 
 Goodner, chief engineer, Columbia Basin survey, and Mr. Fred A. Adams, supervisor, 
 Columbia Basin survey, State of Washington. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Senate bill 3808, authorizing 
 the Secretary of the Interior to investigate and report to Congress upon the Columbia 
 Basin irrigation project, will be taken up for consideration this morning. We have 
 with us several gentlemen who are well informed in regard to this project, among whom 
 is General Goethals and Assistant Secretary of the Interior Mr. Goodwin. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the bill and the Secretary's report be 
 printed in the record. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. I was just going to say that the bill is short and I will read it, and 
 then read the report of the Secretary of the Interior, to whom the bill had been referred 
 for his views. The bill is as follows: 
 
 [S. 3808, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session.) 
 
 AN ACT Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to investigate and report to Congress upon the Columbia 
 Basin irrigation project. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
 in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to 
 investigate and report as early as possible, and not later than the 1st day of January, 
 1924, on the essential features of the proposed Columbia Basin irrigation project 
 referred to in the act of the Legislature of the State of Washington entitled "An act 
 providing for the survey of the Columbia Basin irrigation project, creating a commis- 
 sion therefor, denning its powers and duties, and making an appropriation, and 
 declaring that this act shall take effect immediately," approved March 1, 1919, in the 
 following particulars: 
 
 Its water supply and the permanency and sufficiency thereof; the approximate 
 watershed from which said water supply is to be derived and what, if any, natural 
 reservoirs, such as lakes, are available for the storing of surplus waters for the irrigation 
 of the land, the reclamation of which is contemplated by the said act, and any other 
 lands capable of being irrigated by the waters to be conserved through such project in 
 the said State of Washington or any other State; the character of the climate as it 
 affects the agricultural development of the said land; the transportation facilities 
 available therefor; the prospects and means of settlement; the engineering features of 
 the proposed project, stating point of diversion of the water to be used in the said 
 project and from what streams; the principal dam or dams which may be needed 
 therefor and the general location, nature, length, and character of such aqueducts or 
 canals as may be necessary for conveying the water to the lands to be irrigated thereby; 
 the cost and feasibility from an engineering and physical standpoint of such work as 
 may be required to accomplish the purposes of the said project, both in the aggregate 
 and the ultimate cost per acre to the land to be benefited thereby; and the views of 
 the Secretary of the Interior as to the general benefits to be derived from the com- 
 pletion of the said project in the way of markets for manufactured products, of 
 increased agricultural production, of opportunities for home building, and the effect 
 of the same, both upon the communities immediately affected and upon the Nation at 
 large, and such other matters as in the judgment of the said Secretary may be of 
 importance and pertinent to the proposed development.
 
 2 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PJROJECT. 
 
 SEC. 2. That for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act there is hereby 
 authorized an appropriation, from any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
 priated, of the sum of $100,000, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of 
 the Interior in making such investigation, studies, and report. 
 
 The bill was referred to the Secretary of the Interior by the chairman o>f the com- 
 mittee on the 22d of November, and I have his reply as follows: 
 
 NOVEMBER 28,. 1922; 
 
 MY DEAR MR. SMITH. Replying to your letter of November 22, I heartily approve 
 of the legislation proposed in S. 3808, authorizing investigation of the Columbia 
 Basin irrigation project. The State of Washington has expended $150,000 in an inves- 
 tigation of this project under an enactment that contemplates later reference to the 
 United States. 
 
 The benefits and values that would be created by the irrigation of this large tract 
 demand a determination of the feasibility of the project by the United States, and 
 for this reason a substantial sum is necessary. 
 
 In addition to the assimilation of data obtained by the State of Washington, there 
 yet remain a number of matters requiring further investigation and consideration to 
 enable me to prepare report contemplated by S. 3808. The amount named is neces- 
 sary for this purpose and I hope the measure will become law. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary^ 
 Hon. ADDISON T. SMITH, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Judge Webster, do you wish to make any statement? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Has there ever been any other hearing on this subject? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. No; not before this committee. The bill was before the Senate 
 committee and hearings were held on July 10 last, printed copies of which are avail- 
 able. There is also before the committee the report of George W. Goethals & Co. on the 
 project, and also report of the Columbia Survey Commission of the State of Washington. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. J. STANLEY WEBSTER, A BE PRESENT ATI VE 
 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, answering your question, I should like to> make a 
 very brief statement in connection with'this bill. % 
 
 As the Members already will observe, the bill merely authorizes an appropriation; 
 it does not make a direct appropriation. It is not necessary for me to enlarge upon 
 the rules regulating the powers of the legislating committees of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives or the powers of the Committee on Appropriations. You will readily see 
 that we would have no standing before the Appropriations Committee in any effort 
 to secure this appropriation without in advance having secured an authorization, this 
 being a new project. 
 
 We also realize that we have the laboring oar in convincing the Appropriations 
 Committee in the first instance, and the Congress ultimately, that this appropriation 
 is justified, but in order to have any standing before that committee in that under- 
 taking it is necessary to have this authorization bill passed. 
 
 We do not intend to call a great array of witnesses before your committee; rather 
 we expect to have a small array of great witnesses. We have Assistant Secretary 
 Goodwin, of the Interior Department, who will represent Secretary Fall, and who is 
 quite familiar with this project. He was designated by the Secretary of the Interior 
 to go over the project and get such facts and data as were necessary to enable the Secre- 
 , . .1 T , r * . D , . . n ^i :-j j-Li of this 
 
 bill, and he is peculiarly in a position to give the committee essential information. 
 
 We also have General Goethals, who was employed by the State of Washington to go 
 over the project and make a personal inspection and survey of it. It is not necessary 
 for me to pause to speak further of this than to say that General Goethals is present and 
 will testify at length in the premises. 
 
 We also have Mr. I.E. Goodner, the State irrigation engineer of the State of Wash- 
 ington, who is an expert in irrigation engineering matters, as well as in the general as- 
 pects of irrigation, and who can give the committee detailed data and the benefit of his 
 personal connection with the project from its very inception. 
 
 We also have Mr. Fred A. Adams, who is the supervisor of the Columbia Basin proj- 
 ect under the laws of the State of Washington. He will be in a position to give the com- 
 mittee any general information concerning the measure that the committee may de-
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 3 
 
 I should like, if I may be permitted to make the suggestion, to say that we would 
 prefer to have Mr. Goodwin called first, then have General Goethals, then Mr. Goodner,. 
 and finally Mr. Adams. 
 
 We endeavored to secure the presence here to-day of Director Davis of the Recla- 
 mation Service. He was in the West at the time but contemplated returning to the 
 Capital on the 4th of this month. Later his plans necessarily were altered and he will 
 not be able to return until Sunday of next week. If the committee desires his pres- 
 ence we can arrange to have him come at a day which will be suitable to your conven- 
 ience. 
 
 WTien the bill was under consideration in the Senate, Director Davis appeared and 
 testified, and his testimony is reported at length in the printed hearing of the Senate 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Beadle, the assistant to the director, is present to represent him and can per- 
 haps give the committee assistance if you care to have it from that source. 
 
 I think at this time, Mr. Chairman, I shall not take further time of the committee. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear Mr. Goodwin, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS M. GOODWIN, ASSISTANT SECRE- 
 TARY OF THE INTERIOR. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want first to express the regret of 
 the Secretary that he could not be present in person to explain his reasons for indorsing 
 the passage of this particular measure, but he is tied up over in the Appropriations 
 Committee on something else which he considers of great importance at the present 
 time. 
 
 I might also say, however, that the Secretary asked me to come over and represent 
 the department, and to speak for him as well as myself in this matter. I believe it 
 would he fitting and proper as a general introduction to this proposition to say that 
 the Columbia Basin is simply a part and a parcel of a general reclamation program in 
 which the Interior Department is interested. 
 
 As you are aware, the Interior Department has approved the passage of other 
 measures. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. What do you mean by the "passage of other measures' '? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. I will refer to that in just a mimite. Of course, the Interior Depart- 
 ment has been heartily in favor of the continuation of the present reclamation policy, 
 which will probably bring into reclamation a million or more acres ultimately. 
 
 \Ve have also. I believe, indorsed the Smith-McXary bill, a general reclamation 
 policy for smaller projects. 
 
 We have, also, as I recall, indorsed or made a favorable report perhaps that would 
 be a better statement with reference to the Colorado Basin, another project which 
 will perhaps bring into irrigation ultimately, if it is carried out, a couple of million 
 acres of land. 
 
 Then finally the Secretary has indorsed the Columbia Basin project, another project 
 which will, if adopted and successfully carried out, bring into reclamation probably 
 more than 2,000,000 acres of land. This is part of a general policy. There is no con- 
 flict between these propositions in, any sense whatever. 
 
 I might state generally that I think the reason back of this can be very readily 
 seen. It is apparent that during the past few years that there has not been much 
 additional acreage placed under cultivation in the United States. It has been esti- 
 mated that the increase in population that is, the normal rate birth over the normal 
 death rate, exclusive of any immigration, for the United States, is 1^ per cent. On 
 that basis in the next 20 years we will have an increase in population in the 
 United States of somewhere from twenty-five to thirty millions. In order to care for 
 those twenty-five or thirty millions, on the basis of the past experience and on the 
 basis of past production, it would be probably necessary to put under cultivation 
 a very large acreage, estimated as high as 6,000,000 acres per year. You may cut 
 that 6,000,000 acres in two on account of the fact that a portion of the present acreage 
 not now cultivated will be cultivated in the future, and intensive cultivation may cut 
 it down still more. Reduce your acreage to the minimum of a million acres per year, 
 and in the next 20 or 25 years it will require a tremendous acreage of twenty to 
 twenty-five millions to produce the food supply for the normal increase in the popu- 
 lation of the United States. 
 
 In addition to that. I might call attention to the fact that Secretary Hoover recently 
 in a speech before a convention at Boston made the statement that the United States 
 is going to be called on for many years to come to provide a very large food supply for 
 Europe. In fact, he estimated that 60 per cent, I believe the figures were, of the total 
 exports of the United States for some years would probably be food supplies. This
 
 4 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 statement is borne out to some extent by the recent publication by the Department 
 of Commerce of the statistics for the year ending June 30 last, wherein it appears that 
 notwithstanding a depreciation in the value of these commodities of exported some- 
 thing like $600,000.000 the quantity for that fiscal year was greater than the preceding 
 fiscal year. It is Mr. Hoover's estimate that until Russia is again put on her feet, 
 which will be a slow process, even under favorable conditions, there will be a heavy 
 demand upon the United States for food supplies. So that the basis of this reclama- 
 tion proposition is the demand and the necessity for increasing the area of agricultural 
 lands under cultivation in the United States, and it must come out of our abandoned 
 farms, our logged-off lands, our swamp lands, or our semi-arid desert land in the Far 
 West. 
 
 I believe the 'agricultural interests are beginning to appreciate this themselves. I 
 noticed a little memorandum here on the table with reference to a resolution passed 
 at a recent national convention of a farmers' organization in the United States, 
 unanimously recommending the passage of the Columbia Basin bill, which is now 
 before you for consideration, on that very ground. 
 
 So at the present time there is need of a vision of the future agricultural needs of 
 the United States, just as 20 years ago when you started the reclamation policy, which 
 has resulted in something like 2,000,000 acres being actually placed under irrigation 
 under Federal project. There is need now for a bigger program and a wider vision, 
 and the basis of it is the demand for additional agricultural lands, and, in the opinion 
 of the Secretary of the Interior Department, the most feasible place at the present 
 time to begin work on this program is to continue the use and the maximum use of 
 the organization that has already been built up by Congress, the Reclamation Service, 
 for the purpose of reclaiming all possible semiarid lands in the West. The Columbia 
 River Basin is one of those projects. 
 
 Last summer I had the privilege of going over this project. I spent a month exam- 
 ining into a good many details. I went over this tremendous watershed that is shown 
 over here in Montana and Idaho [indicating on map], running up into British Colum- 
 bia. I went down the old route that was followed by the Lewis and Clark Exposition, 
 down to Spokane, down on to the land, over it; I went up on a high bluff at one end 
 of this project where I could get a bird's-eye view of it, and then went on to the coast, 
 and the more I saw of the project the more the report prepared by the State of Washing- 
 ton appealed to me. I just want to refer very briefly to some of the general features 
 of it, leaving all the details for the engineers, who are much more competent to speak 
 on such features of it. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Out of what funds were your expenses paid on this examination? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Out of the contingent fund. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That is the $100,000 appropriation? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. In the Interior bill? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That is for investigation of secondary projects? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. I think that is the purpose of it. Mr. Beadle can tell you about 
 that. 
 
 Mr. BEADLE. I think it was the contingent fund for the Department of the Interior, 
 not for reclamation. You refer to the reclamation fund? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Yes; I am referring to the annual appropriation that we make for 
 examination. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. No; it did not come out of that. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. It was not out of the reclamation fund? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. No. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Goodwin: Why could not the 
 Department of the Interior, through the Reclamation Sen-ice, make all these exami- 
 nations, if the contingent or the secondary appropriation was large enough? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Well, they could, if it was large enough, but at the present time every 
 available dollar is doing duty; in fact, the money is insufficient. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I know, but "what I mean is this: The committee could make that a 
 million dollars as well as $100,000. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Undoubtedly they could. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And then if the Reclamation Service desired to make an investigation 
 of a project of this kind, it would be authorized under the law to do so. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. There is no question but what that could be done if it was broad 
 enough. The situation as I see it is simply this: That this is a project 
 
 Mr. RAKER (interposing). What do you mean by "broad enough?" I would like 
 to know the distinction between a large project and a small one. Now. just what is 
 the difference?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 5 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. This is the distinction that the Secretary had in mind, and the reason 
 this bill was proposed: That the entire irrigated area for 20 years' reclamation service 
 is less than this one single project. If this project is taken up by the United States it 
 would involve an advancement of some sort of a good many million dollars, running 
 uplperhaps to $250,000,000 ultimately before the project could be fully developed. 
 It is a project of such magnitude in one single item involving as much as that of 20 
 years' actual work, that it ought to be taken up separately and submitted to the 
 committees of the Congress and have the approval of the Congress to this extent before 
 anything should be done in the way of expenditure of money, especially in view that 
 if it is not followed up it would mean a loss of those particular funds. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Is it the viewpoint of the department that these appropriations should 
 be added to and a thorough investigation made, that eventually this shall become a 
 Government reclamation project? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIX. That is the proposition. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And the funds reimbursable? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIX. Reimbursable funds. That is the proposition. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. What is the size of this contingent fund you referred to? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. I do not recall that, Mr. Sinnott. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. What was your expense account? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Something like $150 or $160, outside of transportation. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. How would we be able to get you out in other parts of the West to make 
 investigations? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIX. Well, you might influence the Secretary to send me put there. I 
 am not averse, once in a while, to making investigations, particularly in California. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That sounds all right. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Especially in the winter season. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. GOODWIX. I just want to call attention to a few of the general features that I 
 met up with. You will notice in looking at this map that there are four transcon- 
 tinental lines already traversing this area. In addition I found roads or highways 
 already built: I found conditions ready for actual settlement, matters which under 
 the ordinary irrigation project 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH (interposing). You say transcontinental railroads? 
 T Mr. GOODWIX. Yes; the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern, the Milwaukee, 
 and the Union Pacific. Then you will notice they are traversed north and south, as 
 well as east and west, by railroads. 
 
 Then there was no question in my mind about the climatic conditions or about the 
 soil. You will notice right to the west is the Yakima project with which you are all 
 very familiar, a project of 100,000 acres approximately. 
 
 The soil on this particular project, according to the analysis, is of the same general 
 nature as the Yakima soil, and within this project there are a number of small irri- 
 gated tracts, principally by pumping, which show that the soil will produce very 
 abundantly. 
 
 Then a little to the northwest is the famous Wenatchee district, closely bordering 
 on the northwest edge of the Big Bend territory. 
 
 Then down below is the Sunnyside district, running down to Wapato. Part of 
 this is within the Indian reservation. So the territory around it has been tested by 
 actual production of a variety of crops. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The pink section there, which is practicall> a reproduction of the 
 map of Texas, is the land to be irrigated, is that right? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. That is the large body of land. Then right here, north of Spokane, 
 is another small body of approximately 60,000 acres. The area, of course, is not 
 near so large as the State of Texas. The entire area is about 3,000.000 acres. 
 
 So that, as far as one can judge by general conditions, the transportation, the soil, 
 and the climate, and the production of a variety of crops is absolutely an assured 
 fact. 
 
 Mr. SINXOTT. Is that larger than this map? This, I see, gives the figures 1,750.000. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. That is the proposed irrigable land under the gravity system. That 
 is embraced within the 3.000.000 acres. 
 
 On the smaller map, marked in blue, is the 1,753,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. And these are tracts that are not irrigable [indicating]? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Those yellow tracts are the ones that they have not taken into 
 consideration at all. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. The entire area is 3,000.000 acres, but the irrigable area is 1,753,000 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes; by the gravity system. I will refer to that in just a minute. 
 The CHAIRMAN. These colors represent the land that can be irrigated by pumping?
 
 6 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIX. The pink; yes. The green over there I suppose that is green I 
 may be color blind is the ]. 753,000. the pink is some three hundred odd thousand 
 which can be irrigated by pumping out of the ditches or reservoirs of the gravity 
 system, and the yellow embraces land not considered because not as high class as 
 the pink and green, some of which, however, is susceptible of irrigation and can be 
 used for grazing and other purposes. 
 
 In fact, in my opinion, one reason for asking for this appropriation is to ascertain if 
 there can not be added a very large area to the State's estimate, which is very con- 
 servative. In making its estimate the State included only lands estimated to bear a 
 total cost, of at least $200 per acre to place under reclamation and dispose of to settlers. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Is this all Government land? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. No; my recollection is that about 5 per cent of it is public land, about 
 5 per cent of it X. P.. about 4 per cent belongs to the State. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. What do you mean by "N. P."? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Northern Pacific Railroad. And the rest is in private ownership. 
 About half of the privately owned land 1 think is in small tracts and the other half 
 averages a little over a section. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Let me get that again. How many acres will you irrigate by pumping? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. 1,753,000 acres, according to the State's estimate, by gravity without 
 pumping. Then there are several hundred thousand acres additional by pumping 
 from the ditches under the gravity system. Then there is an additional acreage out 
 side, of not as high class land, some of which will come under gravity and some under 
 pumping. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I suppose someone here can give us exact figures? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. I think Mr. Goodner can give you those exact figures 
 
 So to my mind, as far as general facts as to this irrigation project are concerned, the 
 situation is most favorable. It is a favorable situation from the tested viewpoints 
 established by the reclamation policy of the United States. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How do the elevations compare with the elevations at Sunnyside? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. The elevations run a little lower at some points than at Sunnyside. 
 they run from about 2,000 down to 500 feet at Pasco. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is Sunnyside? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. I do not know. Mr. Goodner, do you know? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It ranges from 600 up to 1,000. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Sunnyside does? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What are the maximum elevations in the Columbia Basin? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. The elevation for the irrigable land runs under 2,000 down to 500. 
 Mr. Goodner can give you those exact figures. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is the rainfall there? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. About 7 inches, I think, on an average. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Do vou not mean there at Walla Walla it is only about 500 above sea 
 level? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. It is about 500 at Pasco. That is down on the Columbia River. 
 Another proposition that I was quite interested in, and of course we are all, is the 
 water supply and the problems that grow out of that. You will notice a number of 
 large lakes here [indicating on map]. 
 
 Now, the proposal of the State is to store water in Flathead Lake in Montana and 
 in the Pend Oreille Lake in Idaho. There is also a proposition to store water in 
 Priest Lake in Idaho, which is also tributary to the Pend Oreille River, but this vv as 
 not considered by the State and is one of the matters requiring further consideration 
 and investigation, for this reason: There is a tremendous amount of water power 
 which can be developed from these streams. The development of this project will 
 create a demand for power development as well. It is estimated, I believe, that 
 there is something over 2,000,000 horsepower possible of development in connection 
 with these waters. That is theoretical horsepower. I do not known what it actually 
 will be. The question of storage would ha\e something to do with power develop- 
 ment, as it would provide a larger water supply at the low-water season for that pur- 
 pose, the low-water season coming after the irrigation season has closed, along in 
 December and January. There is a possibility of this working out in harmony for 
 the mutual benefit of both. There would be ample storage in the two lakes, Flathead 
 and Pend Oreille, according to the figures prepared by the State, something like 
 2,500,000 acre feet, coupled with the normal flow to provide abundant water, not 
 only for lands in the Columbia Basin in Washington but for any that may be irrigate 
 in Montana or elsewhere. In Montana I found in the \icinity of Kalispel that 
 there is in the neighborhood of 150,000 to 300,000 acres, according to the State en- 
 gineerhis estimates varied that can be probably placed under irrigation.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 7 
 
 Montana proposes storage on some of the tributaries to the Flathead Lake to care 
 for this acreage. I believe an investigation of this proposal is contemplated under 
 the provisions of this particular bill and is one matter that should be further investi- 
 gated so as to provide the maximum use of these waters, not only for this particular 
 proposition but for any other irrigation proposition anywhere in the vicinity of these 
 waters. 
 
 Then, -in that connection is the question of power development, about which I have 
 spoken. Since I made my trip the Federal Power Board has made a report upon 
 the use of the waters of the Columbia River. The said board concedes that irrigation 
 has first place over power, and the reason for that is very apparent: This water has 
 run to waste for years and years and will continue to do so for years yet to come 
 so far as power is concerned unless there is a market for it. The only real project 
 that would develop a market for the consumption of this power is the Columbia Basin 
 proposition. It would provide not only a market for local consumption of power, 
 but the additional traffic with all parts of the United States would create further der 
 mands for power for transportation. 
 
 You are perhaps aware that the Yakima country alone, a year ago, I think it was, 
 developed something like 17,000 carloads of freight, carrying the products to every 
 part of the United States and bringing products and manufactured articles from every 
 part of the United States to that section. The Yakima project is many times smaller 
 than the proposition known as the Columbia Basin, and the latter would mean a 
 tremendous volume of freight arid a tremendous volume of business to every portion 
 of the United States. To carry that freight will create a market for power. The 
 Milwaukee, as you know, is now electrified, and the other railroads will probably be 
 electrified. The Columbia Basin project will thus develop a market for power and 
 help to develop that resource as well as irrigation of arid lands. I believe the in- 
 vestigation of power is contemplated by this measure in order that the irrigation 
 proposition may get the benefit of any such possible power development which might 
 properly be associated therewith, taking into consideration, of course, the vested 
 rights that have already accrued along these waters. 
 
 So that as far as the water proposition is concerned, based on statistics gathered by 
 the Government as to rainfall and stream flow, covering, 1 believe, from 19 to 30 years, 
 the facts are ample to justify the statement that there is ample water for the needs of 
 everybody. The State's computations, I may add, were based on the use of water 
 in the Yakima Valley, where the same character of land is found. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What is the heavy blue line there? Is that intended to be the ex- 
 terior boundary of the water shed? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes; that is the exterior boundary of the water shed. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That only runs around to the upper portion. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. There is a little part of it that runs up into Canada; the rest of it is 
 in Montana and Idaho, and a little portion of it over in Washington, in the Kaniksu 
 Forest Reserve. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But none of the territory west of that line is included? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. No. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Nor north? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Nor north. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Do you contemplate providing in this investigation an investigation 
 of the flow of water in and about the Flathead Lake and within this watershed terri- 
 tory, as to water for irrigation and for electric development, and still supply the 
 Columbia Basin tract of land? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, there is ample water for all those purposes and to permit the 
 normal flow to continue down the Columbia into this little bend of the river on our 
 Canadian frontier [indicating on map]; so that Canada will still have the normal flow 
 of water at the low-water season. 
 
 The Columbia River proposition as it stands this is a matter you are familiar 
 with has a flow greater than that of the diversion dam at Yuma on the Colorado 
 according to the figures in the Federal power report. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is the outlet of the Flathead Lake? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. The Flathead River, flowing down this way [indicating]. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Where does that flow to? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Into Clarks Fork, into the Pend Oreille Lake, out of the Pend 
 Oreille Lake into what is known as the Pend Oreille River and then into the Columbia. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Pend Oreille what is the outlet of that? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. The Pend Oreille River. Here is Clarks Fork running into Lake 
 Pend Oreille [indicating] and then the Pend Oreille River running into the 
 Columbia and on down to Portland.
 
 8 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then you do not take any water at all west of the Pend Oreille Lake, 
 do you. except at the diversion point here? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIX. Under the gravity system the proposed diversion point is right 
 here [indicating]. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is what point, now? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. That is at Albany Falls, right across the Idaho line. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And all that territory west is not used as a water shed at all for this 
 system? 
 
 ' Mr. GOODWIN. No; the flow into the Columbia River that would be used all comes 
 east of that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What is the reason there is none of that water used west of there? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Because it flows into the Columbia River beyond the point of 
 diversion. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. There is no chance to take it up again? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. No; the only chance of taking that up is the proposition of building 
 a dam in the Grand Coulee and lifting the water some 500 feet or more, and then 
 carrying it to the land from that point. 
 
 The State has adopted the gravity proposition for the reason that it brings in more 
 acreage; that there are no unusual engineering propositions that have not been solved 
 in other reclamation propositions; that the cost of maintenance is lower and there 
 is less liability of a breakdown. As to the pumping proposition, however, there is 
 still some question and that is one of the maters that will have to be settled by the 
 report contemplated by this bill, so there will be no dissatisfaction as to the selection 
 of gravity as against the proposed pumping proposition. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. After you get all this surveying done and estimated, what arrange- 
 ments have you now or what steps have you taken that is, the State of Washington 
 and these people interested so as to know when you get through that they will have a 
 water right as against any subsequent development in Montana and in Idaho? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. All these waters have been reserved for this purpose. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. They all flow into the Columbia River? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. They all flow into the Columbia River, yes, sir; a navigable stream. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. How do you mean they have been reserved? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. The Federal Power Commission has covered that matter fully in its 
 report, and this report concedes that over and above all the vested rights that may 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You do not quite get me. That may all be true, but somebody will 
 come in later, private individuals and otherwise, and what effort has the Government 
 made or Government officials or the State of Washington to get a prior right to dispose 
 of this water? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. I do not think the State has made any appropriations of water, 
 because there is no method by which that could be done. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But they could make application. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Nothing has been done nothing that I know. This water is simply 
 available and will be disposed of by the Federal Government if this proposition is 
 carried out. There may have been some appropriation made, but none that I know of. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I do not quite get you as to how the Federal Government can dispose 
 of the water claims in Montana and Idaho. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. You mean under the State laws? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. There are no appropriations in conflict at the present time, and there 
 could be no appropriations made under either the Idaho or the Montana or the Wash- 
 ington State laws which could be carried into effect, because there would be no bene- 
 ficial use. The projects are too large for any private individual or private organization 
 to undertake. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Don't those States generally give preference to the use of water for 
 irrigation purposes over power? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, this project was formerly known as the Big Bend 
 project 10 or 15 years ago? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. That was just a portion of this particular project; the land is now 
 embraced in this, and the data covering that is included in the State's investigation. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Where is the Horse Heaven project? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. That is down in here some place [indicating on map]. 
 
 So much for the water and power end of it, unless there are some other questions. 
 
 Now I want to refer to another proposition which I have already indicated, and that 
 is the question of cost. The question of additional acreage also requires further inves- 
 tigation, as I have stated. In connection with that, I may say that State engineers
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 9 
 
 have made a survey of the Columbia Basin project at a cost of $150,000, including 
 explorations for the dam site proposed at Grand Coulee, and the running out of levels. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Where is that darn site? 
 
 Air. GOODWIN. That dam site will be right in here in the Grand Coulee [indicating]. 
 That is for the pumping project. This is the gravity project. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. At Newport? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, at Newport, or right beyond. In making its surveys, the 
 State ran out the levels and I do not think there is any question about the amount 
 of land of a highly desirable character coming under the project. Under the State's 
 plan and estimates water will be carried to every 40 acre tract, something which has 
 not been done under all the Federal reclamation projects. So that it is very diffi- 
 cult under the present figures to compare the estimated cost with Federal projects, 
 One of the things to be done if this bill is passed and the money is made available, is 
 the assimilation of all the data prepared by the State, so as to compare it and make a 
 proper analysis for the consideration of Congress as to the cost per acre and obtain any 
 data "necessary to fill any gaps that may exist in the State's data to comply with the 
 Federal standards. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Roughly speaking, what has been the estimate as to the entire cost of 
 this project, including dam and canal, without the smaller laterals? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. I think General Goethals's estimate was $145 an acre for the 1 ,753,000 
 acres, which would be something like $250.000.000. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That includes the lateral system, carrying the water onto the lands in 
 every instance . 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The State has appropriated about $150,000 the State of Washington? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That money has been used? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. That has been expended in making these surveys and investigations. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What is the State going to do to meet the proposed authorization of 
 S100.000 by the Federal Government? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. The State made their appropriation, as I understand it, for the pur- 
 pose of making the preliminary investigations, obtaining all this data to submit to the 
 Federal Government, then leaving the matter in the hands of the Federal Government. 
 So far as I am advised, they do not propose to duplicate this in any way for the purpose 
 of completing the investigation. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. They will not meet them fifty-fifty? 
 
 Mr. GOOODWIN. No; I think they consider they have already expended their "fifty" 
 on it by the $150.000. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What have they done that would be available for the Government 
 engineers? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. They have made a complete survey and have obtained all the data 
 as to the water supply. That is available. They have run out all the levels for this 
 entire area in detail for every tract of land. That is available. They have run out 
 the proposed lines of diversion, not only for the main canals, but some of the smaller 
 canals; they have partly investigated secondary storage and have a large mass of 
 other data available. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is going to be the size of the farm unit? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. I imagine in the neighborhood of 40 acres. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is the Reclamation Service now providing for the delivery of water 
 to edch unit? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. They are at the present time, but they have not in the past, and it 
 is hard to compare figures on that basis. In addition the State has explored the 
 dam sites by borings they have all the available data for that. They have all the 
 data as to the climate, the rainfall, the production, and things of that sort, all of which 
 is available. 
 
 So that at the present time, in nay opinion, what remains to be done in the way 
 of investigation includes the lands in Montana, the possible storage in Priest Lake 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT (interposing). You mean the land in Montana for irrigation? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. For irrigation, outside of this area. The possible storage at Priest 
 Lake: the amount of this particular area here right north of Spokane, which is not 
 included in that 1.753,000 acres: the question of secondary storage within the project 
 itself, which has not been completed, for the purpose of carrying water at flood season 
 for storage on the land, so as to enable a reduction to be made in the size of the main 
 canals, thus reducing the cost of the project. 
 
 Mr. HCDSPETH. At what depth did you secure water by boring? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. They bored right down by the Columbia River for the purpose of 
 exploring the dam site there, not for the purpose of securing water. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Not for pumping purposes?
 
 10 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Xo. they had to put in a dam some 200 feet high and then lift water 
 some 400 feet into a lake, an artificial lake, and carry it from there to the land under 
 the pumping proposition. In addition, some investigation and report is required on 
 the proposed settlement proposition. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. The State has also examined the soil in every section of land in the 
 project. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes. they have included every section of land and have complete 
 data and reports covering that proposition. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. They have a soil survey. 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. So it is to assimilate that data, to fill in the gaps, that the Secretary 
 has asked this appropriation be made, so that complete data will be available for a 
 report to the Congress in due course with such recommendations as are proper in the 
 premises for future legislation. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is any of that land in cultivation now. the area in pink? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Down in this country [indicating] a part of this land has been 
 cultivated at different times by dry farming, but as I drove over it I came to one 
 after another, almost a continuous stream of abandoned farms that had been failures. 
 From a high point near Corfu I could see a large area of this land, and it looked like 
 a checkerboard where the land had been cleared of sagebrush but since abandoned. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is that 640-acre land? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. These lands were mostly entered under the old homestead law, 160 
 acres, and some desert land, 320. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. If it were not taken up, would it be land susceptible of 640 entry, 
 in the absence of the irrigation possibilities? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes. Of course there is only 5 per cent, as I say, of the total area 
 still public land, and very few tracts of that size within it. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is it. sagebrush land? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Sagebrush land. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Any bunch grass on it? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. Yes; the bunch grass grows very luxuriantly in places. 
 
 Xow, I think I have covered the subject. It there are any further questions. I 
 will be glad to answer them if I can; otherwise I think these other gentlemen can 
 give you details much more readily than I can. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. General Goethals will now address the committee. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEN. GEORGE W. GOETHALS. CONSULTING ENGI- 
 NEER, COLUMBIA BASIN SURVEY. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I was employed by the State of 
 Washington to make an investigation of the Columbia Basin project to determine its 
 feasibility and cost feasibility so far as the engineering structures are concerned . 
 
 I went over the area, though I had been over it before, and checked up all the data 
 that had been obtained by the State and all the drawings that had been prepared for 
 the various structures. It is the most complete mass of information that I have ever 
 seen collected by anybody for any project. 
 
 The soil has been carefully examined by experts; the entire area has been cruised 
 by experts; all sections or portions of land on which there was rock which would have 
 to be removed in order to make it suitable for cultivation was excluded in deter- 
 mining the area that should be put under cultivation. Portions of those lands are 
 indicated on that right-hand map by the yellow color. A number of acres of land with 
 the stone removed would become just as valuable land for farming purposes as that 
 colored in blue or green. 
 
 They have excluded from the area which will be irrigated all portions of the territory 
 for which pumping is required, and they have based their project on the gravity 
 system of irrigating the lands, deriving the water from the Pend Oreille and Flathead 
 Lake by storage. They have figures out the size of the canal, lined them all with 
 concrete throughout, so that the structure as far as the canals are concerned is perma- 
 nent. 
 
 They have crossed the river where necessary by siphons, and they have figured out 
 the level that will be required for that purpose. 
 
 They have designed the structures where some conduits will carry across the Spokane 
 River* 
 
 The only part of the project from an engineering standpoint that is lacking is com- 
 plete data as to the character of the territory through which some of the tunnels are to 
 be put in crossing the mountain ranges. 
 
 We checked up their costs, we checked up their rainfalls; we checked up every- 
 thing, all the data that the State had, and we came to the conclusion, on account of the
 
 COLUMBIA BASEST IRRIGATION PROJECT. 11 
 
 character of soil and the climate and in comparison with the Yakima and the Wenat- 
 chee that it was a worthy project for completion. 
 
 The project is so big that the State could not finance it; private bankers would not 
 undertake it, and I place it in the same class with the Panama Canal and the Alaska 
 Railroad. In each of those cases the Government, after investigation, determined that 
 it was a project worthy for the Government to undertake, and authorized its construc- 
 tion. 
 
 Those are, in general, my remarks on the subject, though I am ready to be examined 
 as to the details if you desire to do so. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. As to the storage in Flathead and Pend Oreille Lakes, will there be 
 any interference with local interests by raising the level of the lakes, and will there be 
 objection to that in other places? 
 
 General GOETHALS. There has been no objection raised here, and the estimate 
 contemplates the purchase of all lands that will be overflowed by the raising of the 
 lakes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. The diversion is of what character? That is, is it a dam? 
 
 General GOETHALS. It is a dam; yes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Is the dam very high? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I do not remember the height of the dam. It is a natural dam 
 there, a canyon. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It will raise the average water 14 feet. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. A comparatively simple structure then? 
 
 Mr. GOETHALS. Yes: the foundation is good. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. What is the size of the main canal? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I do not remember that. That is all given in the data. I 
 have not checked up on that. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. There would be a large main canal, which would practically be a 
 river? 
 
 General GOETHALS. It would practically be a river; yes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Does the main canal pass through a very rough country? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; you have got to tunnel and you have got to build siphons 
 in order to get to the land. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Those are inverted siphons? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Inverted siphons; yes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. I imagine then that the construction of the main canal from Newport 
 to the land to be irrigated would be one of the very large items of cost? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; now we considered the question of a partial develop- 
 ment. The State had discussed that, but if a project of this kind is warranted at all, 
 it is warranted to the full extent. The ultimate cost will be less, and while some of 
 the tunnels while one tunnel might be constructed and the other could be made 
 later on, we advocated the construction of the entire project, and the money should 
 be made available for that purpose so that the work could be economically carried 
 forward. You get very little results until after you have brought the water to your 
 area here [indicating]. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Now the success of the Wenatchee and the Yakima projects primarily 
 has been by reason of the great apple-growing industry. You could not expect to 
 grow apples on 1,750,000 acres of land. 
 
 General GOETHALS. No; diversified farming is what you want on 1,750,000 acres of 
 land, and what you want on the Wenatchee and Yakima is diversified farming for 
 the success of the farmers. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Is the growing season between frosts longer on the proposed project? 
 
 General GOETHALS. It is longer on the Columbia River Basin than it is at Yakima 
 or \Venatchee. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. I visited the Flathead Indian project in Montana two years ago, 
 and being familiar with irrigation in the Southwest I noticed that the land was as 
 fine, that the structures were permanent, and it was apparently an excellent irriga- 
 tion system, but it seemed to me that since the growing season was so short it 
 affected the feasibility of the project. 
 
 General GOETHALS. But that would not affect this at all 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Because of the lower elevation? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Because of the lower elevation; yes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I see the M. and O. charges are given here operation and mainte- 
 nance at 48 cents per acre per annum. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; that is the gravity project. We examined into the 
 pumping project also, and as between the two we favored the gravity project. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Well, that is very cheap, is it not, in comparison with most of the 
 Government reclamation projects?
 
 12 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; you have got your concrete lined canals, very heavily 
 reinforced concrete canals too heavy, I think I accepted their concrete dimensions; 
 you have got steel structures for your inverts; you have got everything of a permanent 
 character. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Do you know the general average of the Government project for 
 operation and maintenance? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I do not know of any Government project that has been con- 
 structed which has been constructed on the basis on which this is planned. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is your general average, Mr. Beadle; much higher than that, is 
 it not? 
 
 Mr. BEADLE. It is between $1 and $2, I suppose, per acre of irrigable land. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Under gravity, but when it comes to pumping it runs up sometimes 
 to $3 an acre. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Does this include the pumping, 48 cents per acre, or just gravity? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No; there is no pumping in that. That is all gravity. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. On the Salt River project in Arizona we have profited very materially 
 by the fact that there has been a surplus of power for sale which created a revenue for 
 the project which has materially reduced the assessments necessary to levy on the 
 water users. Is there any possibility of developing power in connection with this 
 project which would aid in paying off the cost of its construction? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes, in the gravity project, but not to such an extent in the 
 pumping project. The pumping project, which contemplates the construction of a 
 dam across the Columbia River just at the Grand Coulee, and then pumping the 
 water into the lake here [indicating on map], would give a large excess of power which 
 they contemplate would reduce the cost ultimately to the farmers, but that requires a 
 pumping plant which is novel and new, the cost of maintenance and operation will 
 be greater and the chances of breakdowns greater and make the whole thing more 
 complex. I favored the other, both as to the number of acres that could be irrigated 
 and the cost of operation and maintenance. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How many second-feet will it require to irrigate this project, both by 
 gravity and by pumping? 
 
 General GOETHALS. How much is it, Mr. Goodner? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. The diversion at the maximum season is 20,000 cubic feet per 
 second. That covers 1,750,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. And the other, the pumping? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. With the 300,000 which can be pumped upon you will build that 
 up by about 5,000 second-feet more. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That will be about 25,000 second-feet all told. 
 
 Mr, GOODNER. Provided there is no development of secondary storage. That is 
 something I should like to take up in detail when my turn comes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. You have paid more attention to the engineering feasibility, I 
 assume, General, than you have to the economic feasibility? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes, sir; I satisfied myself that it was warranted at the cost per 
 acre $145 provided the land could be secured at $5 to $15 an acre, which they assured 
 me was a fact. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMSON. This $145 per acre does not include the first cost of the land? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No; that will be from $5 to $15 per acre. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Does it include the removing of the stones from that portion you 
 mentioned a short time ago? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No; that is entirely excluded from consideration in this project. 
 All that land which would require removal of stone is excluded from the 1,750,000 
 acres. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What are the stones, gravel or lava flow? 
 
 General GOETHALS. There is some lava, some bowlders, and some gravel. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEW . I notice, General, that the bill provides that the report shall be made 
 not later than the 1st of January, 1924. This bill was originally introduced in the 
 Senate perhaps a year ago. Do you think that all the information required to be 
 assembled could be properly gathered together and submitted to Congress in so brief 
 a time as one year? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; because of the data they have got already available in the 
 States. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. There will be no extended investigation in the field which would 
 take considerable time? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No. The questions that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior 
 brought up are the questions that will have to be determined, the question of the 
 use of the Pend Oreille and Flathead Lakes and the water supply, which I did not 
 touch upon but I assume that there will be no trouble about that.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 13 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is the general average of the private holdings, the area? 
 
 General GOKTHALS. That I do not know. I can not tell you that. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. General, I wish you would go a little more into detail as to the 
 feasibility or otherwise of the proposed dam and pumping project. 
 
 General GOETHALS. The dam project across the Columbia River necessitates the 
 construction of a dam high enough to give adequate water over the entire area. That 
 dam there [indicating]. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What point is that? 
 
 General GOETHALS. That is just below the Coulee, on the Columbia River. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. That is at the head of what is called Grand Coulee. 
 
 General GOETHALS. The water there is pumped into a lake that will be created by 
 the Grand Coulee, and from there it will flow by gravity over a portion of this area. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How high is the lift there? 
 
 General GOETHALS. It is six hundred and some-odd feet. By additional pumping 
 they can get an additional area of land under water. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. How far is that from Wilber? Is that north of Wilber Grand Coulee? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It is 20 miles due north of Wilber. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I see it here on the map. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Would it be possible to build a dam high enough in the Columbia 
 River to back the water up and avoid a large amount of pumping? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. How high would the dam be in the Columbia River to generate power 
 for pumping? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Dam No. 3 provides an effective head of 211 feet. No dam 
 greater than this has been considered, as it would back water above Kettle Falls, 
 besides causing more extensive overflow. Kettle Falls is already under Government 
 ownership. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMSON. Would silt be a problem in any part of this proposed project? 
 
 General GOETHALS. In the pumping project? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMSON. Either in the pumping project or in the gravity project. 
 
 General GOETHALS. In the gravity project there would not be so much silt; no. 1 
 do not think that is an obstacle there. I do not think that it would count much in the 
 Columbia River pumping project, either. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. General, before they take your attention to something else I still 
 wish you would go a little more into detail in regard to the dam and the pumping 
 projects. 
 
 General GOETHALS. I am looking for that now. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, this dam is north of Wilber on the Columbia River, is it? 
 
 General, GOETHALS. Yes; on the Columbia River. It dams the Columbia River, 
 and there are three propositions. Here are Kettle Falls [indicating]. Dam No. 1 
 provides an effective head of 123 feet and contemplates the use of hydroelectric units. 
 This dam, without other storage delivered at the dam from above in amounts that can 
 be accurately calculated and depended upon, would give a shortage of power, even 
 for pumping purposes, for 10 of the months of the 9-year record of river flow available 
 for our study, so that is knocked out. 
 
 Dam No. 2 means an additional height of dam, providing an effective head of 175 
 feet, which is the minimum head capable of operating the direct connected two-stage 
 pumping units contemplated over the irrigation season. 
 
 Dam No. 3 provides an effective head of 211 feet, which comprises a hydroelectric 
 installation. No dam of greater height has been considered, as such would back 
 water above the lower pool at Kettle Falls, aside from causing more extensive over- 
 flow damages. 
 
 The dams discussed lie within feasible limits of consideration. Dams of less than 
 211 feet effective head would scale in cost within the limits set up for the three types 
 under comment. The comparison furnished by these three is therefore regarded as 
 sufficiently comprehensive for present purposes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. General, you spoke of a lift of 400 feet. Where is that? 
 
 General GOETHALS. The pumping plant for the 211-foot dam is unprecedented, 
 consisting of 17 units, each with a capacity of 1,000 second-feet, against a head of 
 407 feet. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Do you consider it economically feasible to lift water that high? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Well, they have got plans for it. It is an untried proposition. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Just in that connection, I happened to investigate the matter and 
 I saw a letter from Cramp & Son saying that they could furnish pumps to lift water 
 over 600 feet, and they claimed it was economically feasible to do that. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Furniehing how much water? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Oh, enough water to irrigate 83,000 acres.
 
 14 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 General GOETHALS. These pumps are specially designed for this purpose by the 
 Allis-Chalmers Co. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Does that mean that there are a series of pumps to boost the water, 
 one after the other, or do they expect to do the pumping all in one operation? 
 
 General GOETHALS. All intone operation. In order to get the necessary amount of 
 water it will require 176 of these pumps. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Is it estimated that the life of such large pumps would be long- 
 that is, would the depreciation be about the same as on an ordinary pump? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I do not know. The pumps would have to be built for the 
 purpose. Assuming that they worked satisfactorily from the start, they would prob- 
 ably last the same length of time as any other pump. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Would these pumps be operated bv electricity or the water power 
 itself? 
 
 General GOETHALS. By electricity generated by the water power. 
 
 This pumping plant would irrigate 1,403,000 acres of land of this project; then by 
 a second series of pumps, lifting the water 200 additional feet, they would get an 
 additional acreage of 454,000, or a total of 1,857,000 acres, but unfortunately the 
 additional acreage is not classified by the former chief engineer of the State com- 
 mission as irrigable lands. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I do not quite get this. There is how much land now to be irrigated 
 by gravity, General? 
 
 General GOETHALS. One million seven hundred and fifty-three thousand acres. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is marked on the plat. Now, how much by pumping? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Additional under the gravity project or the pumping project? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Pumping. 
 
 General GOETHALS. The pumping project direct, 1,403,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And with the addition that you speak of, another 400,000 acres? 
 
 General GOETHALS. But not all irrigable lands? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. So it would be about one million four hundred thousand and some odd 
 acres. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Comparable with 1,700,000 of the gravity project. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Where is that land located that is to be irrigated by gravity? 
 
 General GOETHALS. There it is [indicating on map]; all of that area in there in- 
 cluded some of the land in yellow which was excluded because of work which will 
 have to be done on the land before it could be cultivated. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The reason I ask you that question was, I was using a small map here 
 that was issued by the Columbia Basin project and I did not see all that. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Is it your judgment that it would be better to undertake the gravity 
 development from Newport rather than this proposed pumping scheme at Grand 
 Coulee? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Your recommendation is to that effect? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes, sir. Of course there is opposition to that, so now the 
 commission ought to settle that question. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Opposition to what? 
 
 General GOETHALS. To gravity in favor of the pumping plan. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. What is the reason for the opposition, if practically the same area is 
 to be irrigated? 
 
 General GOETHALS. It is not the same area to be covered. Of course you frequently 
 have advocates for different methods of doing the same thing, and they become very 
 strongly in favor of their respective plans. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Has an estimate been made of the cost per acre of irrigating by 
 pumping? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes, we made an estimate of it $159, Dam No. 1, which does 
 not give you enough; $163 for No. 2, as comparable with $145 an acre. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. The smaller figure is gravity? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No, the smaller figure, $159, is Dam No. 1. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. But the maintenance and operation costs thereafter for pumping 
 would be greater? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I beg pardon, $144.99, which is the smallest of all, General, is the 
 gravity. 
 
 General GOETHALS. The gravity, yes; without any pumping. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That includes the canal, dams, and structures? 
 
 General GOETHALS. That includes all structures down t,o the falls.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 15 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Commencing from Albany Falls down to Hillcrest and the distribution 
 to the farms? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Does it include storage at Flathead and Pend Oreille also? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now I understand from your statement that from Albany Falls dam, 
 from the Pend Oreille River on down past Spokane on to the territory described, the 
 survey as to the storage, dams, tunnels, and clear on down to the tract to be irrigated, 
 has been sufficiently surveyed and estimated to find its cost and whether it is feasible? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And the thing necessary well, the same is true with reference to the 
 1, 2, and 3 dams No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 on the Columbia River, relative to 
 pumping? 
 
 General GOETHALS. They have made investigation borings there. If I were to 
 undertake a pumping project I would make some additional borings there. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. To see whether the dams would stand? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But what is required now, as I understand from your analysis of the 
 data furnished you, General, is of the lakes, the Pend Oreille Lake and the Flathead 
 Lake over in Montana and Idaho. 
 
 General GOETHALS. That water-diversion question has got to be settled. I did not 
 touch that at all. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That will be as to the amount of water? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No; the amount of water is available. The right of Washington 
 to withdraw from Idaho and Montana water to go into those two States that question 
 I have not touched upon. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That has already been settled by decision of the Supreme Court 
 between Kansas and Colorado and Wyoming. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. How is that? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That has already been settled by a recent decision of the Supreme 
 Court in a case between Wyoming, Kansas, and Colorado. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That Washington if it is ahead can appropriate water? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. They say in an appropriation in States the same rule will hold regard- 
 less of State lines; the man that makes the appropriation gets the beneficial use and 
 has the same rights regardless of State lines as he would have in the State permitting 
 the appropriation. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, that being the premise to start from, did you in your investigation 
 make any analysis to see whether or not the State of Washington has any pretended 
 claims or alleged claims to the waters of Idaho or Montana? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I did not. I assumed that the State of Washington would be 
 able to draw the water from Pend Oreille and Flathead Lakes, on the assurance of 
 statements made. I did not go into that question at all. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And, of course, from the prior statement, it would be necessary to 
 follow' that you would be unable to say how much of this water would be required to 
 be drawn off for the two eastern States? 
 
 General GOETHALS. That is right. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, about how much electric energy is developed by these projects? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I did not go into that at all. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Did they not have that data? Now I think there are seven tunnels 
 there? 
 
 General GOETHALS. There are seven tunnels. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Coming from Albany Falls down to the Hillcrest end of the supply? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. I did "not go into the power question. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Could you give off-hand 
 
 General GOETHALS (interposing). Mr. Goodner, I think, can give you something on 
 that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Just a question on that. Could you give off-hand the approximate fall 
 from Albany Falls down to Hillcrest? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Two hundred and sixty-five feet. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That would be almost a continuous supply of water, would it not? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; that is a continuous supply of water, but you are going to 
 make canals only large enough to carry water for irrigation purposes; at certain seasons 
 of the year perhaps nearly all of it will be used for irrigation. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How long is this canal to the project from Newport? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. One hundred and thirty miles. 
 
 2541022 2
 
 16 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. Now, this 20.000 second-feet that is needed to irrigate by gravity, you 
 mean that is 20,000 second-feet at the project or at the intake at the dam? 
 
 General GOETHALS. At the intake. 
 
 Mr. SIN NOTT. Do you make any allowance for evaporation? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; but it is a very small amount for seepage, because it is all 
 concrete. Even the tunnels are lined with concrete. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. And it flows very rapidly. 
 
 General GOETHALS. It flows rapidly. 
 
 Mr. HATDEN. Is there any limit to the lift by pumping that water can be raised 
 for irrigation purposes, assuming that you have very cheap power? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Theoretically not; practically yes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. What are the practical difficulties? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Mechanical difficulties in the pumps themselves. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. In other words, the pump would wear out so fast that it would not 
 pay to install it? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes well, it is the quantity of water you have got to raise 
 and the mechanical difficulties that come in, due to the construction of the pumps. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Everybody else knows but, General, what is given to you from the 
 State of Washington report as to the head of navigation up the Columbia on to the 
 Snake River that goes through this territory? Was that considered? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I did not consider that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You did not go into the question of navigation? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No; I did not go into the question of navigation of the Columbia. 
 I looked into the question of the effect on navigation by the construction of this dam 
 under the treaty rights with Great Britain and concluded that the dam if constructed 
 there would have to have a lock in it unless the existing treaty were modified. 
 
 Mr. RA.KER. For what purpose, for the fish to go up? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No, for the protection of navigation of the river. Under the 
 provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain no obstructions 
 to navigation of that river may be permitted. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then what is the highest point of navigation on the Columbia River? 
 Does it go up into Canada? 
 
 General GOETHALS. It can be made navigable to Canada by a series of locks and 
 dams over the falls, just as they dd through the Cascades. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. If I may interrupt, just above Pasco is where we have the open river 
 usually at this time, and we have some rapids that interfere here. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Under the treaty between Canada, or the British Government, and 
 the United States, these dams, 1, 2, and 3, that have been spoken of, could not be 
 put in permanently? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Well, you would have to pro-side for navigation. The treaty 
 between the United States and Great Britain requires the Columbia River, between 
 the international boundary and the ocean, to be kept open for navigation. That is 
 a treaty provision. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. As a matter of fact the British do not navigate down there. 
 
 General GOETHALS. No, but they maintain that must be an open river for naviga- 
 tion purposes, and the time is coming when that will be the case. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Of course we can not just take this treaty and throw it away like a 
 scrap of paper. 
 
 General GOETHALS. No, you can not do that. Great Britain would not let us do it. 
 I doubt very much if Great Britain will allow us to build that dam without some 
 provision for navigation. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is the reason I was asking. 
 
 General GOETHALS. I doubt if Great Britain will consider the abrogation of that 
 treaty, because it gives her some rights which in the future may be very vital to her. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. So, as a matter of fact, the pumping plan is almost eliminated? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No, the pumping plan is not eliminated if you provide a lock 
 in there to accommodate navigation. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. How much would that add to the expense? 
 
 General GOETHALS. That I do not know. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Would that just mean the navigation of craft without any other utiliza- 
 tion of the river as it relates to fish going up? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Oh, it is outside of the fish going up. Navigation of the river 
 means boats going up and down the river. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It does not include also the right of the fish to come up? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No, I guess not. The fish do go up. You can put fish ladders on 
 your dam and the fish will go up.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 17 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But can you build them that high? 
 
 General GOETHALS. You might try it. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But that is very important. We have that question involved now,. 
 General. What is your judgment as to that? It is vitally important. Matters in- 
 volved like that and others must be considered. How high can you build fish ladders? 
 
 General GOETHALS. That I do not know. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Your engineering experience has not gone into that? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I thought I would get an opinion from you now in advance. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. General, Isn't there a project there at Priest Rafrpids? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes, there is a project there at Priest Rapids. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Does that pink overlap on that? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Well, that is where there is some discussion of a project, the 
 Priest Rapids project. It will overlap this. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Have they done any work there? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. The project contemplated is on the opposite side of the Columbia 
 River. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That is the Pierce Project? 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. General, do I understand that the dam that will supply the water 
 by gravitation will not be sufficient to irrigate that body of land there in pink? 
 
 General GOETHALS. This pink area here [indicating on map]? 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Down here [indicating], this entire body. It will not impound 
 sufficient water there to irrigate that land? 
 
 General GOETHALS. You can by pumping. You can irrigate all of this down here 
 [indicating]. You see there is the part that will irrigate. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. I understand you are building two dams here, one for pumping 
 and one for gravitation? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No, there are two projects, two projects for irrigating part of 
 that area. One of them is by damming the Columbia River and then pumping the 
 water to an artificial lake and allowing it to come down by gravity, the other is the 
 construction of a dam with canals, the entire length of which will be gravity. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. That would be sufficient to irrigate how much? 
 
 General GOETHALS. One million seven hundred thousand acres of land, by gravity 
 plan. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But the dam would only be constructed in the event you wish 
 to irrigate additional land? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No, you do not get it yet. That is the land in pink on the 
 large map. There are two projects; one is a gravity project and the other is a pumping 
 project. The gravity project contemplates the construction of a dam for storing 
 water in Pend Oreille and another dam for storing water in Flathead Lake. They 
 are low dams. The water then comes down through these canals by gravity. There 
 is no pumping in either of these. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. No, but this gravity system water is 1,753,000 acres? 
 
 General GOETHALS. By the gravity system, yes. Now that is one. The other plan 
 is the construction of a dam across the Columbia River. Your water source is then 
 the Columbia River and you must pump that water to an artificial lake from which 
 the water will by gravity come over a certain portion of this area, 1,400,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Then, under the dam that you speak of over on the right there you 
 would have no complications with the British Government, would you? 
 
 General GOETHALS. None at all. and you have no difficulties with pumps. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You will not have both the pumping and the gravity systems? Is 
 that correct at the same time? 
 
 General GOETHALS. If you take your water supply from the Pend Oreille with the 
 storage that may be required from the Flathead, you get no pumping whatsoever 
 for the 1,700,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. But by putting in the dam there you have to pump? 
 
 General GOETHALS. By putting the dam there you have got to pump all the water 
 required for irrigating 1,400.000 acres from the Columbia River. Is that clear, now? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Yes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. General, your estimates of cost per acre of $145 was based on the 
 gravity system alone that is, the two lakes? 
 
 General GOETHALS. The two lakes, yes; the construction of a dam here [indicating] 
 to raise that for storage purposes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. And if you wish to bring in 400,000 additional acres represented 
 by the land there, you would have to build storage?
 
 18 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 General GOETHALS. To put in the pink you have got secondary storage from which 
 you pump to the additional acreage. That is right. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but which would be supplied from this dam you propose to 
 build? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No; still supplied by this water. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. It is no alternative proposition. 
 
 General GOETHALS. No alternative proposition. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes, I see. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. And you would not in any event have to have them both to cover 
 all of this pink land, or practically all? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No; you would not have to have them both; you would have 
 one or the other. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. But the one will irrigate about 300,000 acres less than the other. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes, sir: by gravity alone. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Are these vertical lines intended to cover this area. I see they run 
 out there. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That is the fault of the blueprinting. That is faulty blueprinting. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. But that entire pink area is intended to be in the vertical lines? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, the gravity system and the pumping systems are two 
 separate 'independent methods. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Of accomplishing the same result. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Irrigating the same class of land. 
 
 General GOETHALS. But it does not, you see. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Practically the same. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Practically the same tract of land. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. And one costs" $145 per acre and the other $159? 
 
 General GOETHALS. $163. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now on the gravity system I see on the map before me and the one 
 there, we still pump into Canada relative to the water on the Flathead and the Pend 
 Oreille. 
 
 General GOETHALS. You have got your Pend Oreille going into Canada there. 
 That is where you pump into Canada, yes, but you do not deprive them of any water. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is the reason I wanted to ask that question. It would not affect 
 the natural ordinary flow of the water in any way so as to affect the Canadian rights 
 to the water in the Pend Oreille River, which is one of the main branches of the 
 Columbia? 
 
 General GOETHALS. That is right, one of the main branches of the Columbia River. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. And by the gravity system you irrigate 1.753,000 acres? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Without pumping. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Without pumping, but by putting in secondary pumps you irrigate 
 how many acres? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Four hundred thousand additional acres. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. And that will irrigate 2,100.000-odd acres? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. Then you can get an additional amount if you will 
 clear some of that land of the stones and so on. That is entirely excluded from our 
 figures. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Just by way of summing up, although the general has covered this, 
 I would like to ask this question: All things considered, treaty rights, water flow, 
 engineering difficulties, and all of those problems, which of the two, including the 
 amount of land to be irrigated and the cost which of the two projects appeals to you 
 as the more feasible? 
 
 General GOETHALS. The gravity project, and I so recommended to the State. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, did you go into the climatic and soil conditions any at all, 
 General? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; as exhibited by their records. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. From the amount of land to be irrigated, taking the gravity system 
 without any pumping, is it your judgment, from the thorough investigation that you 
 have made," that the project is feasible? 
 
 General GOETHALS. It is. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. It would justify the expenditure? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes, sir. I am an enthusiast. You must take that into con- 
 sideration when you consider my attitude. I went out there doubting; I came back 
 a strong convert. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Now, you took into consideration the fact that this money, in addi- 
 tion to the original price and cost of the land, would be added to the land and that
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IBHIGATION PROJECT. 19 
 
 these people who obtained the water would pay back to the Government the money 
 invested? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Did you figure on any reasonable rate of interest that should be 
 charged up in the construction of the project? 
 General GOETHALS. I did not. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. What would be your judgment on that? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I thought the Government ought to bear the interest on account 
 of the return that the Government would get in other ways from it. I regarded it 
 after I went over it as a national project. The Government would get its returns 
 through taxation, not only in that section of the country, but all over the United States , 
 and I felt that the Government ought to absorb the interest on the investment. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Now, in addition to your answer to the question that I have just 
 propounded, there is an additional value that would come to that locality and to the 
 Government generally by way of development of electric energy, is there not? 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; very much. 
 Mr. SUMMERS. That you are not able to say? 
 General GOETHALS. No; I am not able to say anything about that. 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Are any of these people here in a position to say that? 
 General GOETHALS. I think Mr. Goodner will be able to answer that. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Where will these secondary pumping projects be? You can develop 
 water power at those points? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; you can develop water power at those points for that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is the market value of the land there at White Bluffs? 
 General GOETHALS. I can not give you that. The State assured me that all that 
 land could be acquired at from $5 to $15 an acre. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I mean land under irrigation now. 
 General GOETHALS. Oh, I do not know. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Under the State soldier settlement act it is from $300 to $500 an acre 
 with the improvements that the State is putting on the land. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. 300 to $500 an acre? 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Land that is in orchard? 
 Mr. GOODNER. No, sir: that is first-class farming land. 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Including what improvements? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. We put on a four-room house, barn, the usual outbuildings, and a 
 well and electric pump adequate for irrigating 20 acres. 
 The CHAIRMAN. And what rate of interest? 
 Mr. GOODNER. Four per cent. 
 Mr. HAYDEN. How long do the payments extend? 
 Mr. GOODNER. Twenty years. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. This is State settlement for the soldiers? 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. General, it is not contemplated that it would be necessary to buy 
 any land excepting for the right of way and damages around the lake? You do not 
 contemplate buying any land within the project? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I was thinking of settlement. I had in mind the question of 
 settlement, whether the project would pay on the basis of the farmer that buys land 
 from $5 to $15 an acre. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Those already owning land there of course would have water and 
 pay for it. The Government would not have to buy any land? 
 General GOETHALS. Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. A gross charge of $200 an acre spread over 20 years would be $10 per 
 acre a year. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Do you think the land would stand a charge of $10 an acre a year? 
 General GOETHALS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Of course if interest has to be charged and the payments amortized 
 say, over 40 years, the annual payment would still be but $10 an acre. 
 
 General GOETHALS. I have asked Mr. Goodner to get data on that feature of it. 
 He will be better prepared to answer that than I. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Does your investigation present this fact, gentlemen, that these peo- 
 ple or that that territory as represented by the people that now own it, that it is 
 practically all privately owned land except about 5 per cent I call railroads pri- 
 vately owned land that it will be subject to taxation for the purpose of paying this 
 cost back to the Government?
 
 20 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION" PROJECT. 
 
 General GOETHALS. I think it should. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It should, but what arrangement has been made? What is there to 
 determine now that this land will be, that these people will be obligated to pav this 
 money back to the Government for construction of this project? 
 
 General GOETHALS. I can not answer that question. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You mean will they be willing to go into a project or irrigation dis- 
 
 General GOETHALS. Oh, they can not. They have got no monev. Nobody would 
 finance it. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I mean they would if they had the promise of the Government. 
 General GOETHALS. Oh, they would if they could. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, what assurance is there now up to the present time to 
 the Government that this territory will be subject to the lien of the Government for 
 the money expended? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. They would be willing to organize themselves into an irrigation 
 district? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Mr. Goodner can answer that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I assumed that, Mr. Sinnott, but I wondered whether or not that had 
 been done and was part of the general investigation. 
 
 General GOETHALS. No; I was investigating the feasibility of the project from an 
 engineering standpoint. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I was going a little further, as to the practicability so far as the Govern- 
 ment is concerned with assurance of full repayment. 
 
 General GOETHALS. Mr. Goodner will take that up. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. It has not been reached yet, Mr. Raker. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What would be the water duty on this land, General? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Do you remember that, Mr. Goodner? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Thirty-three inches net delivered. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Per acre? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. It varies from 24 inches on part of the land to as high as 5 
 feet on some of it. Every section is classified as to its actual net requirements, and the 
 average on the total is 33 inches delivered. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How much is that in acre-feet? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That is 2f acre-feet. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is rather excessive, is it not? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Better too much than too little. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Find out while you are on that, Mr. Sinnott, as to what arrangements 
 the general made in his investigation as to drainage. 
 
 General GOETHALS. We looked into that. There is a natural drainage all through 
 that country. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And that would not be a large expenditure? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. They did not anticipate originally the necessity of drainage. They 
 used to think the settlers could do that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is the reason why I have asked the general if he figured that in 
 this instance. 
 
 General GOETHALS. There is a map in the original report showing that drainage. 
 You see all of this land was originally drained by nature. That is the formation of the 
 land. It was at one time entirely submerged, so it naturally drained itself and it left 
 the drainage canal still there for us. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Grand Coulee is supposed to have been the old Columbia River bed? 
 
 General GOETHALS. That is one of the traditions. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Is the land under the project generally rolling? 
 
 General GOETHALS. Yes; it is rolling. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. It is not level like our deserts in the Southwest? 
 
 General GOETHALS. No. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is that a sandy soil like the Kennewick country? 
 
 General GOETHALS. It is like the Yakima and Wenatchee. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other questions, we will excuse the general. We 
 appreciate your coming here, General, and giving us the information that you have. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, General Goethals made quite a comprehensive 
 report of his studies on this project to the department of conservation and develop- 
 ment of the State of Washington, and I should like to ask to have that report made 
 a part of the hearings, not for printing unless the committee desires it, but for such 
 use as the committee and members generally may care to make of it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the reports of General Goethals will be 
 incorporated in the hearing.
 
 COLUMBIA BASEST IRRIGATION PROJECT. 21 
 
 Shall we adjourn now until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning? Do you think we can 
 finish to-morrow? 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. I believe we can if we could meet at 10 o'clock. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Why not go on now for a while? 
 The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. Goodner will now address the committee. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. IVAN E. GOODNER, CHIEF ENGINEER, CO- 
 LUMBIA BASIN SURVEY, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the other gentle- 
 men who have spoken to you are known to you, but I will have to introduce myself. 
 My name is Ivan E. Goodner, at the present time chief engineer of two divisions of 
 the Washington State department of conservation and development. In that depart- 
 ment we have the Columbia Basin survey, with which I have been associated for 
 four years, and we also have a score or more of irrigation and drainage projects in 
 the State, all of which are in active operation or construction, and all of which come 
 under our direct supervision. 
 
 I have been engaged in irrigation or power construction exclusively since 1901, 
 and frankly I do not know much of anything except those two lines. 
 
 When the Columbia Basin Commission started its work under the appropriation 
 nearly four years ago it was at that time thought that the project-construction cost 
 would probably run to $200 an acre. We therefore knew that we must pick out for 
 irrigation only those lands which under any fair plan of financing would stand a cost 
 of $200 an acre. With that in mind we got Mr. Guy C. Finlay, who was then project 
 manager under the Reclamation Service of the Tieton project, one of the units of the 
 Yakima project, together with F. W. Welch, who was with the United States Recla- 
 mation Service on the Big Bend project, and they spent nearly a year in making a 
 detailed classification of every section of the 3,000,000 acres which geographically 
 lie within the project, classifying those lands and rejecting those which would not 
 stand $200 an acre. We found that 60 per cent of the land would apparently stand 
 such a cost, giving us 1,753,000 acres. That is shown on the second map in the green 
 shading. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. W 7 hat do you mean by the green? 
 Mr. GOODNER. Green or blue, depending upon your eyes. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That looks blue to me. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. The remaining 40 per cent was partially too high to be reached by 
 the gravity lines and partially land which would require considerable labor before 
 it would be available for irrigation. The lands which are first class but too high are 
 seen in pink. They can be reached by what we call "secondary pumping," under 
 either the gravity or the primary pumping alternate plans. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How high will you have to pump to the pink? 
 Mr. GOODNER. The maximum lift to reach any of the pink areas is 150 feet. 
 At the same time that the land was being classified for its agricultural quality a 
 classification was being made by the same people as to the water duty required on 
 the lands. This varied on the higher areas in this end, the north and east portion 
 of the project, which now occasionally gets a successful wheat crop, from about 24 
 inches net duty, to the area in the extreme southwest and the extreme south, where 
 it is completely desert, and at the present tome small pumping projects are using 
 5 feet of water. We found an average demand, as I stated before, over the entire 
 project, of 33 inches. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is 24 inches 2 acre-feet? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes; 2 acre-feet. It varies from 2 to 5 acre-feet. 
 Mr. RAKER. I never noticed it before, but just looking now, about half of that 
 land is already irrigated. 
 Mr. GOODNER. Not on that project. 
 Mr. SUMMERS. None of this is irrigated. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I was looking over here at this map, existing irrigation areas, State of 
 Washington, and then I look at this map and see the same thing. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. The legend is unfortunately misleading. Here the green represents 
 existing projects; on this one the blue or green represents irrigable by gravity, of 
 the highest class. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I was just casting my eye from one map to the other and I thought 
 that showed the same thing. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Taking the water total estimated in that way we found that there 
 was a total requirement of nearly 6,000,000 acre-feet. In arriving at that we have 
 allowed for losses aggregating 20 "per cent. On a concrete-lined system 20 per cent
 
 22 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 loss is excessive. We do not expect really that we will get any such loss as that, 
 but to meet the average loss on other projects and to avoid criticism that we have not 
 been conservative, we have allowed for nearly 20 per cent losses. Those losses were 
 estimated, each kind in particular, the seepage in the different areas, the evaporation 
 in the different areas, the losses in failure to adequately control deliveries, and all 
 those various things which enter in. 
 
 Coming then to the two sources of water which could supply such an amount as that 
 we find first the Columbia River, where it can be supplied by pumping to a gross lift 
 of 615 feet. That gross lift would be divided, as General Goethals has said, by 200 
 feet lift by dam, and pumping 415 feet more; or, as was suggested at one time, the total 
 615 feet might be made by one dam, if such a thing were feasible. That would result 
 in putting the great smelters and mines up here in Canada, the Canadian Pacific 
 Railroad, and so forth, under two to three hundred feet of water. That is a minor 
 matter, of course, in connection with a dam 615 feet high. 
 
 Two hundred and eleven feet head is the highest that we can go without meeting 
 objections, which the State's attorney general had told us would be insuperable. 
 
 The other alternative was to get the gravity diversion somewhere from the Pend 
 Oreille River. You are all more or less familiar with the Colorado River. For 20 
 years past its average flow has been between 16,000,000 and 17,000,000 feet per year; 
 the Pend Oreille River, which in the East at least is rarely heard of, is a good deal 
 bigger stream. Its average flow over the same 20 years has been more than 19,000,000 
 acre-feet. Of that 19,000,000 acre-feet 
 Mr. SINNOTT (interposing). How many second-feet is that? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That varies from a minimum of 2,500 to a maximum of 140,000 
 second-feet. Of course the variation is not nearly so great as on the Colorado, but the 
 gross annual flow averages considerably more. 
 Mr. RAKER. At what point do you figure that? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That is at our point of diversion at Newport, and the Colorado as 
 reported near Yuma. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. So that as it gets down it adds a great deal more to it? 
 Mr. GOODNER. There is very little water added to the Pend Oreille River. 
 Another question has been asked, why we get no run-off here [indicating on map]. 
 We can not get any run-off because there is no rain. Even if these streams were high 
 enough so that they could be diverted on this land, they have no flow, clear up here 
 to Republic. As is shown in the State report, we get a rainfall of only 7 to 10 inches. 
 The CHAIRMAN. Don't you get snow in the wintertime? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. All the rainfall that we get comes in the winter as snow. We get 
 none in the summer. 
 The CHAIRMAN. No rain at all? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. No; there is no run-off to those streams. 
 Mr. RAKER. That is, all that northeastern part? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes; the minute you come to the Pend Oreille River, from there 
 eastward throughout the entire watershed, you get up then into the enormous snow- 
 falls, so that from this area, which is 24,000 square miles inside the blue lines, we get 
 an annual run-off of greater than 19,000,000 acre-feet of water. That comes sometimes 
 in tremendous floods; in fact, May and June of every year in the record have shown 
 floods greater than the total storage which we could possibly make in all the lakes of 
 that country. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That has the same effect after it passes the Grand Coulee until it gets 
 clear on down to where it joins the Snake River? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes; but the effect of the Pend Oreille floods is largely masked in 
 the Columbia River, because the Columbia, coming from the north, from British 
 Columbia, has a flow of from eight to ten times larger than the Pend Oreille, so that 
 the Pend Oreille flood happens to come simultaneously with the Canadian run-off, 
 it does not raise the Columbia by itself to a flood stage. 
 Mr. RAKER. Is it ordinarily the case that they do not meet? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Ordinarily they do not meet, because the Canadian boundary runs 
 from two to five hundred miles the Canadian run off two to five hundred miles 
 farther north, and it comes nearly a month later. These Montana areas you see are 
 way down to the south and the snows melt and go off much earlier than they do in 
 Canada. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Your storage reservoirs are going to be on Pend Oreille and Flathead? 
 Mr. GOODNER. And probably also on Priest Lake. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Where will you build your dams, on Pend Oreille and Flathead? 
 Mr. GOODNER. On Flathead, three-quarters of a mile below Poison. 
 Mr. SUMMERS. What is the height 01 the dam?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 23 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. We would raise the water about 18 feet under the maximum develop- 
 ment, and I would like to take that up more in detail in connection with the discussion 
 of a joint power and irrigation development. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How high is the dam at Pend Oreille? 
 
 Mr. GOODN-ER. At Pend Oreille we will raise the average water level 14 feet. Flat- 
 head has 120,000 acres of surface at low water, Pend Oreille 80,000, and Priest Lake 
 30,000. You see, it only takes 10 or 14 feet on those three lakes to run us up to over 
 3,000,000 acre-feet of storage. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. For both? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Are there any insurmountable objections to the raising of those lakes, 
 like there are in other lakes in the United States? 
 
 Mr. GOODN-ER. If we raise them to the limits which we contemplate, there are no 
 serious objections; if they are raised to the limit which has been proposed in an appli- 
 cation before the Federal Power Commission by some of the power companies, there 
 would be serious objection. 
 
 The recommendation of the Columbia River Board of Engineers to the Federal 
 Power Commission strikes a middle ground, going somewhat higher in storage than 
 the State authorities of Washington had contemplated but not going as high as the 
 Montana Power Co. had asked for. They propose a height which would give a regu- 
 lated flow out of Flathead Lake of 6,000 second-feet or more the year around. If that 
 development is made by the power companies in advance of the Columbia Basin 
 development, the Columbia Basin project will need to spend practically nothing 
 beyond, because the regulation which we desire will have been placed on Flathead 
 Lake by the power companies operating in Montana. 
 
 On tile other hand, if the irrigation project should develop first, it would only require 
 about 2 feet additional storage on top of our plan to give the regulation which the 
 power companies desire, at comparatively small cost to them. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Would it be interrupting your general outline statement to ask you 
 this question: What arrangements have you made up to the present time regarding 
 securing the right to dam up, appropriate" or divert and appropriate these waters that 
 you speak of down to the lands that you are contemplating irrigating? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. The answer to that falls into two parts. Prior to the recent Supreme 
 Court decision in an interstate case, we had applied to the State of Idaho for a permit 
 to divert, store and divert water required for the State of Washington. Under the 
 Idaho laws they were unable to grant the permit, yet had no grounds upon which 
 they could reject it for this reason: Their laws require development to follow within 
 two to five years of the granting of the permit. We could not in good faith file an 
 application and state that we contemplated development within two to five years. 
 The application is therefore on file with the Idaho authorities, but neither granted nor 
 rejected. It is the opinion of our attorney general and of the water commissioner of 
 Idaho that that preserves our priority as against any subsequent attempt to obtain the 
 right. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now as to Montana. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. As to Montana, there is no law in Montana under which we can make 
 a filing for diversion and use of water outside of the State. However, since the Montana 
 Legislature met, the Supreme Court of the United States has made the decision referred 
 to, in which the priority of development governs the use of the water. That is more 
 or less a parallel case to the recent agreement between seven States for the use of the 
 Colorado water. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. The Wyoming-Colorado decision? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Priority of use creates priority of right, regardless of State lines. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I was trying to hold you on to this so you would not get into that 
 agreement between the seven States, because I am going to ask some questions about 
 that when you get to it, but I would like to hold you on to what you have done and 
 the Supreme Court decision of the United States and the laws of the States of Montana 
 and Idaho, and then ask you if it is your view and your intention that to make your- 
 selves safe you have to do this for the land in Washington. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. We have provided for that in another way, and that is the second 
 side of my answer to your question. 
 
 W T e have, in connection with the State engineer of Idaho and the State engineer of 
 Montana, made a preliminary estimate final estimate will be made out of the funds 
 which this bill would authorize when it gets to the appropriation committee. In our 
 preliminary estimate we have worked out all the lands in this watershed in either
 
 24 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Montana or Jdahq which could be irrigated. We have worked out all the power 
 developments which will be possible, and we are providing in pur plans to make 
 sufficient storage to take care of all those lands and those power sites, and still have 
 enough left after they have got the prior rights, if they get them, for our use, and that 
 is included in our costs. If we get absolute priority over those people and they have to 
 build subject to our rights, we can at once shave several million dollars off of our costs, 
 but we have figured our water supply, our storage, our regulation, big enough to take 
 care of all these smaller projects, so that there could be no question of our priority or 
 secondary or other rights being adversely affected. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You are figuring on securing a priority of the right to eventually divert 
 water for this land as against subsequent appropriators as well as against subsequent 
 applicants or participants in the development of electric power, are you not? 
 
 Air. GOODNER. I would object, sir, to using the term "priority." We are not 
 asking for priority. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But you are asking the Government's money to go in there, and that is 
 the reason I am asking the question. I do not see where you get the theory that the 
 Government can afford to spend $200,000,000 for a dam and canals and an irrigating 
 system, where an individual would not dare think of spending any money unless he 
 knew or felt quite satisfied that he has complied with the law relative to the right to 
 appropriate, to divert, and use water. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. I did not quite understand your question there. Certainly we claim 
 to establish absolute right to the water, but on the contingency that we might not be 
 able to get the first right, we have provided in our estimates sufficient money to take 
 care of all the possible prior rights which these other areas might develop. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Who made the application in Idaho? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It was made by the State supervisor of hydraulics, of Washington, 
 as trustee for the State of Washington, for the use and benefit of the Columbia Basin 
 lands. A map was filed showing the entire area. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. There are no national parks involved around the Flathead or the 
 Pend Oreille or any place else up there? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. But this question of priority would all be determined before any 
 appropriation other than this appropriation of $100,000 for investigation would ever be 
 secured? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. You have discussed the interest of the State of Montana, which is that 
 they naturally desire to reserve enough water within the State to irrigate all the land 
 that can be irrigated in that State. The same is true of the State of Idaho. In your 
 opinion, is there ample water to supply and take care of all the land in the Pend 
 Oreille drainage area in both of these States? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. I will answer that in another way. There are 19,000,000 
 acre-feet available, of which we need 6.000.000. There is a surplus there of 13,000,000 
 acre-feet, enough for twice the size of the Columbia Basin area, and there are only 
 about 150,000 or 200,000 acres in all this area that could be watered, even by pumping. 
 In other words, their total demand as against our demand for 33 inches amounts to 
 between 2 and 3 inches additional storaged on the Flathead Lake or lakes higher up. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Your contention is that there is sufficient water storage there in 
 the Flathead Lake to take care of the Montana interests and also to contribute toward 
 the irrigation of the Columbia River basin? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes; not merely in Flathead Lake but in the smaller lakes. These 
 areas north of the Flathead could not be irrigated from that lake. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But if the people in Montana contemplate irrigating lands, they 
 would not have their rights prejudiced, or the use of the water prejudiced by your not 
 making the dam sufficiently large to supply them and yourselves? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Their right would not be prejudiced at all. In fact, it is our hope 
 that out of this $100.000 appropriation for Federal investigation they will investigate 
 the storage in this chain of lakes sufficiently to allay any popular feeling that those 
 lands and the irrigation of them might be interfered with by the basin project. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is there any activity up there toward irrigation from Flathead Lake? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. None particularly, outside of the Federal claim, and they have 
 adopted a different plan for irrigating the Flathead project. They are using small 
 storages in this area instead of attempting to develop the Newell tunnel. They, how- 
 ever, still hold the right, as I understand it. at the Newell tunnel. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Did the Senators from Montana either before the Senate committee 
 or on the floor of the Senate indicate any particular objection to this project? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. I was not here at that time, and I do not know.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 25 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. I will say that Senator Walsh raised a question as to whether or not 
 the matter of the use of water in Montana had been investigated, and wanted it looked 
 into, so that all rights in Montana would be properly protected, and this bill was 
 amended at Mr. Walsh's instance, so as to cover that proposition and his conception 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEX. There is a further Federal interest in this stream in that there might 
 be public lands below your project which could be irrigated from its waters. Then 
 there is the question of maintaining the navigability of the Columbia River. Have 
 those features been looked into? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. We crossed over into Oregon on the South side of the Columbia 
 River to see whether or not these areas could be reached by extension of our 
 lines. We i^und that they can not by any possibility be reached, for this reason: 
 The Columbia River Valley is a great many miles in width and is very low in elevation, 
 and these lands in Oregon are higher; they require an inverted siphon 60 or 70 miles in 
 length and of enormous size to carry any water from the Columbia Basin to those lands, 
 and those lands can be more cheaply served from the projects which have been already 
 investigated and some partially developed in Oregon itself. So that we can not cross 
 the Columbia River into Oregon or reach any lands down downstream on the Columbia 
 at any economic figure whatsoever. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEX*. What is the situation on the Washington side of the river? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. We ran a line to see how long and how high head the siphon would 
 have to have to reach the land commonly called Horse Heaven Land. There we 
 would have a siphon 40 or 50 miles in length and operating under a head of 300 to 800 
 feet; that again costing much more than the estimates in existence for watering Horse 
 Heaven from the Mount Adams region. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. So that I may get this clearly in the record and we do not seem to 
 quite get together all of the estimates as to Idaho and Montana for all the land that 
 could possibly be irrigated in the future, you think could be provided for? Is that the 
 theory 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. It has been provided for in our storage requirements and cost esti- 
 mates. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It would take care of all the land that might hereafter come in from 
 Montana? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BAKER. And the same is true of Idaho? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Yes, sir. These two lakes lie in extremely deep depressions. They 
 are the tail end, you might say, of what were once lakes of enormous size. It is only the 
 areas within the original lake basins that can possibly be irrigated from there. To get 
 the water from the Flathead Lake, for instance, on to the lands in Central Montana, 
 which are lower, would require perhaps a 150 mile tunnel. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is too long. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Or pumping over the Bitter Root Range, neither of which engineers 
 consider feasible under modern conditions. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I drove over that range this summer and I rule it out. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Now I might say there that both our State Commission and the 
 Federal Power Board officially requested the proper authorities, the Governors, and 
 the State engineers, of Montana and Idaho, to furnish the Federal Power Commission 
 with maps and detailed data as to every possbile use that could be made of the waters 
 of those lakes, and they have done that over their signatures and we have them in the 
 file. They are also in the Federal Power Commission's files now, and it is granted with- 
 out question that the extreme area and the maximum horsepower which they think the 
 future might develop would be taken care of. 
 
 From the Federal standpoint might I say that developing the area in Washington 
 and the power in Washington, and the area here and the power here [indicating 
 Montana] is one project. There is no reason why the Federal Government should 
 take on this one Washington and leave these in Montana alone [indicating I. 1 
 know the Columbia Basin project estimates cover any water that can be used anywhere 
 for irrigation or power out of that watershed. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Are there power applications on file now for the Flathead and Pend 
 Oreille? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes; on the Flathead. There is one on the lower Pend Oreille also. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And they are held up? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. We had, just before I left Olympia, a communication from the 
 executive secretary of the power commission to the effect that unless we showed 
 further objections within a period of 30 days they would grant certain power appli- 
 cations in Montana upon the basis stated, that basis containing a reservation that 
 6,000 second-feet should be a minimum regulated flow out of the stream, except
 
 26 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 where the stream naturally would flow less than that, which is in the middle of winter 
 when we are not irrigating and not interested, and if they put that development in 
 and regulate the flow to 6,000 second-feet we will forget Flathead so far as irrigating 
 this area is concerned. That will give a regulated flow of 6,000 second-feet on down 
 the stream, so that the surplus between 6,000 and the 20.000 and we only need 20.000 
 for about six weeks we then can draw from Pend Oreille. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, to put it in this language, you have taken every effort 
 you can up to the present time under the law. State and Federal it applies to the 
 State of Washington and also to the other two States where the water heads to get a 
 prior valid right to the use of that water. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. There is one more thing we have done which I did not men- 
 tion. We passed at the last legislature in Washington and Idaho also passed at our 
 request a reciprocal act which grants the right to either State, if it has passed the 
 reciprocal act, to come into the other State and take water across the boundary. In 
 other words, Idaho or Washington now have in effect a law granting to either State 
 the same right as an individual to take water and to take it over the State boundary. 
 
 Montana has not passed that act. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. If the Montana Legislature were to pass such an act, then there 
 would be no necessity for an interstate treaty or compact such as has just been nego- 
 tiated with respect the Colorado River? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. None at all. Now let me go further. This is not trespassing upon 
 the privileges of Montana either. Montana's big interest lies in developing the 
 power. The regulation of that lake will give nearly a million horsepower between 
 the outlet of Flathead Lake and the Idaho boundary that can be developed in Mon- 
 tana. Their big interest is in power, and sooner or later the power will be developed. 
 Supposing they should block us for 10 years in putting our development in there: 
 we could supply our first 10 years' demand from these lakes Pend Oreille and Priest, 
 and the power development alone there at Flathead would give us the regulation we 
 want, even assuming the most adverse sentiment there. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is, if the present applicants and those that might come develop 
 all the water that comes from Flathead Lake, that comes into the Pend Oreille, it 
 would only add to the development that would affect your people beneficially. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir; the power company would stand the cost, instead of the 
 land. Not only that, but it is possible for maximum power development to regu- 
 late for much more than 6,000 second feet flow. They can regulate the Flathead for a 
 lot more than that if power demands justify it, but if they will only put 6,000 in 
 which the Power Commission is recommending in the present permits, that is all we 
 are asking for. So far as irrigation is concerned, that takes care of us. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. When you make the statement that you have made preparation 
 for taking care of Montana and Idaho, you are contemplating impounding water in 
 addition to what General Goethals pointed out there at the dams where water will 
 be supplied by gravity? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. No. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. You do not confine yourself to that project? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Oh, no; but we have done this: We have taken for computation all 
 of the flow into the Flathead Lake and we have subtracted from that the water ade- 
 quate for all these lands north of Flathead; then we have based our storage and our 
 demands upon what is left. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. The reason that I asked that question is that you stated it would 
 only supply 1,750,000 acres the dam that he pointed out there on the right. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That was not quite clearly put. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. I say he stated that. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That is all we contemplate putting in, but in figuring 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS (interposing). But you have other places through the project where 
 other storage that would be secondary would be provided along through the project? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. That is what I was trying to get at, when you made the statement 
 that you had made provisions for taking care of Montana and Idaho. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. After we have subtracted that total possible use of the water, we 
 figure that we have an ample supply left. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. How high do you contemplate raising Lake Pend Oreille? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Lake Pend Oreille would be raised from an average water surface 
 of about 2,054 to an extreme maximum of 2,065 feet above sea level. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But I mean how many feet? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Fourteen feet maximum, above low water. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What damage would that do?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 27 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. That is 8 feet below the high-water mark. 
 
 The CHAIRMAX. What damage would that do to the city of Sand Point? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Xone. I personally directed the surveys at Sand Point and met 
 with the mill owners there, the sawmill men, members of the city council and the 
 city clubs, and they agreed that any regulation holding the water between 2,060 and 
 2,065 will be of benefit to them: that even a possible 2,067 would not do them seri- 
 ous damage, but our maximum contemplates 2,065. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The Government would not be called upon to pay any damages 
 on account of overflowed land around Lake Pend Oreille, so i'ar as the city of Sand 
 Point is concerned? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. No; we estimated every lot, every building, mapped every build- 
 ing and every structure that will be affected and the cost to replace it, and our total 
 damages around the lake are in the neighborhood of $1,000,000. Now for storage 
 of one and one-half million acre-feet, that is very cheap storage. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Now tell us about the dam at Newport and the size of the main 
 canal. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. At Albany Falls, a mile or so east of Newport, there exists a natural 
 waterfall of 9 feet. There are very huge rock outcrops there, and we propose to put 
 in four or five concrete piers and put in removable or rising iron gates, of course con- 
 crete protected, raising the water there to an elevation not exceeding 2,065. That 
 elevation would back the water 18 miles up the river and into the lake, that one dam 
 control. During a flood period, or when running off log booms, or anything of that 
 kind, we have provisions for opening one or more of those gates and shooting through 
 whatever it is necessary to pass. Then, just above the dam, taking out of the lake 
 directly, we drive a 3-mile tunnel from this point across into the Little Spokane 
 River watershed . 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Wouldn't you have your dams in durinjg the flood period? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. We would raise the gates, leaving the river channel of larger capacity 
 than it is now, until after the natural flood had allowed the lake to drop to the eleva- 
 tion at which we want to hold it. That would avoid any question in case of extreme 
 flood of our dam being responsible for it. There are floods there which go way above 
 our contemplated storage. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. When will you withhold the water? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. As soon as the lake the lake is here, at high water [indicating]; 
 as the flood goes down it reaches this point, which is 2,065. At that point we close 
 our gates and prevent further dropping. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is that zero? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That is zero, so far as the top of our storage is concerned. We count 
 from there down. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is that the low water in the lake? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. No; that is 2,065. Low water runs in the neighborhood of 2,048 to 
 2,050. You see, before it gets to low water we close the gates and hold in there the 
 amount needed. If we should close the gates during extreme flood it would result 
 in making the flood crest higher yet and would subject us to damage, of course to 
 paying damages. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. When you build this tunnel how big is the main canal? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. After we leave the tunnel the tunnel, by the way, is twin bore, 
 32 feet in diameter and 29 feet depth of water, horseshoe shape we come then to the 
 canal. In that section we drop into a rather steep grade canal. The water runs 60 
 feet wide on top and 29 feet deep. That canal is lined with solid concrete, steel 
 reinforced, not only for strength but to stand expansion or contraction due to tem- 
 perature changes, so that it will not be damaged by winter. 
 
 After we get down to the project where the lands are flatter, we change the section 
 of the canal and carry the water 20 feet deep and on a flatter slope, running the canal 
 120 feet wide. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN-. What is the length of the tunnel? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. The tunnels aggregate about 34 miles. The longest individual 
 tunnel is made up by building eight short sections, each less than 2 miles, connecting 
 with each other to get an aggregate underground length of 15J miles. That takes us 
 through the governing ridge between the Spokane watershed and the lands to be 
 watered. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Then, in contemplating the expense in building the tunnels, did 
 you have in mind any new device of building tunnels, or do you expect to blast out in 
 the old-fashioned way? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Not quire in the old-fashioned way. We sent Mr. Turner, who was 
 then our chief engineer, on a long trip through the East. He went to the Shandaken
 
 28 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 tunnel that was built for the New York water supply; he went to the Hetch Hetchyv 
 which was built for the San Francisco water supply, and other similar works; he found 
 their methods, and then we got Mr. A. C. Dennis, who is one of the greatest tunnel men 
 in this country, and paid him as a contractor, to estimate the camps, equipment, and 
 cost of building those tunnels. His figures checked almost identically with ours. 
 
 The method is very simple, using ordinary steam shovels, electric or air operated, 
 and standard-gauge railroad trains ordinary, usual methods, but on a very large scale. 
 The tunnels are large enough so that you can carry double tracks in them, standard- 
 gauge tracks, which makes for very cheap operation. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. How about secondary storage on the project? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. You notice in the first place the country along the line lies at an 
 elevation of 1,800 feet. Our canal starts distributing at 1,800 and drops uniformly to- 
 the southwest till we get to 500 feet here [indicating]. That country is a lake bed and 
 has also been glaciated, giving us a very large number of deep coulees or canyons 
 crossing it, running southwest and northeast. Our canals come out on the ridges. 
 At a number of places we have located in those canyons possible dam and reservoir 
 sites, aggregating a very large amount of storage. By running the canals outside of 
 the irrigation season we can fill these reservoirs thus creating what we call ' : secondary 
 storage" within the project. In the next season we can draw from those reservoirs 
 and thus take care of our peak demands for water. By doing that our main canal 
 throughout does not need to be so large to handle the peak demand. Those studies, 
 however, have not been completed and our main canal and all our structures were 
 estimated and based upon handling the peak demand. 
 
 Twenty or twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars could well be spent upon further 
 studies of that secondary storage, and undoubtedly will cut ten or fifteen million 
 dollars off from the cost of the major work. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. The pumping that is to be done on the project areas shown in pink is 
 not from the secondary storage works but from the canals. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. As the canals come down these ridges we find the fall steeper than 
 we can properly control with canals. At 25 different points we have to introduce 
 drops. Some of those drops are as much as 50 or 60 feet and dropping two or three 
 thousand second-feet of water. That gives us a possible power development at the 
 drops in the distributing canals exceeding 180,000 horsepower. The logical market 
 for that horsepower is to hitch it to pumps and pump on to these areas which are 
 above the canals. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. That pumping will be done from the canals? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That will be done under either of the alternate developments, 
 either primary pumping or the gravity supply. Either way would have the same 
 secondary pumping to reach these lands, developing power from the drops, with this 
 difference, that the canal from the primary pumping plant, the Columbia Dam 
 project, does not come through within 400 feet as high an elevation as from the gravity 
 plan, and cuts our power for secondary purposes about in half. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. The blue there on the map on the left is the 1,750,000 acres? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. And in the pink there are 400,000 acres? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. About 400,000. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How much of that land is in private ownership now? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Including the railroad lands, about 90 per cent of it is in private 
 ownership. The railroad lands, however, have all been virtually promised to the 
 State at $5 an acre. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. And about 10 per cent is in public lands? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. State and Federal lands; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Have you had any negotiations with the owners of the lands to know 
 whether they will come in under a project, and if so, how? What have you done 
 along that line? Do you contemplate an irrigation district, or what? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That, of course, is a matter for Congress to determine, what the 
 form shall be. It is the State's recommendation, so far as it goes, that the entire 
 area shall be formed into a State irrigation district under a special law. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What do you know that the private land owners will do? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. We have approached I will not say all of the owners, but a very 
 large percentage of them, either personally or by correspondence; we know not only 
 that they are willing to come into whatever form of organization is recommended by 
 the people who put up the money, the State or Federal Government, but they that 
 are willing to pledge themselves to put a large part of it into development immediately. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Now you are familiar with the reclamation law which requires the 
 landowner to dispose of all of his surplus over the farm unit at a price to be fixed by 
 the Secretary of the Interior. Have you taken that up?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 29 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, in anticipation of that, we have done this: We had our legis- 
 lature pass we had the people vote on it, and the Supreme Court has passed upon 
 and declared valid a constitutional amendment in the State of Washington which is 
 now part of our constitution, under which the State itself, or pur division of the State, 
 has authority to condemn, if the owner does not voluntarily surrender, all excess 
 lands over the unit set in any given project. We are able to use that power in the 
 smaller projects now. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. Well, then, will the private landowner voluntarily dispose of his land 
 under the reclamation law? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. We anticipate from our correspondence and personal acquaintance 
 and I know a whole lot of them that 80 per cent of those owners will be glad to at 
 once sign a contract cutting their own holdings to 40 acres, and allowing the rest to be 
 disposed of at whatever figure the authorities in charge set as a fair figure. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is 40 acres a fair farm unit? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It is too big in the long run, but it can be handled under wheat. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEX. Do you mean to say that a family can make a living off of 40 acres of 
 wheat on that kind of land? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. No; but I say that during the first two or three years, until they get 
 their land in shape for intensive cultivation, they will put it into wheat and get some- 
 thing off of it, whereas now they are getting nothing. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEX. It seems to me that 40 acres is too small an area for a farm unit in that 
 country. What is the length of your growing season? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Two hundred and fourteen days. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. What would you produce on that land? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. All diversified crops that are grown now in the Yakima project. 
 And let me correct a statement made this morning 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH (interposing). That is, alfalfa and corn? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Alfalfa, corn, and cattle and truck. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Is 40 acres sufficient for a family there? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. It is too much. A man can't handle it properly. 
 
 Now, the statement was made that Yakima owes its success to fruit. Less than 20 
 per cent of the Federal project in Yakima is in fruit. 
 
 The CHAIRMAX. What was that statement? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Less than 20 per cent of the area in the Federal project in Yakima 
 IB in fruit. Eighty per cent of it is diversified fanning. Of course it is true that half 
 of the dollars and cents produced there is from fruits, but the fruit growers are not as 
 prosperous on the average as the man who is raising corn and chickens and pigs and 
 doing diversified farming. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. And has a dairy? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. My experience has been that the only legitimate way to figure the 
 success of an irrigation project is on an alfalfa basis. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEX. Do you think that 40 acres in alfalfa with dairy cows is more than one 
 family could properly care for? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. It is more than the average American family can take care of even 
 if they have children to do the milking. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. They would not all have dairy cows. You can not take a place like 
 that and imagine that they would all be engaged in one business. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. If you go exclusively into truck farming, or exclusively into fruit, 
 there is not a market for all of it. The thing that makes a reclamation project success- 
 ful is the alfalfa field, and to go beyond an alfalfa basis is risky. Therefore, it seems to 
 me that it ought to take more then 40 acres of land under this project to support a 
 family, because on the project where I live in Arizona, the average holding is about 
 38 acres and we have a growing season that is three months longer than anywhere 
 in the State of Washington. As a matter of fact, we can take some kind of a crop 
 off the ground every month in the year if necessary. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. You would not want to call ours a short growing season, I think. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Not 214 days. That is not a short season. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Do you not find that one kind of crop alone is detrimental to a project, 
 everybody going into one thing? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. There is no question about that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Diversified farming is the only thing that will bring results. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Before taking up the State" land settlement project, which is also 
 under our control, we made investigation, so far as we could by correspondence and 
 literature, of the land settlement projects and irrigation projects of the entire world. 
 We have gotten an enormous mass of data. accumulated which we have studied and
 
 30 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 compiled and computed over and over again. Our decision was that here at White 
 Bluffs, this green spot [indicating], which the State is now developing as a land 
 settlement project, that 20 acres was the largest unit we could give any man and 
 expect him to successfully and intensively cultivate it, and we are going ahead on 
 the basis of 20 acres, and they are making good. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Isn't it a fact that all of these State settlements are on the best land in 
 the State? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. I do not consider that any of the projects now under State control 
 average anywhere near the average of the lands in the Columbia Basin. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But I am just wondering if it has not been the best land in the State 
 at any of these places where they have had a State settlement. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Not in Washington, by any means. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. With the best railroad facilities, with town facilities close by, with 
 water, and in fact everything that goes to make up a community if it is properly 
 applied. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. I will answer that in this way: We hope if we are lucky, in the next 
 five or six years to make our White Bluff settlement able to hold up its head along- 
 side of the Yakima development. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is the size of the farm unit on Sunnyside? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Mr. Beadle could answer that, perhaps. " 
 
 Mr. BEADLE. I think it runs between 40 and 50 acres, but I do not carry the figures 
 in my mind. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. How far is this settlement you speak of, of the soldiers, from the 
 railroad? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. We are on a subline of the Milwaukee, which sends one car and 
 engine down one day and back the next. We are 45 miles by stage from Kennewick. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That answers Judge Raker's question, then, that the most suc- 
 cessful projects are on the best land with the best facilities. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That was successful farming country in there? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And you have irrigated it? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And you divided it up, and most of these people have something else 
 to do besides fanning? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. No, our State law required us to take and put them on absolutely 
 raw land. We wanted to put a project over here [indicating] and the Attorney General 
 ruled that because that land had been broken a number of years ago, although not now 
 cultivated, it did not come within the State's definition of raw land, and we have to 
 take absolutely sage brush land and put the boys on it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. How many boys have you there? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Thirty-five at present, and by spring we will have 58. There are 
 58 tracts there, but they are not all ready for settlement yet. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is the area of the X. P. land? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Forty thousand acres, about. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What arrangements have you made with the company? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Simply a letter from their head officials saying that at the time the 
 project was ready to go they will turn that over to the controlling authorities at $5 an 
 acre. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Are you sure that your drainage costs will not be great? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, for this reason: According to the map which we have in the 
 general-project report, showing the drainage lines, which have already been surveyed, 
 we have got our lines surveyed where the drains will come between every pair of 
 canals, and we have got 15,000 miles of canals surveyed. We have every drainage 
 lateral located now as nearly as it can be in advance of the water. We have found in 
 the Quincy Valley, which is flat, that we are going to have to construct drainage ditches. 
 We have surveyed them and located them and know what it is going to cost to put the 
 in. We find here north of Pasco that there is a blind draw in there where water will 
 accumulate. We have figured on opening that up. Everywhere on the project that 
 drainage is necessary as near as can be predicted in advance we have worked out just 
 what should be done. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. It has been the situation on practically every irrigation project 
 heretofore undertaken that the cost of drainage has been underestimated. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes; and that is largely due to the fact that until very recently we 
 had not had projects in operation long enough to get a basis upon which to predict 
 our drainage in advance of the need arising; now we have gotten that data, and the 
 engineers of the Reclamation Service and engineers in private business know to-day 
 about what different soils and different subsoil conditions will create in the way of
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 31 
 
 needing drainage, and when we figure a project to-day all of our State projects, new 
 ones we have 20 of them under way now in all of those we go ahead and predict 
 our drainage and costs just as accurately and as far in advance as we do where the 
 canals are going in to bring the water in. Furthermore, we are going to attempt to 
 get the legislature in pur State to make the handling of drainage a compulsory part 
 of the duties of the irrigation district. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEX. It ought to be. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Instead of having separate districts, the whole water problem of 
 the district should be under one control. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is Mr. Pierce doing at Priest Rapids? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. He is drilling a possible dam site. He also told me that unless he 
 could find a market for a certain large block of horsepower the development would 
 probably be in abeyance for some time. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is this soil generally a sandy soil? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is it, red sand or white? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. White. This entire area, extending clear up the Columbia River 
 and over into the Yakima country and down into Oregon, is the bed of what geologists 
 say was the old John Day Lake. As that drained out it left a uniform sandy silt 
 over practical!) 7 the entire area. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. Is that the same character of soil as they have around Herrniston 
 and Umatilla? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It is a much finer grade of soil. These soils have been reworked 
 by the wind and by the lava flows which have come in. In this area around Pasco, 
 near Burbank and Umatilla and in through there, they have a very coarse-grained 
 soil, with very little fine silt in it. [Indicating on map.] From here north, up the 
 Yakima and up the Wenatchee, we have a very fine water-holding silt. 
 
 Mr. SINXOTT. Is that something like the soil between Prosser and Ontario? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I have been across that country from Prosser over to Erie. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It is very similar to it. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. How many State land settlements do you have? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. At this time we have just one. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Well, that land had been settled ahd cultivated before you opened 
 your project? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Areas in it had, but not the areas that we are developing. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. How large an appropriation have you? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. We have spent $150,000 out of an authorization of $300,000. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Are these ex-service men married men? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Practically all of them are. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Did they come in with any means? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. We require them to show sufficient means to sustain their 
 necessary living expenses for one year. That is one of the several requirements. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And you give them 15 acres? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Twenty acres. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Twenty acres with a barn and house and outbuildings? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. And the well and pump. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And they have to pay how much per acre? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Their total cost, depending upon the type of house they choose 
 they may choose from several types and they may also choose what improvements 
 they want the cost varies from $200 to $500 per acre. If they want us to go in and 
 clear the land and plant it for them, we get close to $500 an acre debt to the State. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. He is only charged actual cost? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Then he pays interest at 4 per cent on the amount advanced? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is a pretty good start for anybody, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It is lots better than my father had. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If he is paying 4 per cent on $500-an-acre land he has to raise 
 crops at a profit of $20 an acre to meet that expense. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. That is the limit. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Over how many years is that extended? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Twenty years; sooner if he can pay it off. They may also get 
 deferred interest for three "years in case of certain conditions, like sickness in the 
 family or things of that kind. We have liberty of giving them deferred payments 
 on the interest. 
 
 2541022 3
 
 32 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Now, one more point which perhaps has not been made clear. When the State 
 started this work we knew that $100,000, which was all we had in the first appro- 
 priation, would not get us hardly anywhere, so we sent out broadcast an appeal to 
 all agencies possible for assistance. The different railroads there are five of them 
 crossing there furnished us copies or the originals of their original location surveys 
 and their la,nd reconnaisance maps. The numerous mortgage loan companies fur- 
 .nished us with their original data in an enormous mass. The State University, the 
 State college at Pullman, and the Federal Land Bank, and various other agencies 
 turned over to us not only their records but loaned us men without expense. So 
 that we had at the start, before we had spent a dollar, better than $300.000 worth 
 of maps and records in our vaults. We were able at once to put competent engineers 
 at work studying and analyzing those records. We made a paper location in the 
 office from all those maps before we ever went into the field. We then sent men 
 put with aneroid barometers and checked in the field before we put the survey 
 instruments out, instrument parties, of course, being expensive. As a result of that 
 work, out of 1,200 miles of precise location lines, "the engineers' precise location, 
 there was less than 10 miles that had to be rerun. 
 
 By methods such as that; by the absolute presentation to us from everybody who 
 had any information on the area, we figured, and frankly acknowledged to the people 
 concerned, that the State has had better than half a million dollars worth of data 
 placed in its hands on that project. It is because of that and the further fact that 
 the United States Geological Survey has very largely made the topographic maps 
 of that area, and that the United States Reclamation Service has a lot of data derived 
 during the study of the Big Bend project, and the engineers of the United States 
 Reclamation Service sat right in and worked with us on this work, that we have been 
 able to turn out a report, a study, which, as General Goethals says, is much more 
 complete than you would anticipate with the actual amount of State money we 
 have spent. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Did you have the benefit of a soil survey by the Bureau of Soils? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, three of the counties have been mapped and the soil survey 
 published. It covered practically the entire area, all except one little corner of it . 
 This little corner here [indicating] has not been covered; the rest of it has. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Was any alkali found in the soil? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. There was only one place in the entire area where there was alkali 
 found. That is a sink hole right here [indicating], and we are figuring on using that 
 sink hole as one of our waste way areas. That is something that we have worked out 
 in detail on all of the project, because it is inevitable that on cloudy days the people 
 will shut down the use of the water, or when an occasional sprinkle comes they will 
 shut down the use of the water, and we have studied out on the entire project wherever 
 waste will take place, and we have estimated the cost of discharging that water to the 
 nearest secondary storage or to the river. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. That is all rolling land, as I understand it? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It is rolling, except in three areas. Quincy Valley is flat and 
 Rattlesnake is flat. Right in here is flat [indicating], and Paradise is flat. Those are 
 comparatively small areas. Even those flats, with the exception of Quincy, have a 
 tilt of about 8 or 10 inches to the mile, which is sufficient for drainage. Quincy is a 
 basin, and we have to dig a way to get the water out. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. And the rest of the project would be irrigated by constructing laterals 
 from the main canal that would generally follow the contour lines along the ridges? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. .Follow the ridges: yes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Do you know the minimum flow of the Columbia at the junction of 
 the Columbia and the Snake? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It is about 50,000 second-feet. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. It is 50,000 second-feet at the dam. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Well, of course, it is a little less, a very little less, than that at Pasco. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Well, you have the Deschutes River coming in and the John Day. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir; and a number of others. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. The Deschutes is about the same at the minimum as it is at the 
 maximum? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Because it has no fluctuation. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. No; that is only a few thousand feet flow, though. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. How extensive is that alkali area to which you referred? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It is about a mile square. It is in the bottom of a deep depression. 
 It represents the drainage from perhaps 200 miles square, this area in here [indicating] . 
 It all comes into that trap. There is no outlet to it. Some years there will be 20 feet
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 33 
 
 of water there and some years none, and when there is none yon can see the alkali 
 That represnets a drainage, as I say, of a couple of hundred square miles. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. It does not require a very large storage basin. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. I made one trip, gentlemen, out here from Connell to Othello and 
 up to Quincy, and on that trip we passed 16 abandoned schoolhouses. Now. for an 
 American community to give up its schoolhouses things must be in a bad way. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What is the occasion for that? What is the matter?. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. There is not a soul left in that country. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. For what reason? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Ten or fifteen years ago we had a cycle of abnormal rainfall; at the 
 same time we had an abnormal land rush. People came in and homesteaded that 
 country and the land was practically all taken. They survived anywhere from 1 
 to 10 years. Last year I was in this area of 280.000 acres and there were only two 
 men left there, and one of them said: "I am going this winter, because I am eating 
 the last of my chickens now." That area has been abandoned because they can not 
 grow any crop on it. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, that riases the question: Where are these people and are they 
 still claiming title to this land? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. They are remarkably well keeping up their taxes on the land. A 
 large part of the owners are working in industrial centers here, in the logging mills in 
 the Grays Harbor country, and we have been able to reach a large part of them by 
 correspondence. I have been down there and talked to lots of them, and they are 
 willing to come back there and start with the cheapest crop they can get in for a year 
 or two, which is wheat. Now with water they are good for 50 or 60 bushels of wheat 
 to the acre, and in most years wheat is a pretty good crop. Once in a while, you know, 
 they do not get a very good price for it, but take it year in and year out it is a pretty 
 good crop, and by gradually switching over a few acres a year from what they have 
 got in wheat into more intensive cultivation, we figure that it will be a comparatively 
 simple matter for the bulk of those owners to bring their land under intensive culti- 
 vation. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Is anyone buying up this land in large tracts, buying out these owners? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Not that we know of. and we immediately would try to put a stop 
 to it if we did know it. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. You are familiar with the other irrigation in the locality of the Colum- 
 bia Basin project? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. How many tons of alfalfa will they raise annually? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. The average farmer will raise five or six tons but the good farmer 
 will raise 8 tons. Taking them all alike, we find that on the Yakima project, which 
 includes areas that were being hogged and a lot of land that was partially water logged, 
 they raise 3.3 tons per acre. We sent a man on the Yakima project, after that figure 
 was published, to find out why the yield was so low, and found that the farmers who 
 are real farmers on the Yakima project will raise from five to eight tons. We found 
 one authentic record of 9 tons per acre on a 20-acre field. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. What is the average price for alfalfa? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Two weeks ago they were getting $20 a ton in the field. 
 
 Mr. SINXOTT. Where was that? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. In the lower Yakima. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. That is nearly twice as much as we are getting in Idaho. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. I surmise we have more feeders there than you have. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. It is a very superior alfalfa that is raised in that latitude. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. It would not be fair to the other districts to claim that, and I do 
 not think it is noticeably different. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. You have heard of the comparison between alfalfa raised in a cold 
 climate and in a warm climate? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. And that it has more nutrition in it? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEX. I believe that is largely a myth. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Of course, gentlemen, I could take two or three hours in discussing 
 the points I have not yet touched, but unless you ask questions I assume they are 
 matters of no particular interest. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If you have finished your general statement we will adjourn until 
 to-morrow morning at 10.30 o'clock, and in the meantime if you have something else 
 to submit you may present it. 
 
 Thereupon the committee adjourned to meet Thursday, December 7, 1922. at 
 10.30 o'clock a. m.
 
 34 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 COMMITTEE ox IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS, 
 
 HorsE OF REPRESENTATIVE. 
 
 Thursday, December 7, 7.9,'.'. 
 
 The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Addison T. Smith (chairman) 
 presiding. 
 
 There were present before the committee: Hon. J. Stanley Webster, a Representa- 
 tive in Congress from the State of Washington; Mr. Francis M. Good\vin, Assistant 
 Secretary of the Interior; Mr. Morris Bien, acting director of reclamation: Mr. Ivan E. 
 Goodner, chief engineer, Columbia Basin survey: Mr. Fred A. Adams, supervisor 
 Columbia Basin survey, and Mr. J. A. Ford, Columbia Basin League, State of Wash- 
 ington. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goodner is here this morning. Has any member 
 of the committee thought of anything over night that they want to ask him about 
 further? If not, we will call Mr. Fred Adams, supervisor of the Columbia Basin under 
 the Department of Conservation and Development of the State of Washington. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone present who wishes to ask Mr. Goodner any ques- 
 tions following his testimony of yesterday? If not, Mr. Adams will address the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MB. FRED A. ADAMS, SUPERVISOR COLUMBIA 
 BASIN SURVEY, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Fred A. 
 Adams. I am supervisor of the the Columbia Basin project under the Department of 
 Conservation and Development of the State of Washington. I have been connected 
 with the Columbia Basin project almost from its inception. 
 
 This project originated with the people of the State of Washington before it was 
 taken to the State legislature. It was originated because we knew in the Pacific 
 Northwest that practically all agricultural lands capable of development were ex- 
 hausted as far as homestead entries were concerned. The only available lands left 
 for agricultural development were arid lands, much of which lay within this great 
 Columbia Basin plateau or within the big bend of the Columbia River. There was 
 felt that an inventory of our lands was necessary. Through chambers of commerce, 
 county commissioners, city commissioners, and the people on the project itself, this 
 request for an inventory was made to the legislature. To determine what the inven- 
 tory of the State was with regard to its arid lands, the legislature appropriated the first 
 $100,000 for a preliminary survey. 
 
 When the proposal was placed before the legislature it was admitted that the pro- 
 ponents did not know whether the Columbia Basin project was feasible or not. It was 
 realized.'however, that this great basin area was a liability to the Pacific Northwest, 
 and unless there was some means of getting water on it, it would continue to be a 
 liability. 
 
 After four years of intensive investigation, as far as our means permitted, we, in 
 our own minds at least, have determined that we have one of the greatest potential 
 assets in the Pacific Northwest. We believe it is a potential asset for this reason: 
 Our timber resources are being rapidly depleted; with each ton of ore taken from our 
 mines an asset is being depleted. But this project is one resource that will create 
 economic stability with surrounding States and with the rest of the United States. 
 
 This project, as General Goethals and Mr. Goodner and Mr. Goodwin told you 
 yesterday, represents approximately 3,000,000 acres of land. We believe that within 
 the area we can irrigate approximately 2,000,000 acres of land. On the assumption 
 that there are only about 20,000,000 acres in the entire W r est which can be reclaimed 
 by the appl ication of water and of course you all know that that is not the extent of the 
 land that could be irrigated if more water was available water being the controlling 
 factor, we have the very fine situation in this Pacific Northwest of having for this proj- 
 ect, not to speak of power development that will be incidental to it, three times the 
 quantity of water necessary for irrigation. 
 
 It would tire you, and it would be useless for me to go into great detail about the 
 economic phases of the Columbia Basin project. Therefore, I am only going to touch 
 here and there on some of the things that you might be interested in as members of 
 this committee. As a matter of comparison let me first cite the Yakima project, to 
 which your attention was called yesterday. 
 
 In the Yakima Valley, including the private development and Federal reclamation, 
 there are approximately 300,000 acres of land . That 300,000 acres of land over a period 
 of five years has produced on an average $34,000,000 in new wealth annually.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 35 
 
 .Mr. SINNOTT. How far is that from the Columbia Basin? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is just across the Columbia River here [indicating on map). 
 
 Mr. SINXOTT. I mean in miles. I know where it is but I want to get it in the record. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I would say it is about 40 or 50 miles from the Columbia Basin, or from 
 the western edge of the Columbia Basin, to the Yakima Valley itself. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. What is the market value of land on the Yakima? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The market value of land on the Yakima under diversification ranges 
 from *2-50 to S300 an acre. It goes from that up to $1,003 and $1,200 for very inten- 
 sively cultivated fruit land. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Just what do you mean by "diversification"? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The growing of alfalfa, wheat, live stock, not specializing in fruit or 
 one crop. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is that the present market value you have given? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is the present market value. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. It was much higher during the war, was it not? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes; it was considerably higher than that during the war. When you 
 go north from the Yakima into Wenatchee you find tracts that are valued and are 
 sold as high as SI, 500 per acre, but they, too, 'are specialized fruit tracts. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How far is Wenatchee from the Columbia Basin? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Wenatchee is north here [indicating]. I should say 25 or 30 miles 
 north of the project. Bear in mind that the Columbia Basin area in soil and climate 
 is equal to and in many cases superior to either the Wenatchee or the Yakima project. 
 Bear in mind also that it is not our expectation and not the expectation of the State 
 that this will become a specialized fruit project. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Is this the area, the Yakima? [Indicating.] 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is the entire Yakima Valley. That represents about 100,000 acres 
 of the United States reclamation project. [Indicating.] 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. That is what you were talking about? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Wlien I said 300,000 acres I was taking in the entire Yakima Valley. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Which is the place where they sell it for $1,000 an acre? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Various places where it is verv intensively cultivated as to fruit. Prac- 
 tically all of this 300,000 acres is really a diversified farming section, but there are very 
 highly developed apple orchards. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is your market value based upon actual sales or upon estimates? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. They are based largely upon sales: the going prices received by real 
 estate men in Seattle, Tacoma, Yakima itself, and various places where the sales are 
 made. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The statement was made yesterday that the growing season in the 
 Columbia River Basin was longer than at Yakima. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. About two weeks longer, on an average, than the Yakima. The grow- 
 ing season is about 217 days, on an average. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN-. Why is that? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is due largely to the fact it is one great plane: it is farther away 
 from the Cascade Mountains; is not subjected to cold winds in the early spring and the 
 late fall ; by better contour; and by a southwest exposure of the land. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. It is a lower altitude, too, is it not? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Some parts of it, yes; but on the whole I would say that it is about equal. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Wouldn't you say also, Mr. Adams, that warm winds from the Japan 
 Current which come up to the Columbia modify the climate? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. This whole area is subjected to the southwest winds. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I mean wind currents from the Japan Current. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. They are mild winds and tend to warm the atmosphere. 
 
 The reason this whole area is arid is because the mositure strikii)g|the great Cascade 
 Range, a very high range in the western part of the State, is intercepted [indicating), 
 and most of the rainfall is west of the mountains. The rain clouds are uninfluenced by 
 the warm winds that go up from this overheated great plateau. There Is not sufficient 
 cooling to condense the moisture, and it goes eastward until it strikes the Bitter Root 
 Mountains. The moisture is then precipitated east of the basin area. That causes the 
 very low rainfall upon the area itself, varying from 6 to 10 or 12 inches. 
 
 We hope and expect that this will become a great diversified farming area, not util- 
 ized for intensive fruit production, because we believe that with the capital invested 
 and the more immediate return to the farmer his returns will be safer and more assured 
 over a long period of years than if he specialized in fruit. To continue the comparison, 
 if this 300,000 acres of land in the Yakima produced on an average $34.000.000 per year 
 over a five-year period, the Columbia Basin area, all things being equal, would over a 
 number of years return an annual wealth to the Nation of approximately $200,000.000 
 a year.
 
 36 COLUMBIA BASEST IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. While you are on that point, Mr. Adams, what have you to say in 
 answer in opposition to the statement made by those in Minnesota and Iowa that we 
 have overproduction now; that every acre added to the tillable land would merely 
 meaii that much more competition? I side absolutely with you; I want to see the 
 land put into cultivation over the country, but I think on this point, when you speak 
 of the amount of production you should answer that criticism. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I will be very glad to answer that. Mr. Arentz. In the first place, 
 under normal conditions, as those who have gone into the economic phases of it believe, 
 this situation will not exist very long. For instance, if the policy of restricted pro- 
 duction had been adopted by the United States Government shortly after the Civil 
 War, and our agricultural development had been arrested because of the same criti- 
 cism that was made at that time, we would not be producing the great quantities of 
 corn and the great quantities of wheat that we produce now; in fact, we would not be 
 producing enough for home consumption, not to speak of export; and if that policy 
 had been adopted by the Government we would not have been able to send food to 
 our allies during the war. I think as a consequence there would have been a con- 
 siderable breakdown so far as food was concerned. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That policy was adopted and that was one of the reasons assigned by 
 Hugh Cannon for vetoing the original homestead act, which Lincoln afterwards 
 approved. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. sir; that is very true. That argument was advanced at that 
 time and very strongly urged upon the Government. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Supposing it is true that we are producing too much and that we are 
 going to keep on at it. can you suggest any way in which the Government could take 
 care of the overproduction, any market that it could establish or secure somewhere? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. We will take our eastern markets for example when I say "our 
 eastern markets" I mean our far eastern markets I think those who have studied 
 the economic trend on the Pacific Coast realize that far eastern markets are developing 
 very rapidly. That is shown in our increased quantity of shipments, by our exports 
 to the Orient. That permits an additional outlet for many of our products. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Have you familiarized yourself with that enough so that you can say 
 to us that you think we will have an oriental market of any considerable proportions 
 for our agricultural products? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I can say that I have investigated it to this extent: Figures from the 
 Commerce Department show increased shipments of agricultural products, which 
 indicate a tendency for wider eastern markets. No one can predict very far into the 
 future what our shipments are going to be, but I say that that tendency is now mani- 
 festing itself. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Of course, there isn't anybody claiming that there is an oversupply of 
 fruit, is there? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The main objection now is that there is not enough transportation to 
 move the fruit that is being raised. It is a marketing question; it is not wholly a 
 question of production at this time. 
 
 Furthermore, answering Mr. Arentz 'a question, I will say that the products raised 
 upon these diversified, irrigated areas are not competing with the products of the 
 Middle West. For instance, take alfalfa. Alfalfa is being used largely for feeding 
 livestock in the western area and is shipped to markets in the Middle \Vest and the 
 East where alfalfa is not grown. Alfalfa is 'peculiarly a product adaptable to irrigated 
 areas. The same is true of sugar beets. They are largely, with the exception of those 
 grown in Minnesota and Michigan, not in competition with other products. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Do I understand you to say that there is more alfalfa grown on irrigated 
 land than on other land? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Than on nonirrigated land. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. That is an actual fact, is it? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir: that is an actual fact. As to sugar, bear in mind hat we are 
 an importing Nation . With the development of this area by reclamation and the grow- 
 ing of sugar beets we would tend more nearly to balance sugar production and consump- 
 tion within the United States. 
 
 Mr. SINXOTT. You mean there is more alfalfa grown in gross or per acre on irrigated 
 land? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. More per acre. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Oh, well, of course; but you do not mean to say that there is more 
 alfalfa grown on irrigated land than on other land, do yo.u? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. 1 would not say that, because I have not looked into the total quanti- 
 ties grown on other lands. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Would you not make some reference to the natural increase in popu- 
 lation in the United States and consequent greater consumption?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 37 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is a factor that I was getting to, Mr. Summers. If we take the 
 figures of the Department of Agriculture, showing the necessity of bringing in an 
 additional six or eight million acres per year to take care of the normal increase in 
 population for the next 30 years, it would mean that such areas as this must be devel- 
 oped in a comparatively short time in order to take care of that absolute need. 
 
 Mr. AREN-TZ. Don't you think, Mr. Adams, that your best argument in fact, it is 
 the best argument from my point of view is that the increase in population on the 
 Pacific coat within the next 10 or 15 years is going to be so great that unless we do 
 something now which will be spread over a lU-year period of development we are 
 going to be lacking in sufficient foodstuffs to supply the needs of the Pacific coast? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I think that is true. And I think you can go further than that and say, 
 Mr. Arentz, that in our 11 arid Western States that is, the 11 States farthest 
 toward the Pacific we have a population at the present time of a little less than 
 9,000,000; whereas, east of that block of States there is a population of over 96,000,000. 
 Many of that 96,000,000 will be glad of an opportunity to settle upon land that they 
 know will bring a return much greater than they could secure upon lands in the humid 
 regions of the United States. For instance, the United States Reclamation Service 
 shows that the production per acre per year is twice as much upon these irrigated 
 tracts as it is in the humid regions. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is that true as to crops generally? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. sir; that is true as to crops generally. The average per acre is 
 twice as much upon irrigated lands. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Is it not true that the investment is so much greater in an irrigated 
 acre that really the percentage of profit is less than it is on unirrigated land? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. 'No; I think not. If you base it upon the value of your Iowa lands 
 and other lands in the corn States, I think you will find that the investment is not 
 greater upon the irrigated land per acre than it is upon those high-priced lands in 
 the Middle West. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. I knew a very large farmer on the Nile who did not irrigate his wheat 
 crops, and he told me that he could make more money per acre by not doing it; the 
 natural crop was good enough so that if he paid for his water for irrigation he would 
 not make as much as he would if he had raised his crop without it. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. The cost of irrigation would enter in there, too. I understand that 
 in Egypt water rights are knocked off to the highest bidder year by year. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The increase in agricultural land in the valley of the Nile has been of 
 tremendous benefit not only to Egypt but to England, which appropriated the money 
 for building the structures. For this reason the exports from England and her colonies 
 to Egypt have increased greatly over what they were under the limited irrigation 
 before the Government made the appropriation. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. What money did England appropriate to build irrigation projects for 
 Egypt? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. They appropriated the money to build the great Assouan Dam and 
 other projects in India. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. To build the Assouan Dam? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. They put in $2.5,000.000, did they not? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I don't remember the amount. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Who did 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The British Government. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The British Government has adopted the policy of building these great 
 irrigation projects in Egypt and in India as capital investments without return to 
 the Government of the money and without the charge of interest. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Egyptian projects were not appropriated for by England at all, as far 
 as I can recall. I suppose you have some reason for saying so, or you would not say it. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN-. I am not saying it as a positive fact, but that is my impression that 
 they appropriated for it. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. I never heard of thorn appropriating any money for Egyptian projects. 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. Do you not think, Mr. Adams, that the development of this area will 
 be comparable with the development of the Nile that is, in proportion in the way 
 of exports coming from the eastern part of our country, if you call them that the 
 same as exports came from England to Egypt after the "development there? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Comparing it in that way, "Mr. Arentz, I would say it would be of a 
 great deal more value to the United States than has been the development of Egypt 
 to the British Empire, for this reason: Most of the manufactured products used at 
 this time in the West are not manufactured in the West, but are shipped to the West 
 from eastern manufacturing centers. There can be placed upon this area in the cities 
 and upon the land when it is developed a population of approximately 500,000 people,
 
 38 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 and these people will expend, based upon figures we think reasonable, $100,000,000 
 a year in eastern manufacturing centers for products manufactured and shipped to 
 the West for the use of the people on the project. That means that all of the eastern 
 manufacturing centers are vitally interested not only in this development, but in 
 the development of other worthy projects in the West. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Mr. Adams, we have, I think, been diverted somewhat from 
 your main discussion, and I want to ask you a question at this time, inasmuch as we 
 are off the subject. This question may have been answered, but what per cent of 
 the lands within the Columbia Basin project, as shown on the map, are privately 
 owned and what per cent is still in Government ownership? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That was all gone into yesterday. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I would put it this way: That 5 per cent approximately is owned by 
 the Northern Pacific, a very small quantity by the State and the Government. The 
 rest of it is in private ownership, at least 90 per cent of it, and of that 90 per cent 
 approximately half is in holdings of 360 acres or less, and the other half is in holdings 
 of more than 360 acres. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now, the question that I am particularly interested in is this: 
 Are the owners of the land upon the land now? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Very largely not. The area is becoming rapidly depopulated because 
 of the arid condition that exists and the great hazard of trying to grow a crop under 
 dry-farming methods. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. So far as you know, generally speaking, are the owners people 
 who are living in the community or are they city dwellers? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I would say that a great many of them are men who have been driven 
 off the area by aridity and are now in the logging camps, on the railroads, or in the 
 mines. Some of them are in the cities in the Pacific Northwest territory. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And not engaged in agriculture; not as a rule engaged in 
 agriculture? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. No, sir; not as a rule. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have they, so far as you know, for any considerable period 
 ever been engaged in agricultural pursuits? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. These people were encouraged to take up agricultural lands, not 
 knowing the conditions under which they had to labor; they moved upon this area 
 and hoped they could grow a crop. Many of them stayed five, six, or seven years and 
 then failed: were compelled to move away and did not have the money to go upon 
 other agricultural lands. But their desire. I believe, from conversations with repre- 
 sentative groups of them, is to go back to the land as soon as it can be made fit for 
 cultivation. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have you any information as to whether or not as a result of 
 the climatic conditions and the people leaving the land there has been any con- 
 siderable sale of the land within recent years by the original owners? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. There have been some large tax sales. The men who lived upon it 
 were unable to pay their taxes. Many tax certificates have been purchased. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now, as to those sales, is it a fact or is it not a fact that they 
 are in the hands of a very few people? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. No; I would not say that. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. State what "are the facts, if you know them? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I would say that those tax certificates are distributed rather wideJ\ 
 over the State and mainly within the State of Washington. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. So far as you know if you have any information on the ques- 
 tion are they in the hands of persons who are interested in agriculture or expect to 
 engage in agriculture? 
 
 5lr. ADAMS. To answer that question frankly, I would say that these tax certificates 
 were bought at such an outrageously low figure that the present holders are holding 
 them with the expectation of making a profit upon them. 
 
 Mr. AREXTZ. While we are on that point, do you think it makes any difference 
 whether or not the land is opened in large areas by a man in a logging camp or a man 
 in a city, so long as that land when it is put under cultivation is divided up into 
 80-acre tracts and sold to the man that wants to go on to the land and make a home 
 there? 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. At a reasonable price. 
 
 Mr. AREXTZ. Yes; at a reasonable price. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is our contention. Mr. Arentz. We believe that this project 
 will be divided into farm units of not more than 40 acres, and that there will be a 
 great demand for that land at reasonable prices when the area is placed under water. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, finishing the matter started by the gentleman from L'tah [Mr. 
 Leatherwood], can you not give us some estimate as to the amount of this land that is 
 now held by people who bought it at tax sales?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 39 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That would be very hard to answer offhand and give you the exact 
 figure. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It can be had, can it? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. It could if we went into the records of the county assessors. Mr. 
 Goodner, I think, personally made an investigation of that matter and could give 
 you more specific information. 
 
 Mr. GOOONER. May I just say one thing in answer to your question, Mr. Raker? 
 We personally went over the county records in the four counties involved, listed the 
 owners of record of every tract of land, amounting to a great many thousand pieces, 
 and we found that the large proportion of the tax sales have been made to the large 
 wheat and stock growers in the Palouse country to the east and in Lincoln County an 
 the Big Bend country to the north. They are holding those lands partially for a 
 amall amount of winter grazing the little snow and moisture that we have comes in 
 the winter and they get a small amount of winter grazing. In addition to that they 
 are holding the lands in expectation of the time when either a cycle of high-rainfall 
 years comes along, like we had when the land was first settled, or irrigation will enable 
 them, the big wheat growers of that country, to immediately put that land under 
 cultivation. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, the experience has been on many irrigation projects up to the 
 present time that some of these large holders did not come under the project, and that, 
 has hampered the project; also the land that they have sold has been sold at enormous 
 prices, much more than the cost of irrigation. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You recognize that fact? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now what effort have you people made to avoid that same condition 
 under this proposed project? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. We anticipated that, and two years ago we had proposed to the people 
 of the State of Washington, through the legislature, a constitutional amendment giving 
 the State the power of condemnation as far as irrigated lands are concerned. We 
 have determined through appraisals the values of this land in its raw state. It is the 
 purpose of the State to discourage sales at excessive prices before water is made avail- 
 able. We can condemn at present raw-land prices. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Has that act been passed upon by your court of last resort? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That was a constitutional amendment adopted by the people of the 
 State of Washington. It is now a part of our State constitution, and has been passed 
 upon by our State supreme court. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Suppose a man has a 1,000 acres under the project, the contemplated 
 project, and eventually it becomes a reality, that the money is appropriated and the 
 dams and ditches and canals are built and the water is brought down on to the land. 
 In the meantime he has not disposed of his laud. That land, while it was only worth 
 $2.50 an acre without water, is to-day worth $250 an acre. Now tell the committee 
 what arrangements you have made to adjust that difference and dispose of the man's 
 960 acres so that he may retain 40 acres, if any. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I will be very glad to do that. In the first place we have come in con- 
 tact through correspondence or by personal conversation with many of these owners 
 whose tracts are greater than 360 acres some 640 acres, and in some cases even a whole 
 township and they have reached the conclusion and have agreed with us that if this 
 area can be watered by the United States Government they are willing in most in- 
 stances to dispose of their excess holdings above the 40-acre unit. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. At what price? Have they agreed upon a price? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I will answer that in this way: An appraisal has been made showing the 
 value of raw land fit for sheep pasture at $3 to $5 per acre. It is a fair valuation at the 
 present time. Fair-class wheat land on which crops have been grown is valued now at 
 about $10 or $15 per acre. There are a few sections in the project such as Rattlesnake 
 Flats and Quincy Valley, that have a slightly greater average rainfall. Some of that 
 wheat land is valued at "from $20 to $25 per acre. It is our object to see that, as far as 
 the settler is concerned, he shall pay no more than those going prices when he buys 
 his 40 acres. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But how can you carry that intention out? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. We can carry that intention out in this way: If this becomes a Federal 
 project the land owners would be compelled to enter into a contract with the Secretary 
 of the Interior agreeing to the disposal of all excess areas over their 40-acre unit. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Suppose he refuses to enter into that contract? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Then we would use the State power to condemn that land under our 
 constitutional amendment. 
 
 Mr. BARBOVR. And take title to the State'.'
 
 40 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Take title in the State and turn it over to the Secretary of the Interior 
 for his disposal. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Suppose they contested those condemnation proceedings, it might 
 take some considerable time to dispose of that matter if there were any considerable 
 number of cases. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, if there were any considerable number of cases. But as I say, 
 from our correspondence and from our personal contact with these large owners we do 
 not anticipate such a condition. We believe firmly that we will not have that 
 condition to meet in very many cases. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But no binding contract has been entered into yet? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. None at this time, because we have not formed a district. There are 
 several things to be done to perfect that . 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I know, but what I am so intent on, you are making the same argu- 
 ment that I heard 25 years ago, but I saw and realized that they could never carry it 
 out, and these men paid $150 and 200 an acre for some of this land, just to get the 
 land, and then had to pay for the water right, because arrangements were not made 
 in the first instance to bind them to the contract. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is just the reason I said we contemplated that situation and 
 have passed this constitutional amendment. We have had these conversations and 
 tentative agreements through correspondence with these large landowners. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And your supreme court has held that you can condemn a man's 
 thousand acres, leaving him 100 acres well, say 40 acres for the purpose of the 
 State simply taking the 960 acres to sell to other private individuals? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Certainly. The State is now doing that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And your supreme court held that to be constitutional? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Is there any opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States on 
 that? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Not that I know of, not the United States Supreme Court, but our State 
 supreme court. And the State of Washington is now, through its department of 
 conservation 
 
 Mr. RAKER ( interposing). Will you submit that decision so that it can go into the 
 record with your testimony? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Have you got a pretty strong court out there? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. We think we have. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. You always have had? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That seems so remarkable to me, that you can condemn property of 
 private individuals by the State, not for Government use but to turn right over to 
 another private individual . 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Simply because he won't enter into a particular contract. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; because we realize that that is for the benefit of the whole 
 State, because if these tracts continue to be held in 1,000-acre units, as you say, it is 
 not for the best interests of the State or the community at large that such areas be held, 
 especially when these irrigable lands are now reverting to the desert instead of being 
 developed. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Are you familiar with the court procedure in that condemnation? 
 Can you make a number of defendants, a number of landowners, party to one case? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; under our procedure. If we created a district, we could bring 
 every member of that district into court under one proceeding. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You would just have the one action? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. One action; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Now, can you take into consideration as a measure of damages the 
 possible use to which the land is going to be put? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The way the State is operating in those cases is by taking the raw land 
 at the present time and not as it will be in the future, because the settler is expected to 
 derive the profit from it by his own labor and investment. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. May I interrupt just a minute? The same principle, Mr. Sinnott, 
 would apply as applies in the ordinary condemnation case. For instance, where a 
 railroad is condemning land, its value would be determined upon its value for its 
 highest possible use, but you would not take into consideration its value when it 
 became railroad land. So here you would value the land by its highest possible use 
 in its then state, but you would not take into consideration its value under its improved 
 or irrigated state. 
 
 Mr. HXJDSPETH. Was Judge Webster on that court when that decision was rendered? 
 [Laughter.]
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 41 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Unfortunately not. but I think he would have concurred if he had been. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. You were giving us some information abovit the dams on the Nile 
 
 The CHAIRMAN* (interposing). Excuse me a minute. I want to make an inquiry in 
 connection with this matter. If this project is authorized by Congress, undoubtedly 
 a provision will be inserted such as we have in section 3 of the bill 10614, that before 
 construction of the project is commenced, the size of the farms therein shall be estab- 
 lished and an agreement shall be made effective subjecting not less than 80 per cent 
 of the excess lands within the project to disposal by authority of the Secretary of the 
 Interior to settlers at prices and terms fixed in advance in such agreement. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But, Mr. Chairman, have you overlooked the fact that these folks here 
 now are seeking authority for the purpose of obtaining an appropriation to survey 
 their project, and all of these conditions exist that have not been disposed of ? 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. How could all the conditions be disposed of? 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. This is only a preliminary investigation. Judge Raker. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. This is a preliminary investigation, Judge Raker, to determine and fill 
 in the gaps that General Goethals and Mr. Goodner told you about yesterday. The 
 investigations we have made are also preliminary, looking as we must to the ultimate 
 construction and completion of this project. These problems, as nearly as possible, 
 must be solved in advance. That is the reason we have gone into them so fully. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. May I read an extract from a letter that I think throws considerable 
 light just at this point on several questions that have been asked in regard to condi- 
 tions there? I want to say that these two letters came not in connection with this 
 but from a desire to secure seed wheat, and are simply telling me their conditions. 
 One writes: 
 
 "I will state my own condition, which is. I believe, that of the average farmer here. 
 I came here 16 years ago, at the time this country was being opened up for grain 
 raising. I went through all the hardships which go with a new country. Land is 
 cheap here, as it always has been. We have not had a land boom in which values 
 were inflated. There was a small increase in land values during the war, owing to 
 higher grain prices, at which time some half dozen farms changed hands, and I mention 
 this fact to show that most of us are the original settlers. 
 
 'During the last five years we have been passing through a series of dry years, 
 which together with the price deflation has wiped away the savings of a lifetime for 
 most of us, as well as the work of the last 15 years here. 
 
 '''My taxes are years behind, also my interest. I have used up my local credit. 
 My present crop, which will average about 4 bushels to the acre of wheat, will all go, 
 as soon as I thrash, for obligations. I do not know at the present time how I can finance 
 myself during the coming year and stay on the ranch." 
 
 The CHAIRMAN". From what section of the country is that letter? 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. That is from the northern part of this project, right in the midst of 
 it. One short sentence from another letter and then I will yield. This letter states: 
 
 ' All of us would gladly sell part or all of our holdings to meet our obligations and put 
 in another crop, but conditions are such that we can not sell anything for cash." 
 
 I think these letters answer several questions that have been raised. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Xow, the State of Washington has already spent $150,000 on this 
 project. They have surveyed and they have gone over the tract minutely. While 
 they were doing all of that, as yet they have made no definite arrangements to protect 
 incoming purchasers, and I am wondering why they did not obtain a contract from the 
 landowner that if it was eventually put into a reclamation project he would dispose of 
 all of his land except 40 acres. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Let me answer that in this way: Until this investigation is completed 
 it would be presumptuous to create a district, which is ultimately the object, we 
 think, of the United States Government and the State under our district laws. How- 
 ever, if the determination to be made by the Federal Government by this appropria- 
 tion of $100,000 shows that it is feasible in all its aspects, then we contemplate that the 
 Government will say: " If you form the district we will have some legal basis on which 
 to contract with your settlers." And until that is done we can only offer these sug- 
 gestions and these preliminary negotiations to determine in advance what the senti- 
 ment of the settlers and those in the surrounding country may be. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Right there, Mr. Adams, before you form your district, suppose 
 some of those landowners refuse to join, would you then bring condemnation pro- 
 ceedings? 
 
 Mr. A DAMS. We would not until a district were formed. There would then be a legal 
 entity through which the State could proceed. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. But suppose the landowners refused to join the district? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Then there would be no project. Under our State law 50 or more set- 
 tlers on a project can petition the county commissioners for the formation of a di.strict
 
 42 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. That is similar to our law. That is what I had in mind. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Then they vote upon whether a district shall be formed or not. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What per cent of them? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Two-thirds. If two-thirds of the people within the district vote lor 
 the formation of the district, it becomes a legal entity and a public corporation. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. But if you do not get that two-thirds vote, then your district falls. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The district falls; yes. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. The whole project fails. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The whole project fails. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now, under your condemnation proceedings in this class oi 
 cases provided by your State law, I take it from what you said that the title would 
 vest in the State. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes; title would vest in the State. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The fee simple title? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Then, under such an act or an act similar to that to which your 
 attention has been called by the chairman 
 
 Mr. ADAMS (interposing'). The State would enter into a contract with the Secretaiy 
 of the Interior giving him the power to dispose of lands subject to the contract with the 
 district. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Make him the agent? 
 
 Mr. A-DAMS. Make him the agent, through his department, for the disposal of these 
 lands to ex-service men and others. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Would the State convey that land to the Federal Government? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I believe it would, in trust at least. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. For what consideration? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Well, that would be a matter of contract between the Secretary of the 
 Interior and the State through its district organizations, and at the going prices, we 
 presume, of lands as they would be appraisedby the Secretary of the Interior. ^ 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Mr. Adams, going a little farther with Mr. Barbour's question, after the 
 district is formed, here is a man that refuses to divide his lands: the State commences 
 this proceeding for the purpose of the State buying the land for final disposition of it, 
 through condemnation proceedings. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, what is that purpose for which the State can acquire that par- 
 ticular tract of land? Is there any particular designation under the Constitution? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. To bring it within the district so that that land rnay be assessed and 
 taxed to pay for the water upon the land and resale to the settler himself. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is not the question I asked you. If a majority, a two-thirds vote 
 decides to go in, the one-third must come under the district under the law? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, the question is as to the division of the tract of land from a 
 1,000-acre tract to a 40-acre tract. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Well, that is taken care of, as Mr. Smith called your attention to, 
 under this provision. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Oh, no; you are opening up quite a different view. The secretary 
 will not act unless that is done, but the question I put now is after your district i? 
 formed, the land is in, legally in because it must be that way a certain minority 
 can object, but the majority or two-thirds or three-fourths can put you in the dis- 
 trict. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, this man who has objected has got 1,000 acres, and you want to 
 reduce him to 40 acres; do you say you can commence proceedings in the State court 
 and take 960 acres from him by the State? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. For what purpose? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. For the purpose of permitting him to hold only 40 acres of land and 
 dispose of the balance to the subsequent settlers who desire that land, through the 
 Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, you can go out and say: " Here, Mr. Brown, you have 
 got a fine piece of land; you are a good farmer; you are doing well, but Mr. Jones, a 
 red-headed farmer over here, is a little lazy and trifling but we like him and we will 
 commence condemnation proceedings to take your land from you and give it to Jones, 
 the red-headed fellow. " Is that right? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I think, with the exception of drawing the distinction between the 
 red-headed man and the original owner, that is about correct.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 43 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. Don't you think that in order to reach a legal conclusion on which 
 we could work on these things we would have to take your law books and read them 
 -over, or are you satisfied that this is an authentic opinion? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I know that our State supreme court has upheld that act, and I will be 
 glad to submit their decision. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN*. You have actually had cases where you brought a man into court 
 who refused to include his lands within an irrigation project; you have condemned 
 the land, taken it away from him, and sold it to other people, and all that has been 
 approved by your State supreme court? 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. You can put in the decision in the case. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. The supreme court decision in our State which passed upon the 
 powers of our reclamation department, division of reclamation, hinges the whole 
 constitutionality of our act upon one clause, that was for the purpose of developing 
 the lands. They have held that as long as we take these lands for the purpose of 
 increasing the development upon them, lands which are now idle, and put them into 
 any form of agricultural development, that that is within the power of the State: 
 that the constitutional amendment contemplated that very thing. We could not 
 take your land away from you and allow it to lie idle nor put it to some other use 
 than agricultural development. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now. this question, so that we may understand it and I am not going 
 to take too much time suppose a man has 160 acres under a project like this. It is 
 under cultivation. A district is formed. The man is an objector, but under the dis- 
 trict he could only hold 40 acres. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Your premise can not be met in our State. That premise could not 
 obtain, because the land could not be under cultivation in advance of splitting up 
 into these units, because we would not build the project. The project would not be 
 authorized nor built until after this splitting up of ownership had been accomplished. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Suppose you had a tract actually under development within a con- 
 templated project, say, a tract of 100 acres, then that man would have to give up all 
 but 40 acres? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. There isn't any such thing in that country. Any lands that are 
 already supplied with water within a proposed project would be entitled to exclusion 
 from the district, because they have their own water supply. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Even though they were right inside of the exterior boundaries of the 
 district? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Yes; we have that condition in administering the State districts, 
 that I told you about yesterday. We have 20 or more districts now that are operating 
 in that way. Within some of them there are individual tracts that have their own 
 wells or springs or riparian rights and do not get the district service, and while they are 
 entirely geographically within the district they are politically not part of the district at 
 all. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. And would not be included in it? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. And would not be included in it. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Your constitutional amendment is also directed at the large land 
 holder outside of the irrigation districts, is it not, and is for the purpose of breaking up 
 some of those large holdings? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. It covers irrigation districts ordrainage work only; any reclamation 
 work. It must be aimed at reclaiming land; we can not exercise that power for any 
 other purpose. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. But a man holding a tract of, say, 100,000 acres outside of a project , 
 you could not proceed against him? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Not unless we contemplate development of the tract. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. W T ill you put that act into the record, and also the decision of the 
 Supreme Court? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. That constitutional amendment? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. It would seem, then, that this proceeding in your supreme 
 ourt would act as an entering wedge in operative socialism. 
 
 Mr. GOODSER. Perhaps so; and so are all irrigation projects. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN'. It may shock some of the legal minds around this table, but I tnink 
 the State of Washington should be complimented on the adoption of that constitu- 
 tional amendment. It may be contrary to all the precedents, but it is apparently a 
 good means to attain a most desirable end. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. I think it should go further and apply to all large holdings. 
 
 Mr. Sis'NOTT. Mr. Adams, you said that the State could take idle lands. Is tha 
 the only kind of land that they could take? Would this land be considered idle?
 
 44 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION' PROJECT. 
 
 Now, here is 160 acres in the exterior boundaries of that project. It is not irrigated 
 but is being cultivated by dry farming. Would you take that 160 acres under your 
 condemnation? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Not unless it was to be irrigated. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Irrigation would increase the value of that land. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You could take that 160 acres of land under dry farming for the pur- 
 pose of irrigating it? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, just one other question on that line. 
 
 When the State gets it, what is the plan in the disposition of that land to settlers : 
 do they make a profit on it or turn it over at actual cost? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. We try to discourage profiteering for this reason: If the man is compelled 
 to pay, we will say, $3 or $5 or $10 or $25 an acre, and on top of that we put a water 
 charge of $144.99 or $145, we think that is as much as the settler should be compelled 
 to pay. With the amortization of his payments, any excess over the going value of the 
 land works to the detriment of the settler and is also detrimental to the State. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. There is one question I would like to ask. You gave us the information 
 that the British Government advanced the money to build the Aswan Dam. Their 
 Egyptian Government built the barrage below Cairo and near Cairo. There are three 
 of those big dams on the Nile, and do you know who furnished the money for the 
 third one at Assiut? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. You mean the Aswan Dam? 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. No; you said the British built the Aswan Dam. Now I happen to 
 know that the Egyptian Government built the barrage; who built that dam at Assiut? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I don't know. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. The Agricultural Department and the Geological Survey here in 
 this city have both issued bulletins covering Egyptian reclamation, as well as the 
 reclamation in India. While it is true that the old Egyptian rulers started the bar- 
 rage, they never successfully completed it. It was completed and the two dams, 
 the Aswan and the Assiut, and the work was done and the work now going on is 
 under the auspices of the British Government. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. But the barrage was built by the Egyptian Government itself. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. And the engineers were Italian first, then French, and then English, 
 but the government built it itself. 
 
 Now, do I understand you to say that the Aswan Dam was built by the British 
 Government's money? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir; and also the Assiut. And the work which has gone on ever 
 since has been direct from imperial funds advanced the same as this country would 
 build a post office. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE . Do you mean to say that imperial funds maintain the Aswan and the 
 Assiut Dams. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. The water is rented each year and they are sustained in that way. 
 They auction off the use of the water each year in Egypt on a rental basis, and that 
 ncome is the only way that the Egyptian Government has of raising money for that 
 purpose. The finances of the Egyptian Government have been guaranteed until quite 
 recently and administered by England. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. You get this information from these circulars, about the English 
 Government building these dams? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. From them and from the personal correspondence of Sir William 
 Wilcocks, English administrator in charge of the work. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE. You have read of his work? If the British Government built th<> 
 Assouan and Assiaut Dams I would like to get the facts. The Banage was not so 
 built and I do not understand that the others were. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. I have had a great deal of detailed information from him on that 
 work. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Adams, I wonder whether or not, in pursuance of that con- 
 stitutional provision the State has passed any law or is there any regulation by which 
 the State agrees not to sell this land at a profit? In other words, turn it over to the 
 settler at actual cost? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; the State has determined the price in advance of lands on 
 projects. Not this particular one, but it has about twenty projects under the State- 
 reclamation service and it has determined the going price of the land, and will take ir 
 over and reclispose of it to ex-service men or others who desire it at that figure, without 
 any additional enhancement of price. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMSON. In other words, the aim of the State is to take these lands and turn 
 them over to the settler at what they actually cost the State? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; that is the policy of the State.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 45 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Would the cost of condemnation proceedings be included? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I presume that would be part of the cost, but that is a very small figure 
 when you can combine all of these holders into one proceeding. The cost would be 
 so small that it would not be appreciable. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. It would be very small per acre if they were all combined in one 
 proceeding. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Who is the Columbia River Basin Irrigation League? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The Columbia Basin Irrigation League is an organization of those in- 
 terested in this development in the States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. They 
 are all interested in this development becavise they realize that with the settlement of 
 this project and the bringing in of half or three-quarters of a million people, the bene- 
 fits will be distributed over the entire Pacific Northwest. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And the development of commerce and the development of the coun- 
 try is a Government function of the State of Washington? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes; cooperating with the league. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. How much did this document cost you, this Columbia basin project? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. What document are you referring to? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. This report of George W. Goethals & Co.. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I can show by that the way the State and the league cooperate. 
 The legislature made an appropriation of $50,000, a great part of which was spent on 
 drilling the dam site at Grand Coulee. When that fund was exhausted, or almost ex- 
 hausted, it was realized that we should have an engineer of outstanding reputation to 
 go over the project and make an independent study of it; therefore the State put in all 
 of its remaining available fund granted by the legislature and the citizens of the Paci- 
 fic Northwest made up the balance by private contribution in order to take care of 
 the small deficit necessary to get this report out. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If Congress should appropriate the moneys called for in this 
 bill, that could be expended, as I understand it, by the Reclamation Service? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; by the Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I do not recall, but do they have the power of going outside 
 of their force and employing engineers? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I presume so. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Yes, they employ engineers. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. They employ consulting engineers. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. It is contemplated that General Goethals will be retained in 
 the further development of this project? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. We can not anticipate that. That is entirely a matter for the Secretary 
 of the Interior to decide. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Adams, I had a conversation recently with the Secretary of 
 the Interior during which he stated that his idea at this time would be to send an 
 investigating committee of three. He would call on the Agriculture Department 
 for a soil expert; he would call on the Geological Survey for a geologist, and he would 
 call on the Reclamation Service for an engineer; and he thought that would be a proper 
 committee to make the investigation contemplated in this bill. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That sounds very sensible. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. It did to me. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Have you had sufficient communication, Mr. Adams, with these 
 property owners in that district that you would be justified in saying to the committee 
 at this time that in your opinion two-thirds of them would vote to go into that district? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I think it would be almost unanimous. 
 
 Mr. SUMMER. I think the letter that I read into the record throws some light on 
 that. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I can say that confidently for this reason: This area is becoming rapidly 
 depopulated; the people there are thinking and dreaming of nothing but bringing 
 water upon that land. It is their only hope of salvation. They are so intensely 
 interested in it that I do not believe there is a settler on the project at the present 
 time who would vote against it. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. A settler or an owner? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. A settler or an owner. I think the vote would be unanimous. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Why has the State not made further appropriations and gone ahead 
 and completed the project? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I think it only fair to say that the State having made an appropriation 
 of $150,000 up to the present time, almost unprecedented so far as States are concerned, 
 has already gone a long way. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I thought you said the State appropriated $50,000. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The $50,000 that I spoke of was the second appropriation. The first 
 appropriation was $100,000, which was exhausted. The State then made a further 
 appropriation of $50,000.
 
 46 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr.. RAKER. Then, the State has appropriated $150,000 altogether? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The State has appropriated $150,000, and we have had access to records 
 of railroads and counties, etc. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I know, but just the cash was what I was asking for. Now, why has 
 not the State appropriated more and gone ahead? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The State appropriation made at the last biennium has only recently- 
 been exhausted. Our legislature does not meet until January. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Of this next year? 
 
 Mr. AJDAMS. Of this next year, yes; and having made this appropriation of $150,000 
 for preliminary investigations, I believe the State thinks at this time or I think it 
 is reasonable for it to think that the project should now be placed in the hands of 
 the Federal Government. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Supposing that is done, what would you do with reference to reim- 
 bursing the Federal Government for the money it has appropriated? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. As I take it, as far as reimbursing the Federal Government for the 
 money appropriated is concerned, it would be the policy of the Reclamation Service, 
 if it pursued the policy that it has adopted, that this $100,000 would be ultimately 
 reimbursable to the Government as part of its expenditure and repaid by the land 
 holder. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Provided it was consumated, but suppose it was not consumated, then 
 what? Supposing the report is adverse, what is the Government going to do about 
 the money appropriated? 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Would the Government not do just as it does in every other case where 
 it spends money and does not accomplish anything the money would be lost? 
 
 Mr. GOODWIN. It would do what the State did with the $150,000 they put in. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Oh, that is a different thing. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The State or local communities are to bear half of the expense of 
 the investigation and the suggestion you offer would be unusual and unprecedented. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But I was asking the witness a plain q uestion so that anybody who reads 
 the record might know exactly where we stand. We have nothing to cover up. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. The people of Texas have continuously put up money for investi- 
 gations down there. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But the Federal Government has also put up money for them. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. I don't think the Federal Government ever put up a dollar in my 
 State. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The answer is so easy that I am surprised that you would ask the 
 question. The Government loses the money; that is all. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then come out and say so. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is what I wanted to say. There would be a loss of $100,000 upon 
 the part of the Government. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And on what theory do you base the argument that the Government 
 should run the risk of losing $100,000? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. On the theory that this is a great national asset; that the Government 
 can well afford to put in $100,000 to complete this investigation, because it will mean 
 to the United States Government alone very great returns, not only in the prosperity 
 of its people but the return in income taxes would soon pay for the cost of this project 
 if it is built by the United States. 
 
 Mr. RAKER! Now, the general estimate of cost is now fixed at about what? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The total cost will be about $254,000,000. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What did we appropriate for the investigation of the Imperial Valley 
 in California? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. $20.000. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. \Vhat is the status of that? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It is before the committee now. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What is the prospect of getting back the $20,000. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You can get it all back by applying that canal project, if you want to. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. The Government in the Imperial Valley owns a very large amount 
 of land that would be affected by the improvement there. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. This would not be any different from the Imperial Valley. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. None whatever, but this witness appears to be, and I 'am satisfied 
 from my own observation that, he is, an intelligent witness, that he knows what he is 
 talking about and he is not afraid to tell you that if vou appropriate the money and it 
 turns out to be a failure, the Government loses, but the Government can well afford to 
 lose it for the purpose of making the investigation. That is what I am trying to de- 
 velop if it is a fact. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is a very good answer. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now the $254,000,000, how do you expect to get that? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. You mean how it would be reimbursed to the Government?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 47 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Xo: how do you expect to get it in the first instance. 
 Mr. ADAMS. By a loan of the credit of the Government until the settlers could repay 
 the money. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. By direct appropriation? 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And how as to the interest pending the time it shall be repaid. 
 Mr. ADAMS. It is our belief that the policy of the Government should be of course 
 we can only offer the suggestion that because of the benefit to the Nation it can well 
 afford to lend its credit over a period of 40 years without interest. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What is your idea now, supposing within the next year surveys are 
 made and reports are made that show that the project is feasible and would justify 
 the construction because of the benefits it would be to the land in enhanced value, 
 even if it cost 254,000.000 what is your idea as to how long it would take to construct 
 the work so that it would become useful to the land? 
 Mr. ADAMS. Six years. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then within six years repayment could begin to be made? 
 Mr. ADAMS. I doubt that, because in justice to the settler he should be given at 
 least two or three years to get his land in shape before he would be asked to make or 
 to begin making returns to the Federal Government. 
 
 On these irrigation projects you can not turn the water right on and grow a crop at 
 once. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. One other question and I am through. Supposing in this project a 
 man has 1,000 acres; the unit is 40 acres, and under your law you can condemn, say, 
 960 acres. Suppose he has two or three growing boys who are very near of age, and a 
 couple of daughters he has a family of five or six is it your purpose or the purpose 
 of the State to take all of that land from that man if these children are under age, so 
 that he may not be able to within two or three or four or five years turn 40. acres to 
 this boy and 40 acres to this girl when she gets married, and 40 to the other boy? 
 Have you got any policy of that kind determined? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I do not think that would be necessary, because under the laws of our 
 State, or any other State, the father could readily make a conveyance to any of these 
 minor children. That will protect their interests. 
 Mr. RAKER. That can be done now under the reclamation project? 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, I think that is true. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. We are doing that now. In the present administration of the other 
 districts, if a man shows that he has got a legitimate use for the extra land, he is per- 
 mitted to withhold that land. We are not making any attempt at all to take land 
 away from a family where a family shows capability of handling it. That is actually 
 going on to-day upon thousands and thousands of acres where the State has control 
 in that way. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is very fine. 
 Mr. GOODNER. That is our established policy. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. It would be a mistaken policy not to do it, because those are just the 
 kind of people we want to remain on the land. Those are the kind of settlers that 
 we are looking for, who are contented and want to live there. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Well, it is very well to let the public know so that if a man goes in 
 there with his family he has got prospects for his boys and girls who want to build up 
 the country. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I will say as a general principle that it is the policy of the State to 
 look to the settler himself. He is the primary individual that everybody should look 
 to, and who.se happiness should be considered above everything else. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN*. That meets the objection which I made yesterday to the small size 
 of the farm unit. If you limit the farm unit to 40 acres' to a family and that is all the 
 land that the entire family may obtain, it is too small. But if you allow a man to 
 obtain 40 acres for himself and 40 for his wife, and then if they have a boy coming of 
 age who can properly cultivate it, allow a unit for him, that makes a very different 
 situation. When the time comes to divide 40 acres among the members of a family, 
 each child may receive only 5 or 10 acres which is such a small unit that they can not 
 make a living on it. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. You have got to allow for expansion, that is true, and I think any 
 other policy would be detrimental to the development of the country. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. And your idea is, that that is the settled policy of the State now 
 and that they are carrying it out every day? 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I did not know that and I wanted it to go into the record so there 
 would be no question about it. 
 
 2541022 4
 
 48 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What is the test, Judge Webster, as to the beneficial use? 
 Theoretically I am heartily in favor of that, but how are you going to prevent, under 
 your State law. the very thing happening that frequently has happened with refer- 
 ence to acquiring coal land? Suppose I owned a large tract of this land in question, 
 2.000 acres: is there anything to prevent me from conveying that to John Jones and 
 Sam Smith, who have large families, and then having them divide among their 
 children, and then later all of it drifting back again to a common ownership? 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Well, you see you have a different element here, Mr. Leatherwood. 
 The whole theory upon which the power of the State rests to condemn this land is 
 that the State proposes to take the land and develop it and put it in a more useful 
 and more valuable condition than it was, a thing in which all of the people are inter- 
 ested. Now as long as that is being done and the development is being kept within 
 unite that are practical, you are changing the condition of that thing all the while. 
 You take the coal lands that you speak of. the Government is not doing anything 
 with them; it does not expect to do anything with them; the coal is there and it is 
 a proposition of taking it out. Here the State government acquires the title to the 
 land for the purpose of changing its condition and status elevating it to a higher use- 
 fulness, a thing in which all the State is interested and upon which the State exer- 
 cises its power of eminent domain. Now having the power to do that, the State has 
 the power to do the things that are incidental to making that effective, one of which 
 is to keep it in units of such size as to make its development practical. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The only analogy in the illustration was the getting back to 
 common ownership, as to what test you nave to prevent a man with a large tract making 
 simply as a matter of form, conveyance with either a secret understanding or other 
 wise, and then after a certain period it comes back. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. The test would be: Are you developing that land and putting it 
 into a higher state of usefulness than it was before? The State would not be concerned 
 in the question of whether I or my son owned 80 acres of land, if both I and my son 
 were developing that land and putting it into a higher state of usefulness from which 
 the public derives the benefit. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEX. There is one further means of control that exists on an irrigation proj- 
 ect that could not exist with respect to coal land. I refer to the absolute control over 
 the delivery of water. A regulation could very properly be imposed that Avater would 
 not be served to land in one ownership greater than the farm unit. 
 
 Mr. W T EBSTER. Of course that is fundamental in all these projects, you have that 
 power of regulation and control incident to your power to control the supply of water 
 itself. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. There is one more clause that runs with that. In the contracts 
 which the State is now making on the other projects, and I assume it will apply to this, 
 we make a written agreement with each of these owners whose land we take over. 
 That agreement provides that the option in the State runs with the land through 
 successive ownership until in the judgment of the department of conservation and 
 development the land has reached a stage of development under which we may cancel 
 that control. You can transfer it through 70 different hands, but if none of them 
 develop it, our control holds. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Will you kindly insert a copy of that contract in the record? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. I will get one. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It just seems to me that the farmer hasn't any chance on God's earth 
 to determine whether or not he has got sense enough to run his farm. It may be a 
 good thing, but I don't know. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Just the minute that he makes wheat come up out of that ground 
 the farm is his to do with as he pleases; if he doesn't make it come up, we think we 
 have a right to assist him to make it come up. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I believe in helping him. but I just made that statement off hand. 
 Now, what is your idea as to the advisability of this legislation for this project in 
 particular, and the further idea of making this bill general, authorizing the appro- 
 priation of $500,000 or $1,000.000, and giving the Reclamation Service the power to 
 make these investigations under certain conditions so that we can really get general 
 development in the West? What is your idea as to that? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is the policy of this bill. This $100.000 appropriation is to be 
 made for the benefit of the investigation through the Secretary of the Interior himself. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You don't quite get me. This is a specific project. Every com- 
 munity and every locality almost is demanding just what you people are asking. 
 They have been demanding it for 10 or 15 years. How can the other members justify 
 one particular project by special vote when it ought to be a policy of the Govern- 
 ment to authorize such investigations as in the Judgment of the Reclamation Service 
 are proper?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 49 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Well, I will answer that in two ways. First, I thin'c the Secretary of 
 the Interior himself has designated in his communication to you that he thinks 'this 
 investigation should be made. Xow, that, as far as the Government is concerned, 
 evidently lays down the policy of the Secretary of the Interior as to these investiga- 
 tions. - 
 
 Second, that this project is so large, comparatively speaking, that, as Mr. Goodwin 
 outlined to you yesterday, it becomes one of three great proposed developments in 
 the West the development of Alaska, the development of the Colorado Basin, and 
 the development of the Columbia Basin. 
 
 Now, because those do take on a national aspect and national importance, and 
 incidentally, of course, are of great local importance, it is therefore a problem for the 
 National Government rather than for a local government or a community. 
 
 Mr. LEATHER WOOD. Does the number of acres, in your judgment, determine whether 
 a question is national or not in a proposition of this kind? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Not wholly the number of acres. But I would say that this whole 
 plan of development is necessarily a Government project rather than a State project, 
 because of the water rights involved, because of the tremendous area, and because of 
 the benefits to the entire United States through the ultimate development of the 
 project. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Mr. Bien says he would like to answer that question. 
 
 Mr. BIEX. I simply want to call attention to the fact that some years ago, or a num- 
 ber of years ago, Congress appropriated $50.000 for secondary investigation. We have 
 tried to get more because that was not enough. For the last two or three years the 
 appropriation has been $100,000, and we used that for general investigations. We 
 have a great many more demands than we can possibly comply with, so we would 
 not object if you could have that increased. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. I might make a further suggestion that such an appropriation is not 
 unprecedented, in that $20.000 was appropriated by Congress for investigation of the 
 lower Colorado River in cooperation with the Imperial irrigation district, and that 
 the last annual appropriation bill for the Interior Department carried an appropria- 
 tion of $100,000 for investigations on the Colorado River. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Well, the only point I made was not an objection, either fundamental 
 or specific; but there is such a demand by so many of the western communities that 
 feel that they are situated just like these gentlemen say they are, that it is a govern- 
 mental function and one of the great things that is necessary to develop the West, 
 like the Columbia River, the Colorado River, and other projects which are not quite 
 so large. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Could this project be carried through under the Smith-McXary 
 bill if it was enacted into law? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Because of its cost I think that it would be rather doubtful whether it 
 could be carried through under the Smith-McXary bill. However, if the fund pro- 
 vided in the Smith-McXary bill revolves as some of its supporters believe it will 
 revolve, ultimately it might be built under that. It will be long years in the future, 
 however. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. As I understand it, the Smith-McXary bill authorizes an appro- 
 priation of $350,000,000. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Xow the thought occured to me that if we attempt to pass special 
 legislation applying only to this project, it might to a certain extent jeopardize the 
 possibility of passing the Smith-McXary bill. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. I think it would aid greatly the passage of the Smith-McXary bill, 
 and our people of the Pacific Xorthwest believe so. 
 
 The question now as to the $100,000. Let me answer that first. Even under the 
 Smith-McXary bill you could not proceed with this project until this investigation 
 had been made, and therefore we are asking for this $100,000 in order that whatever 
 plan may be adopted by the Government in the future, this project at least will be in 
 shape to take advantage of any opportunity. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Assuming that the investigation demonstrates that it is a feasible 
 project, could it then be brought in under the Smith-McXary bill, if that bill has 
 become a law in the meantime? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Under its revolving feature, perhaps a long time in the future that 
 would be the case, but because of its size and the intense desire of the people of the 
 Pacific Xorthwest they hope, at least, that this project can go forward independently. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Is it at all possible to carry through this project as a private project? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Xo; that is entirely out of the question. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. Judge Raker, your question could be answered by the legal maxim, 
 "Lex vigilantibus non dormientibus." [Laughter.]
 
 50 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That does not apply to any particular case or any of the Members from 
 
 the West or any of those on this committee, because these matters are pending and 
 
 have been held in abeyance because there should be some general policy established . 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. That is not the answer, Judge. The answer is that it is a question 
 
 of fact for the jury. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. No; that answers the question. Now, the department has spent some 
 money; the State of California has spent some money for the purpose of irrigating 
 about 6,000,000 acres of land at a cost of $150,000,000, and we are held up from future 
 and proper examination which would bring in 10 people as compared to 1 on any 
 other project in the United States, but the amount is so large that they have not even 
 had a chance to consider it. So the question involved is whether or not we are going 
 to be tied up on all of our reclamation business if we start out on separate projects 
 instead of giving to the Reclamation S-ervice the opportunity to judge what ought to 
 be done. I want you to think about that. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That is what we are doing right here. We are asking the Interior 
 Department to make this investigation. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, I will be plain about this. We want the support of you and every- 
 body else to put enough money into the reclamation fund so that these people can do 
 the legitimate work that ought to be done. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. We agree with you, and we have been among the strongest supporters 
 of the Smith-McNary bill. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I know you have. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you mean to say in addition to that, other work should 
 be done, too? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is what I am getting at. We want the support of these people 
 and others from the West; we want them to get the help of their eastern friends so 
 that we can get enough money into the reclamation fund so that the reclamation 
 people can do the legitimate work that now needs doing. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What we want, what the dry State fellows want, is more spread. 
 Mr. RAKER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Well, we will go clown the line with you 100 per cent on that policy. 
 Mr. HAYDEN. I want to ask some questions about the text of this bill, because it is 
 now noon and the committee will have to adjourn very soon. 
 
 The bill provides, to begin with, that this investigation shall be completed not 
 later than the first day of January, 1924. Can it be done within that time? 
 Mr. ADAMS. I think it can be done within that time. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Then, the bill on page 2 directs in detail just what kind of report shall 
 be made. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Would you not get along just as well with a very short act appropri- 
 ating $100.000 for an investigation of this project, and let the Reclamation Service 
 make the investigation and submit a report of what it found? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. That would probably lie very advantageous except for this reason, that 
 the Senate has already passed this bill and if we attempt to amend it at this short 
 session we might meet with serious difficulties. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The Members of the House are not informed as to just what we 
 expect to accomplish. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Sometimes I find that as a practical matter the more you go into 
 details the more likely you are to raise doubts in the minds of those that are not 
 familiar with the subject. It takes just that much longer to answer their objections. 
 After all. if the bill provided that $100.000 was to be furnished to the Reclamation 
 Service to investigate the Columbia Basin project, and stopped right there, you would 
 get every result that you will obtain by this longer bill. When you particularize if 
 you happen to forget anything, then you will fail to get a report on that feature. In 
 other words, is it not better to pass general legislation with broad powers and then let 
 the Reclamation Service go on and make the investigation? 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. The Secretary of the Interior has gone over this bill very carefully. 
 We agree with him on the matter, and it has been drawn at his suggestion. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I want to ask one more question. You stated that you would irrigate 
 approximately 2,000.000 acres by the gravity system and your secondary pumping? 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Now, what do you estimate will be the cost per acre? 
 Mr. ADAMS. To be exact, $144.99. 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That includes secondary pumping? 
 Mr. ADAMS. No; just gravity. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. How much more will it cost for secondary pumping? 
 Mr. ADAMS. That has not been figured by the engineers and will be one of the 
 things perhaps that this $100,000 will be used for, to make the determination.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 51 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. But the land to be reclaimed. Mr. Sinnott, is 1.753,000 acres by 
 gravity alone. Whatever the additional cost of pumping would be. would be to 
 bring under reclamation additional acres. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. And perhaps with the additional acreage it will probably mean a 
 decrease in the ultimate per acre cost rather than an increase. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I think it should be borne in mind that the $144.99 is estimated to 
 carry a ditch to each 40-acre tract, whereas if we only undertake to carry it to lamer 
 subdivisions the cost would be very much less. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you this question and 1 would like to have the attention 
 of the chairman I want to ask this question of the witness and I would like to have the 
 chairman answer it: Under the present law the Committee on the Budget and the 
 Appropriations Committee would have the power instead of making this a secoudary 
 project appropriation of $100.000 to make it $500.000 if they so wished. Is that right, 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Undoubtedly. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. No. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But the unfortunate thing about that is that it will come out of the 
 reclamation fund. We do not want to load down the reclamation fund. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You were not talking about the reclamation fund? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. No. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. This is limited by the $100.000. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But I meant as the law now stands, the Committee on Appropriations, 
 has the law or the power to make any appropriation as to amount that they see fit for 
 secondary projects. Is that correct? 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Undoubtedly. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. No. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Why not? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. He is talking abo'ut money coming out of the Treasury ; he is not talk- 
 ing about money out of the reclamation fund. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Appropriations for secondary projects come out of the reclamation 
 fund ; we want this to come out of the Treasury. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Well, here it is. Judge: Supposing the Appropriations Committee 
 would bring in an item of $100,000 or $500.000 to be paid from the United States 
 Treasury for investigation purposes; somebody would make a point of order that there 
 is no law authorizing that. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is just the point. They have already in each bill for the last 
 three years brought in $100,000. 
 
 Mr. "SINNOTT. But that is out of the reclamation fund; this is out of the Treasury. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is what I wanted straight. They have the power now to make 
 the appropriation of any sum they want to, provided it comes out of the reclamation 
 fund. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. That is correct. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And that is the way you understand it, Mr. Bien? 
 
 Mr. BIEN. It would reduce accordingly the amount available for construction. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But it comes out of the reclamation fund? 
 
 Mr. BIEN. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, it has power to make appropriation for this out of the general 
 fund in the Treasury; we do have a general authorization of law for that purpose. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. From this committee, yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Not necessarily, because the Committee on Appropriations can report 
 any sort of an appropriation it wishes, but if we pass this sort of a bill it will, in my 
 opinion, make it easier for them to justify this appropriation. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. They can put an item in, but it would be subject to a point of order. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What I meant was, it would not be subject to a point of order. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, shedding a little more light on the question asked 
 by Mr. Hay den as to whether this report could be made by January 1, 1924, when 
 Director Davis was before the Senate committee in connection with this same bill, that 
 matter was called to his attention, and on page 8 of the Senate hearing Senator Jones 
 asked: 
 
 "Why not make this July 1, 1923?" 
 
 Director Davis answered: "That would be right in the middle of the season, if any 
 field work were being done. January 1 is a much more appropriate time for such a 
 report, after the field work is done." 
 
 Then Senator Jones said: "Do you think they ran make a report by January 1?" 
 
 Director DAVIS. They can make it by January 1 , 1924. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. What was the date of that hearini:? 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. July 10, 1922.
 
 52 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. Six months have since elapsed. You have lost six month?. Director 
 Davis probably meant if he could get the money then, the Reclamation Service would 
 have a year and a half in which to do the work; now you have cut that time down to a 
 year. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. I imagine that he made allowance for the fact that this bill would 
 probably have a tempestuous, not to say stormy journey before he got the $100.000. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. If the $100,000 is appropriated by Congress within the next three 
 months, then the Reclamation Service would have about eight month? in which to 
 make the report. If the Director thinks he can do it, all right- 
 Mr. WEBSTER. He can do it. 
 
 Mr. BIEN. I doubt if there will be any difficulty in getting it through. 
 
 Mr. FORD. The original bill, Judge, had the date January 1, 1923, and the question 
 was raised whether it was possible to finish it by January 1, 1923. The statement was 
 made that this bill might not get through the House till the short session, and Director 
 Davis in his testimony I do not have the exact date mentioned that he probably 
 would not be able to begin work until early in the new r year. That is how that date 
 was arrived at. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. We have had this experience in connection with the Imperial Valley 
 investigation: There was a definite date, the 1st day of December, when the report 
 must be made. The $20,000 was appropriated and that date was set, as they stated 
 it could be done by that time. December 1 date arrived and the Director of the 
 Reclamation Service had to submit to Congress a preliminary report saying that there 
 had not been time to complete the field work. We merely received a preliminary 
 statement saying that the work was in progress, which contained no conclusions at 
 all. Then, some months afterwards, a final report was submitted, which did not 
 become available for about a year. The Reclamation Service is going to do this work 
 as quickly as possible, and there is no advantage in setting a definite date. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But what I wanted to do was to get before you, Mr. Hayden, and the 
 rest of the committee, the advisability of general legislation on this subject. 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. If I had my way about it I would appropriate at least a half million 
 dollars every year, so that the Reclamation Service could investigate all of these 
 projects. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Why not pass out of this committee a bill authorizing that amount? 
 
 Mr. HAYDEN. I will gladly vote for such a bill. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Of course, this is a big thing, no doubt about that, and worthy, like all 
 the rest. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. That is true. Mr. Raker, but we all have big things in our States. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. We were able 12 years ago to present a resolution to the National 
 Irrigation Congress and had it carried I was on the committee and we decided then 
 that we should take the small projects and we would get more benefit out of them than 
 we would by taking the big ones, and that has been demonstrated by the past 10 years. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is it not likely that if we pass a bill of this kind we will stand a 
 better chance of getting appropriations for other projects than we would if we came in 
 asking for a large fund for general investigation? 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. I do not think so. Mr. Chairman. I vote for all these things. I 
 voted for the Imperial Valley and I expect to vote for this, but my people down in 
 Texas have been going down into their pockets and putting up money for these investi- 
 gations for years without any aid from the Federal Government. That doesn't reflect 
 any credit on me as their Representative here. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The people in my State put up $10.000 on one project and the Re- 
 clamation Service $3,500. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. My people have always put up every dollar and the Government 
 don't put up a nickel. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Well, at the next meeting we will take those things up. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Before you adjoiirn, Mr. Chairman, since Director Davis is not here, 
 I should like to ask permission to make part of these hearings his testimony before the 
 Senate committee on this bill. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. He will be here. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If we do not have an opportunity of hearing the director I think 
 that would be proper. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. I understand that Director Davis will return to Washington Sunday. 
 
 Mr. BIEN. He left Los Angeles on the 5th. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Then we may be able to have him before the committee soon. 
 Mr. RAKER. I think we had better have him, don't you? 
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I think so. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Then it will not be necessary to make his statement a part of the 
 record .
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 53 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If we do not have the opportunity of hearing him, we can incor- 
 porate his statement in the record. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, I also have here two short resolutions relative to this 
 bill, one adopted by the national convention of the Farmers' Educational and Cooper- 
 ative Union of America, Lynchburg, Va., November, 1922, a short resolution indorsing 
 the project; and one from the national headquarters of the American Legion. I would 
 like to have those made a part of the record. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN-. Without objection the resolutions will be made a part of the record. 
 
 (The resolutions referred to follow:) 
 
 RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE FARMERS EDUCATIONAL AND 
 COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA, LYNCHBURG, VA., NOVEMBER, 1922. 
 
 The farmers of the United States recognize that orderly marketing and distribution 
 constitute the largest problems of the farmers of the United States. 
 
 It is not the purpose of this organization in asking Congress for appropriations to 
 increase production beyond the point where consumption would make it impossible 
 for the farmers to derive a profit from their labors. 
 
 The normal increase in the population of the United States from birth rates over 
 death rates is approximately a million and a quarter a year. It should be the object 
 of American farmers as well as the American Congress to look at the problems in 
 reclaiming lands from a broad, national scope and to meet the needs of increased 
 population of the United States and to provide an opportunity to secure homes for 
 those Avho desire to till the soil. 
 
 The homes of many thousands of farmers in the State of Washington are greatly in 
 need of water for irrigation purposes. To assist our farmers in that section of the 
 country and to reclaim new and fertile areas for agricultural production, we ask the 
 National House of Representatives to concur in the appropriation of $100,000 pro- 
 viding for the survey of the Columbia River Basin project which has already been 
 approved by the Senate. 
 
 Adopted unanimously. 
 
 RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE FOURTH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN- 
 LEGION, NEW ORLEANS, LA., OCTOBER 16-20, 1922. 
 
 Whereas there are now in the United States millions of acres of swamp, waste, and 
 arid land that can be reclaimed and made available for settlement: Now, therefore 
 be it 
 
 Resolved. That the American Legion in convention assembled go on record as favor- 
 ing the immediate and speedy enactment of legislation by the Congress of the United 
 States having for its object and purpose the reclaiming of such swamp, waste, and arid 
 lands; and be it further 
 
 Resolved, That such legislation provide, as had been the policy in the past, that the 
 ex-service men and women of this country be given preferential rights in the settle- 
 ment of such lands when they have been reclaimed; be it 
 
 Resolved, That the American Legion indorses and approves the plans submitted to 
 Congress for the lending of Federal aid to the reclamation of arid lands and the drainage 
 of swamps, such as the Columbia Basin project, the.Colorado River, the Shoshone and 
 Platte River projects, the recovery of waste, swamp lands in Florida and Louisiana, 
 and other similar prohjects, and urges that Congress speedily enact legislation where- 
 by the vast amount of land included therein may soon be made productive, and thus 
 provide employment and opportunity for ex-service men to establish themselves in 
 homes and participate in the development of the great resources of this country. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn, just one sentence I do not 
 know whether Mr. Adams has concluded. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS. Yes; unless there are some further questions. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. The question has been raised as to the possibility of speculation 
 and actual settlers being held up on this proposed project. I want to show what has 
 been done by the State of Washington through the Columbia Basin Survey Commis- 
 sion to prevent speculation and protect the actual settler. This language is found 
 on page 29 of their report: 
 
 "It is difficult to find any justification for asking a higher price for the raw. unde- 
 veloped land than the first-mentioned values of $3 to $5 per acre." 
 
 Then in italics they have: " The other costs accrue against the actual settler and farmer 
 on the land, and he should not pay more per acre than the- few dollars mentioned.' 1
 
 54 COLUMBIA BASIX IEEIGATIOX PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, Doctor, if you will just get your district formed and get a written 
 contract from those people and get it on record, then you have got something to 
 start with. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. But, Judge Raker, you can not do those things in the preliminary 
 stage, but, of course, that can be done before this comes up to the stage of construc- 
 tion or of asking for an appropriation for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I think that is very well put, Doctor. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned. 
 
 (Whereupon, at 12.20 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.) 
 
 COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OP ARID LANDS, 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Wednesday, December 13, 1922. 
 
 The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Addison T. Smith (chairman) pre- 
 siding. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The members of the com- 
 mittee, I am sure, will be interested in knowing that we have as a new member of 
 this committee, Mr. A. R. Humphrey, until recently the very efficient clerk of the 
 committee, who was in November elected as the successor of our late lamented and 
 beloved chairman, Judge Kinkaid, of the eighth Nebraska district. 
 
 We will resume the hearings this morning on the Columbia River Basin bill, and 
 the Director of the Reclamation Service, Mr. A. P. Davis, will occupy the attention of 
 the committee. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MB. ARTHUR P. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES 
 RECLAMATION SERVICE. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the bill that I under- 
 stand is under discussion by this committee is one providing for an investigation of 
 the so-called Columbia Basin project for the irrigation of large tracts of land shown 
 on this map from the waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries. The Columbia 
 River, Mr. Chairman, is the largest river of the arid region, one of the great rivers of 
 the world with a very large discharge, with a large fall and enormous possibilities of 
 power development and irrigation. It is a river that is interstate; it is international, 
 and it is navigable. For all of these reasons, as well as the magnitude of the develop- 
 ment of that section, it is distinctly a national project, one of national interest, and 
 on account of its interstate, international, and navigational features can be properly 
 handled only under national authority. Incidentally its proper development is of 
 such magnitude that, at least so far as irrigation is concerned, it is an essentially 
 national problem. It strikes me, therefore, that it is proper and appropriate that the 
 bill proposed here should pass providing for a national investigation of the project. 
 
 It is one which is not by any means unknown, as considerable investigation has 
 already been made. The first decided attention which the river received from an 
 irrigation standpoint as a whole, I believe, was from the Reclamation Service about 
 the year 1903. Nearly 20 years ago there was an application for power development 
 below Lake Coeur d'Alene on the Spokane River, and that was referred to the Reclama- 
 tion Service to find out whether it would interfere with irrigation development. It 
 is physically possible M divert the Spokane River from the outlet of the Coeur d'Alene 
 to a large portion of this basin. In order to answer the questions that were asked of 
 the Reclamation Service at that time a reconnaissance was made which developed 
 that there was an immense amount of irrigable land in that area which could be 
 covered. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. At that time the project was known as the Big Bend project? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I believe it was. The region here [indicating on map] is sometimes 
 known as the Big Bend, where the Columbia River makes a big bend. 
 .Mr. RAKER. Where is the lake you speak of? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Lake Coeur d'Alene, in Idaho. That project contemplated irrigation of 
 this same land but otherwise it is not the same project. That is, the source of water 
 supply is different. At that time the Reclamation Service decided as a result of its 
 reconnaissance that the physical and financial condition did not justify the with- 
 holding of permits to develop power on the Spokane River. First, the project was 
 entirely too large to be ever undertaken with the funds available under the Reclama- 
 tion Service. It was expensive and probably would not be developed for many 
 years to come, and it was not considered justifiable to withhold natural resources for 
 the purpose of this development from power development. So that the power 
 development went ahead, and many power plants have been constructed on the 
 Spokane River and they are now delivering power to that region.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 55 
 
 But this project is a different one. The same land largely is involved but it pro- 
 poses to take water from the Pend Oreille River. It includes this part marked in red 
 on the map; it includes the dam built to divert the water, the coulees, the channel 
 work, etc., to get the water down to the required distance to the point of diversion 
 in the conduit, about 130 or 140 miles. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What do you mean by coulees? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It is a local name for a" little stream 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. It is not a local name. It is a general name for a small ravine. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I call it local because it is used locally. It is a French word. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. We have it in southern Idaho. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It means the same thing as the arroyo in the southwest, which was 
 settled by the Spanish. The word coulee is used in a section that was settled by the 
 French. 
 
 The Reclamation Service at one time investigated the possibility of irrigation in 
 the southern portion of this same tract from the waters of the Palouee River by tun- 
 neling, etc., and due to various reasons that project was not taken up. It was an 
 expensive one and involved some difficulties which by comparison with other projects 
 presented at the same time led to its rejection. The tract which was proposed to be 
 irrigated under the Palouse project is now included in the tract shown on this map 
 and denominated the Columbia Basin project, but that was only a small project. 
 
 The Columbia River, as I have stated, has upon it great power possibilities both 
 upon the river itself and upon its tributaries. Due to that fact permits have been 
 requested from the Federal Power Commission for license to develop power on that 
 stream. The Federal Power Commission in its early history adopted a policy by which 
 on any large stream they would not issue permits or licenses for the development of 
 power until they had made such general inyestigation as would satisfy them that in 
 doing so they were not curtailing or destroying natural resources, so that the permits 
 could be issued in such a way that they would not interfere unduly with irrigation or 
 with the best use of the water for power or for any other purposes. Following that 
 policy the commission, when permits were issued for the Des Chutes River in Oregon, 
 requested that a committee be appointed consisting of one member appointed by the 
 Reclamation Service, one member appointed by the Army Engineers, and one ap- 
 pointed by the Geological Survey. That board examined in detail the various possible 
 developments of the Des Chutes River and reported what policies were best for the 
 development of this river. I understand the policies of the commission are being 
 shaped accordingly. 
 
 Immediately after the rendition of that report the problem presented to the Federal 
 Power Commission concerning the Columbia River became important and some per- 
 mits were applied for and a similar question arose concerning the Columbia River. 
 In obedience to a request from the Federal Power Commission, the Reclamation 
 Service appointed one member of a board, the Army engineers appointed the same 
 member which had served on the Deschutes River Board, and the Geological Survey 
 appointed the same member. The States of Montana, Idaho, and Washington were 
 invited to appoint members, and they did so. That formed a board of six persons, 
 who were representative of these different organizations I have mentioned and the 
 three States involved. They have submitted to the Federal Power Commission a 
 report, and because of its bearing on this subject I wish to present the testimony and 
 recommendation of the Federal Power Commission, which is to the effect that such an 
 examination as is now proposed is advisable and feasible. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. When was this report made, Mr. Davis? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. This report was rendered in June of this year. It was delivered in 
 June. In addition to the gravity project there is the possibility of irrigating the lands 
 of the Columbia Basin project by the construction of a pumping plant at the Grand 
 Coulee at this point. It would require a dam about 200 feet and a pump lift of 400 
 feet to deliver water into the Grand Coulee, which is supposed to be an old channel 
 for the Columbia River, and from that the water could be diverted on this same land, 
 but would not cover it all, from that one pumping plant to this area. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. How do these two methods of supplying the water to this land 
 compare from an economic standpoint? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That question I am not able to answer, Mr. Chairman, but in that con- 
 nection I would like to read a paragraph. The Columbia River Board of the Federal 
 Power Commission made a careful study of that, and their conclusion was as follows: 
 
 "This board is not prepared to express on the immediate feasibility of a Columbia 
 Basin project, but considers it evident that if the project is not feasible now rising 
 land values will render it so in the future, and that its economical importance is rela- 
 tivelv greater than that of the power which it may destroy. It is further believed that 
 satisfactory information is not now at hand to justify a final decision on the method
 
 56 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 of irrigating the Columbia Basin or even on the best location for the dam for a pumping 
 project that will be to the best interest of the public. This board feels that the pump- 
 ing and the gravity methods of supply have each their strong and their weak features, 
 but is of the opinion that the project investigation, upon which to date less than 10 
 cents per acre has been expended, has not gone nearly far enough to permit a con- 
 vincing decision, especially considering that the adoption of the gravity project may 
 result in the permanent destruction of about 650.000 all-year E. H. P., nearly 400.000 
 of which is located in the State of Washington." 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Has this report been printed? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Xo, sir: it has not been printed. I understand it is in the hands of 
 the Public Printer now. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I was going to say, if it has not been printed it would be very valuable 
 to print it in connection with this hearing. 
 
 Mr. D.YVIS. I am not undertaking to indorse or condemn either the statement or 
 the opinion of this board, but I do consider it is a high authority that testifies to the 
 necessity of the investigation of this project. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What are the storage facilities for power in the Columbia Basin? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. There are storage facilities at Pend Oreille Lake, Priest Lake, and Flat- 
 head Lake. All of these drain into the Columbia River. There are power plants 
 along the Columbia Basin depending not alone on the fall available at this point but 
 upon the reliable steady flow of water. If the gravity li ne is built, it diverts the water 
 from the Pend Oreille River near the Washington-Idaho line. That river does not 
 furnish enough water during the late summer in its natural state for the development 
 of this project, and the necessary storage can be provided at these two lakes. Pend 
 Oreille Lake is most available for this purpose, and that, taken in conjunction with 
 either Priest Lake or Flathead Lake, will furnish ample supply for this purpose. The 
 proposed diversion will reduce the natural flow in the Pend Oreille River and in all 
 parts of the Columbia River below that point. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. To what extent would it reduce the natural flow? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. By the diversion. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what portion of the annual flow would be diverted? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; about 23,000 second-feet. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. It would be interesting to know whether the establishment of the 
 gravity system would take out of the Pend Oreille or the Columbia such a quantity 
 of water as would make it impossible to build power sites. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is a matter of opinion. I think I can quote you right now con- 
 flicting authorities on that same subject. If you take all the water in the Pend 
 Oreille River, it would not be sufficient. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the storage water on Lake Pend Oreille or Flathead 
 Lake would not be sufficient to irrigate this land? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Well, that water runs there naturally. Of course the water can be 
 stored in these three lakes. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Then, if that is the case, why would there be any possibility of 
 power development being destroyed, as suggested? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is what I am coming to. It is quite a long story. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. All right, we will let you go right along. 
 
 Mr. SI.VXOTT. The testimony the other day was that on the others it would r;-qu're 
 23,000 second feet to irrigate the project. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes: and that, supplemented by storage water, does not take all the 
 water from the Columbia River. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is to meet up with the Canadian contingencies, is it not? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Well, it is also to preserve the power possibilities, to make that much 
 available on both sides. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. All of them will be reported upon by this investigation? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes; and that is referred to in this report of the Federal Power Com- 
 mission. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. With this minimum supply provided for, it could not interfere with 
 primary development. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I am coming to that. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we allow the director to go ahead and make his own state- 
 ment and then we can ask him questions. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I think we can gain time in that way. 
 
 Now, if a dam is built on the Columbia River, at the head of the Grand Coulee, the 
 water would be intercepted from all the drainage above that. Xo storage, or very 
 slight storage is required, if that is done, to furnish water for this purpose, because of the 
 very large flow of the Columbia River. I think no storage is required, but that is not 
 fully admitted. However, a little storage might be advisable, but it is relatively very 
 small.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 57 
 
 Now. that means, ingeneral. that the storage in those three lakes would not be re- 
 quired for this irrigation project because there is enough without. It means that stor- 
 age that is available in these magnificent reservoirs would become available for power 
 purposes, and every power site on that river below that point on the Columbia and its 
 tributaries, including the Grand Coulee, would receive the benefit of that storage. 
 That means that the power development on the Columbia River and its tributaries 
 would yield 650.000 more horsepower than it would without it, if that storage was used 
 for irrigation. 
 
 Now. that is the testimony of this board. It is not mine. I am simply quoting, 
 Mr. Chairman. But this is a public document on which a large amount of labor has 
 been employed and I think the board is entitled to its opinions. That statement that 
 The additional power then would be available applies only to the Columbia River 
 down to the mouth of the Snake River and does not include some power sites of doubt- 
 ful feasibility, nor anything below the mouth of the Snake River, as I understand the 
 tabulation of the board. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. You mean they did not report on anything below? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. They have tabulated, but they did riot go any further than Priest Rap- 
 ids. The power site at Priest Rapids and all of those above that were considered feas- 
 ible are listed in there, showing how they arrived at 650,000 horsepower. They did 
 not go below that point. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. But the investigation proposed could cover anything below? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes; I think so. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Do you not think it should cover everything below? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think it is desirable to leave whoever is in charge of this investigation 
 as wide authority as possible. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, bringing the water by gravity along the line between 
 Idaho and Washington and taking it by pump at the Grand Coulee, there is a difference 
 of about 650,000 horsepower saved by \irtue of pumping it out of the Grand Coulee 
 River. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is the conclusion reached by this board. It has been criticized 
 by one member of the board and he has submitted a minority report which is all in 
 here. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Does that take in the investigation of all the power projects and the 
 irrigation development of that river in all its branches from Priest Rapids? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. All the principle ones that they considered feasible and important. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Does the territory that is marked off there on the map include the 
 watershed of the Columbia River? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I would not like to say that those conclusions include all the power sites 
 in the basin. They only affect those that the storage would bring into discussion. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is all this discussion pertains to, that all this water from the water- 
 shed goes into the river and it is affected in that respect. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. No: a great deal of this drainage comes into the Spokane River, in the 
 Coeur d'Alene River, and in other ways. The question under discussion is the 
 effect of this storage and of course it applies only to the streams that can be fed by 
 that storage. Anything above them would not be affected by what we are discussing 
 To-day. The only -virtue that is claimed for the gravity project is that it leaves these 
 magnificient storage reservoirs which are very large, very cheap, and very efficient 
 for the sole use of power. Now, that means that more power can be developed than 
 for anything else. 
 
 Mr. "RAKER. I want to ask you, from your understanding, whether or not this 
 commission, known as the Power Commission for the basin, took into account the 
 amount of water and its relative use for irrigation and power, as it is marked on this 
 map, relative to the watersheds, to Flathead Lake, Pend Oreille Lake, and Priest 
 Lake, and also in connection with the intake of this canal as well as the Grand Coulee 
 diversion project? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. They undoubtedly took into consideration all of the elements affecting 
 this conclusion. Just what their mental processes were I do not know, nor have I 
 freshly in mind their entire course of reasoning. It has been some months since I 
 read this report, but I reviewed it hurriedly last night. I read it more carefully last 
 July and August. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Does this report show the facts upon which they drew their conclusions? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Oh, yes; it shows the flow of the stream, certainly. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Is that the final report or a reconnaissance? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It is the final report of this board. That is, it covers the subjects 
 referred to this board. The board had before it the question of what was the best 
 use of the Columbia River in order to guide the Federal Power Commission in issuing 
 licenses. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish anything that I have said to be regarded
 
 58 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 as conclusive on any point except the one point that is under discussion, whether 
 or not this project ought to be investigated as a national enterprise. It is my conclu- 
 sion that it should be and I am giving you the reasons. I am not giving my conclusion 
 nor the conclusion of anybody else concerning the advisability of the pumping or 
 projects. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. I understand you have been on this project personally? 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I have visited the dam site on the Columbia River and I 
 have visited the diversion site there with this idea in mind, and I passed along the 
 most accessible and interesting points of this system, including the ends of the tunnels 
 and all the dam sites. I spent a day and a half in driving over the project. Previous 
 to that, however, I had seen a great deal of the land. I went over the project proposed 
 to be irrigated from the Palouse River and over the project proposed to be irrigated 
 from the Snake River. In traveling over that land and looking at it I formed the 
 opinion that land as magnificent in possibilities as that land must be at some time 
 watered if there is a possibility of doing it. It is the largest and in every respect one 
 of the most ambitious irrigation projects now before us. I agree with the board that 
 if it can not be considered feasible' to-day it will soon become so, and that the matter 
 should be handled in such a way as to preserve the natural resources to the best ad- 
 vantage so that we may get the most out of them. As I understand it, that is the 
 purpose of this bill, and to my mind it is a very wise and statesmanlike proposition 
 to have this whole matter investigated at the present time, and then in the light of the 
 information available Congress can take such action as seems wise. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It is rather a large question there. Taking the examination that 
 was made of the Big Bend project, the examination made by the State of Washington 
 and the adjoining States, the data that has been gathered and the report you have 
 here, and then there were a couple of smaller projects which have been thoroughly 
 
 examined 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The Palouse project and the Snake River project; yes, sir. 
 Mr. RAKER. Just where is the data lacking, if that is all put in proper shape and 
 form? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. There are many things that are investigated in a broad way only. 
 That investigation was largely of the main canal which required a large amount of 
 consideration in order to shed the maximum amount of light on its feasibility. It 
 was investigated wisely and accurately so far as the funds were available, but when 
 it came to the distribution system, the area was very large and a large portion of it 
 was lumped in at a rough estimate per acre. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That has since been provided for by examination acre for acre? 
 Mr. DAVIS. No; the detailed surveys have not been made of the distribution 
 system. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I thought they had been made. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. Some of the main laterals have been, but the distribution 
 system has not been examined into to the full extent, because that would be impossible 
 with the amount of money available. The last investigation was devoted mainly 
 to the investigation of the dam site at the head of the Grand Coulee. Additional 
 borings should be made in that vicinity. Also at the tunnel sites. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMSON. This investigation is for the purpose of outlining the necessary 
 canals and laterals so as to determine the final feasibility of the project as an irrigation 
 undertaking? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is as I understand it. Of course, that is not detailed in the bill 
 and not having drawn the bill I do not know just exactly what is in the minds of those 
 who did draw the bill, but I think that would be a wise purpose. One of the things 
 recommended by this commission is to make some further comparison of the merits 
 of the pumping and gravity projects. That required this detailed investigation 
 that I speak of, and for this reason, that canals coming here will run in this way [indi- 
 cating on map], canals running here will come in the opposite direction, and the 
 pumping project not haying any head or fall to spare, they have proposed building 
 these canals on a much lighter grade. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. General Goethals was before the committee and he left the impression 
 with me, and I think with Mr. Hudspeth, that all the examination from the intake 
 
 where the beginning point is 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Albany Falls. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Including the gravity system as well as the Grand Coulee diversion, 
 with the ditches made and the laterals on the line, had been investigated by him 
 thoroughly with sufficient surveys, and all the information that he desired or any- 
 one else would desire was that which related to the storage of the waters of Pend 
 Oreille Lake, Priest Lake, and Flathead Lake. How did he get that? 
 Mr. DAVIS. I have not read General Goethals's testimony.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 59 
 
 Mr. SUMNERS. I would like to say as one member of the committee that I under- 
 stood from General Goethals's testimony that there were many other problems besides 
 these; that these were things to be determined but there were many others. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I should have stated that the details of the storage "pro visions there 
 are also important and ought to be covered by this appropriation if it is possible to 
 cover them thereby. There is possibly more storage in those three lakes than is 
 necessary for the gravity project. Just how much should be developed and whether 
 two or three lakes should be developed is a question that should be studied. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Are you able to give us any idea as to the details of any engi- 
 neering problems that are yet to be solved out of this investigation? 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is what I have been trying to do for the last 10 minutes. 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOH. I confess that I have the same idea that the gentlemen on the 
 other side of the table has. that the engineering problems have been largely worked 
 >ut and that the problem is largely one of climatic and soil questions. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. You have an excellent illustration of how similar climatic conditions 
 will affect the situation and that is in the Yakima Valley. You will find those con- 
 ditions in different parts of this project just as they are in the Yakima Valley. Of 
 course, a more detailed study plight be given to them, and also some details would 
 be desirable concerning the soil survey which would add to our information on the 
 subject and lead to a more accurate classification of the land. This is not said by 
 way of criticism of any of the investigations that have been made, because this has 
 necessarily been of a reconnaissance nature so far as the soil is concerned, except 
 where it is covered by a detailed survey of the Bureau of Soils. The results are 
 widely different in character. Some soils may be sandy and others may not be. 
 Those details require considerable time and money to work out, but they are desirable 
 to have for many reasons. I think there is no question but what a properly con- 
 stituted authority in charge of this project would find plenty to do. I have never 
 found a project yet of this magnitude that did not require a good deal more expend- 
 iture upon it than was originally contemplated. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOP. Is there any dispute but what that land is fertile if water is put 
 upon it? A soil examination would only go to the particular crop that it might be 
 adapted to. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. There are two or three other important points that would be brought out. 
 The classification that has already been made ruled out a large portion of the land that 
 could be covered by gravity. I was reading in the report last night that considerable 
 of that soil had been excluded . You see these vast areas on the map colored in yellow. 
 Those outlines are in the rough. I do not know how detailed they are because I am 
 not thoroughly acquainted with the details of what has been done there, but I do know 
 that the amount of time and money that has been spent upon it is not as great as would 
 be desirable to get more accurately at the acreage that should be covered: but that 
 is not all. A portion of this project is sandy land with a coarse subsoil which requires 
 more water than average soils. We should know its outlines accurately. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Mr. Davis, would a question here interrupt you in the presentation 
 of your statement? 
 Mr. DAVIS. Xo. sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. This project, from your standpoint and knowledge, is one that appeals 
 to anybody who knows anything about it all. About how many projects, large and 
 minor, are before your department in which you are seeking an investigation? Could 
 you give us any idea? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS, there are a large number, as near as I can come to it, the majority of 
 which are probably not feasible. But we have frequent applications for investigation 
 of projects in various parts of the country, including the Southern, Northern, and Gulf 
 Stites, and all over the West. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. While they are not as large as this project, many of them are just 
 as feasible and just as desirable and would be valuable as reclamation projects? 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir: in proportion to the size. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, a tract of land containing five or ten thousand acres, 
 separate and independent, with water on it and developed, is practically as important 
 as the same amount of land within a large tract? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes; other things being equal, with the soil and climatic conditions 
 and all. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now. with that assumption, you have now about $100,000 annually 
 for what we call secondary projects? 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is for doing what we are trying to get through in this bill? 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
 
 60 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, why not increase that to $500,000 or $1.000,000 so that the depart- 
 ment would not be hampered and so that the various localities can present the data 
 they have already gathered or assembled together and your department can continue 
 the investigation if it looks feasible, as is provided here? 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. With the idea that the ex-service man will not have a long white 
 beard before he gets on the land? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. And so the citizens will not have long white beards before they get 
 on the land? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And further, which is not any disrespect to anybody, that the men 
 who have given a great deal of time to the same kind of work that you are working on 
 now will not be wearing long beards and out of an opportunity to do this work by 
 reason of the separate project as well as the general scheme. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That method of procedure would, of course, coA'er the ground and 
 answer the purpose. The procedure you suggest would vest a much wider discretion 
 in the executive officers than appropriations for specific projects. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, all these projects were started with the discussion 
 that you speak of? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. You mean all the investigations? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Investigations and Government projects? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Oh, yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, these members around the board are in a like position that we 
 are, and in the long run, if you get $100.000 to make this investigation, assuming that 
 it is entitled to it from their standpoint, not a legal point can be made against it or an 
 honest argument. Now, will not the same procedure have to be had to get it from the 
 Appropriations Committee to the general bill when it goes in the amount to be con- 
 sidered for secondary projects, as it would if this particular bill should become a law? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is, the general rule would require the same process? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think so. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And you would have to get it from the Appropriations Committee in 
 any event? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And with such a clamor that is going on and the splendid record that 
 is being shown, while this bill looks good on its face, when it is seen by the various 
 localities and States that I could name, and Members representing States that 1 could 
 name, before it ever gets passed by the House they will say, "Why, Columbia Basin 
 has got a hundred thousand dollars." They will say, "What is the matter with you? 
 Why don't you get one for the Truckee or Baxter Creek? We have a hundred thousand 
 acres out there. We have another hundred thousand acres in the Flanagan district.'' 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. If you can convince anyone that this is just as much a national ques- 
 tion as the ship subsidy and a larger appropriation should be made, so that it would 
 not be necessary to go direct to Congress whenever we want five or ten thousand 
 dollars for an individual project, we might accomplish it. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Is it not your view, beyond all question, that if we can get an amount 
 in the general appropriation bill of, say, $1,000,000 or half a million dollars 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. All at one time; yes. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. If that can be done, we will get better work and we will be able to 
 give our officers in the Reclamation Service, in whom we all have confidence, a chance- 
 to do something, and we will get something done, and our western States will be given 
 a chance to accomplish something? 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. Yes; that has always been my opinion. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Now, Mr. Raker, to answer the other half of your question about the 
 million-dollar appropriation or the half-million-dollar appropriation to be expended 
 in the discretion of the department, I will say that that amount would depend upon 
 the time limit. I do not think it would be advisable to appropriate a million dollars 
 to be used in any one year, but if the time limit was removed that would not be too 
 large a sum. On the other hand, if a limit of one year was put upon the expenditure 
 of that amount, I think $500,000 would be ample and probably more than could be 
 most wisely used in one year. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And that would give you a chance to investigate this project and other 
 projects not as large but of splendid merit, with the data sufficient to justify your 
 department in going out and making similar investigations with a 50-50 division? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And that would be establishing a policy that we ought to establish, 
 would it not?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 61 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, that would be an excellent policy, in my judgment. I would 
 like to say this, however, that there are very few projects which present the valid 
 argument that this one does as being a national problem for the reasons I have stated, 
 namely, first, it is an international river; second, it is an interstate river; third, it is a 
 navigable river, all of which are national problems. And then, furthermore, its 
 magnitude takes it out of the category of being handled practically in a broad way as 
 it should be, either by private capital or by the State. Therefore I say that the 
 United States is the only instrumentality which can properly handle this proposition. 
 Those characteristics are not applicable to any projects that I can recall excepting 
 two, and those are the Colorado and the Rio Grande, which are both international 
 and interstate rivers and to some extent navigable, not to the same extent as the 
 Columbia River, but technically they are navigable rivers. Congress has recognized 
 the interstate, international, and national character of the Colorado River by the 
 appointment of a commission which was charged with the division of the waters of 
 that river equitably between the States, which commission has recently reached a 
 decision, of which you have doubtless heard through the public press. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. You say the commission has reached a decision? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. With reference to the division of the waters of the Colorado River? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That has been since the adjustment between those two States? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That was between the several States and the United States, which ol 
 course still requires ratification. It is a remarkable decision in view of the fact that 
 there has been no compact to date between so many States 
 
 Mr. RAKER (interposing). Well, I want to go into that later and I will ask you a 
 good many questions about that when we get on the subject of the Colorado River. 
 But outside of the international question, so far as the weather, soil, and climatic 
 conditions are concerned, the Marshall plan in California is about the largest thing 
 on the program to-day, is it not? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes; I believe it is the largest thing on the program. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Yes; it is. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I agree with you. The Marshall plan is not talked about much any 
 more. However, it has led to some wise action on the part of the State of California 
 in providing large funds to investigate its resources, and has resulted in a wide move 
 on the part of the State engineers, and for initiating that move Mr. Marshall is cer- 
 tainly entitled to credit. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The gentleman from Texas suggests an idea that I would 
 like to mention briefly before you leave this point. I believe I am safe in assuming 
 that this committee is willing to accept all the statements as to the feasibility of this 
 proposed scheme. However, from an economic standpoint would it not be to the 
 benefit of the arid-land States to have diversified sections scattered throughout the 
 arid-land regions developed, even though they may be smaller in area? Would 
 that not be better than to have the irrigable areas largely concentrated in three or 
 four localities? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Well, there is something to be said for that. There are increasing 
 areas in the mining and grazing regions where a smaller area can be made of very 
 large benefit, due to the saving in transportation of food and forage products in that 
 area. In general, I may say that it is desirable to have the benefits distributed, 
 but nature largely controls that for us. In this case the water supply and the lands 
 are concentrated. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Of course, I base it not upon any proposition that would be 
 impracticable but on the theory that there are a great many places where the land 
 would be subject to irrigation? " 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Oh, I agree with you absolutely on the desirability of the development 
 of a great many other projects. There is no' doubt about that. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think it would be very foolish for this committee to take 
 attitude that some locality ought to be irrigated where it is not feasible. 
 
 DAVIS. No; I did not understand you to mean that. But we do not have the 
 discretion as to whore irrigation should be developed because that is fixed by nature, 
 by the supply of water, by the availability of suitable land, and so on. In some 
 respects there are advantages in the concentration policy if it is not top great. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Let us assume that all of the territory within the proposed 
 project is feasible, and let us assume further that there are many localities in the arid 
 land States that are just as feasible, and that the only difference is that they are much 
 smaller in area. Now, the thought suggested by the gentleman from Texas was this: 
 If there are many other smaller areas that are feasible from an engineering standpoint, 
 and the lands can be brought under cultivation by irrigation, then from an economic 
 
 my a 
 Mr.
 
 62 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 standpoint would it not be highly beneficial to all the arid land States to have it 
 diversified rather than having a large area irrigated and the smaller areas neglected? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Let me see if I understand the purport of your question. You mean that 
 the small widely distributed projects should be developed first and that this should be 
 rejected forever? 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Oh, no; it is just as important that the smaller areas should be 
 
 developed 
 
 Mr. DAVIS (interposing). In proportion to their size; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And that the greatest good to the country would be the develop- 
 ment of them altogether and not one to the exclusion of the other? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I agree with the statement that you have made entirely and I can quote 
 the Columbia Basin Commission, which has had charge of the investigation here, that 
 this is a project for the future, that the smaller projects, even in their own States, 
 should first be developed. That is, assuming an equivalent feasibility. As a matter 
 of fact, I do not think that needs very much elaboration because that is the way it is 
 going to come anyway. It is not an easy matter to get a large amount of money 
 together such as a big project would require. It is easier to get smaller projects 
 together under one fund. Now, I think I can say with some personal knowledge, 
 after 25 or 30 years' experience in locating and developing projects, that every project 
 will develop things that we do not foresee. We are not prophets and we can only act 
 in the light of our experience. In the organization of a project we have got to contend 
 with many unknown factors. Every project contains some, and some of the smaller 
 projects have been failures for that reason. We have endeavored to reclaim lands 
 that did not hold water. Sometimes we have undertaken development in a region 
 that has not sufficiently arid land to create a demand for water. Some things will 
 develop in this project, I do not care how much money you spend on it, that you will 
 not accurately foresee in an investigation before beginning work. Now, I will give 
 you an illustration of that. There probably never was a project put through with as 
 thorough, as long, as expensive, and as skilled investigation as the Panama Canal. 
 
 That canal was conceived away back in the seventies and construction started and 
 a large amount of excavation was carried on. Before that was done, I do not know 
 just when, but very thorough investigations were made in there by drilling and 
 excavating pits to sea level with the idea of developing the difference between a 
 sea-level canal and a lock canal. After some $300,000,000 had been spent upon 
 investigations and construction work, all of which developed information, the United 
 States went into it and spent several million dollars investigating that project after 
 they took hold of it, and yet the criticism is made to-day, in which I do not concur, 
 that that project was undertaken with insufficient investigations before it was con- 
 structed. We all recall the slides that occurred. I was a member of the committee 
 that went down to investigate the slides, that committee being sent by the National 
 Academy of Sciences. I was on a previous consulting board that investigated the 
 slides and the Gatun Dam . I think it would have taken almost a superman to have 
 constructed that canal more wisely than it was constructed. I have no criticism 
 whatever to make of the investigations or the construction, but immediately upon 
 the opening of the canal we had a surprise in the way of an unexpected slide. We 
 had the opinions of a board of 13 expert engineers who passed upon the slopes on 
 which that canal should be constructed. Those slopes were flattened somewhat, 
 but in spite of that these slides occurred. The majority of that committee of which 
 I was a member reported that they should have investigated further and found out 
 more about it in order to prevent those slides. As a matter of fact, a portion of that 
 canal slid in the Cucaracha formation, and yet another portion of the same forma- 
 tion, constructed on the same slope, did not slide. No man can tell to-day why. 
 
 I claim that the investigation could have not been shown that. Of course, it would 
 have been possible to construct the canal on a flatter slope so that those slides would 
 not occur, but we did not know what slope that would be. A portion of that slope is 
 still standing to-day, and we do not know whether it will be standing a hundred years 
 from now or next week, but it has not slid yet. But why that did not slide and the 
 other portion did, I do not think any man can answer. Now, that illustrates what I 
 say, no matter how exhaustive the preliminary investigation, every big and little 
 project may develop some surprises, and the failure of a small project is not so serious 
 as the failure of a large project. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Is there repose on the Canal now? Is there any sliding going on 
 to-day? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. There has been no recent interruption of traffic, I believe, but I do not 
 suppose there has been a minute in the last 10 years that there has not been some 
 movement of the earth down there. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Mr. Davis, would you care to commit yourself at this time to the 
 amount that you would recommend for these secondary surveys and inspections for 
 one year?
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 63 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. For one year? 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes, so that you could investigate all of those projects that appeal 
 to you as being feasible. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. To be taken from the general fund in the Treasury? 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Hudspeth, my authority extends only to the reclamation fund, 
 and it has always been my practice to make those recommendations through the 
 proper channels. I am supposed to be guided in all such matters by the Secretary of 
 the Interior, and for that reason, while I do not refuse to answer your question, and 
 will answer it, I want to be understood as answering your question because you have 
 asked me and not of my own motion. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. You can answer the 1 question if you wish to do so. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think a policy of that kind should contemplate a considerable time, 
 that it would be unwise to limit an appropriation to one year, or if the appropria- 
 tion 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH (interposing). The reason I stated a year was because I got the im- 
 pression from your statement that you thought it ought to be limited to a year. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Oh, no. The point I made was that if it is limited to a year it ought 
 not to be so large as when the time limit should be removed. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. What limit would you set? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I would not fix any limit at all. The suggestion made by Judge Raker 
 would be sufficient to give the department a free hand, but that should be done from 
 year to year, and if that was done I think it should be contemplated in advance that 
 the investigations should extend over a series of years, because a large sum of money 
 could not be economically expended in one year for the reason that our information 
 and our knowledge is always growing and the expenditures should cover continuing 
 investigation. I would suggest an appropriation of $250,000 for the first year and after 
 that, say for three years, an appropriation of three hundred thousand a year would be- 
 ample to develop the feasible projects of the West and determine in a general way 
 their economic value, coming to a total of a million dollars or so, such as you suggested. 
 a few minutes ago, but not necessarily expended all at once. It should be expended 
 year by year until the investigation was completed. I do not think the whole appro- 
 priation should be made at once because the service would be overwhelmed by the- 
 demands upon it. I am not one of those who believe in asking for more money than 
 it is wise to spend. 
 
 Mr. HUDSPETH. That is the reason why I want to get your judgment on the matter.. 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. Mr. Hudspeth, it would be impossible to double the amount of work 
 in one year on account of the limited number of men who are fitted for that work. 
 Is not that true, Mr. Davis? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. 1 do not agree with that. If this was an organization spending only a, 
 hundred thousand dollars a year your remarks would be entirely to the point, but the 
 Reclamation Service is expending from twelve to fifteen million dollars a year. 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. But you have these trained men in places where they are supposed 1 
 to be essential and you would have to take them off of that work and put them on this- 
 investigational work? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is true, but an organization such as we have is susceptible of a good 
 deal of elasticity. If we had a choice of a number of men required to spend $14,000,000 
 a year the choice necessarily would be much wider than if we were only spending $100,- 
 000 a year. 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. While we are on that point, would you mind mentioning whether or 
 not it is just as easy to get men out of college to-day as it was 10 years ago for this rough 
 field work? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think I can say it is not quite so easy, but we have not taken in so> 
 many men of that character lately, although occasionally we have some. 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. Men who are at present engaged in handling the work of developing 
 national resources say that it is very hard to get college graduates to take up the work 
 that they took up gladly 10 years ago. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think that is largely due to the salaries, and in that respect I can con- 
 firm it. The salaries of Government officials have not grown in accordance with the 
 salaries of similar officials outside the service. 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. Do you not think it would be due to the spirit which is expressed in the 
 present unrest among our people, because they would rather be in a city where they 
 can view the lights than taking a chance on something which may return to them from 
 their experience in 5 or 10 or 15 years? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think there is a great deal in that, but it differs with the men and their 
 occupations. We find that the majority of our projects are isolated from social at- 
 tractions, from transportation, and other facilities such as you have in mind.. That
 
 04 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PBOJBCT. 
 
 has a great deal to do with the clerical force and the people whose business normally 
 keeps them in the city, but it has mighty little to do with the choice of an engineer. 
 Strange to say, engineers and their families do not object to the hardships of the camps 
 and the isolated frontiers to the same extent that they would if they were in other 
 lines of work in the service. It is very difficult to keep sufficient clerks on our force 
 but not so difficult to keep engineers, except for the fact of direct competition. Engi- 
 neers expect to rough it. Of course, we have to meet competition in salaries, and our 
 service is damaged by not being able to pay salaries commensurate with salaries paid 
 on the outside. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I would like to have you discuss one phase of this situation, Mr. 
 Davis. In view of the fact that the Federal Power Commission by their decision have 
 practically tied up 650,000 hydroelectric horsepower for all time or until the matter 
 is determined as to which of these projects is the more feasible, or whether either 
 one of them is feasible, is this not a very pronounced argument for the pushing ahead 
 and the final determination of the feasibility or otherwise of this whole matter: and 
 also which of the proposed plans is the more feasible? There is 650,000 horsepower 
 tied up, until this matter is settled, by the decision which has been rendered by this 
 commission. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I agree with you, and that is my purpose in reading from this report. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it not true, if you follow that line of argument, that there is 
 a great deal of horsepower locked up at other places which ought to be unlocked? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is true. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. Is there any problem on the Colorado River between two States 
 that has recently been adjusted? 
 
 Mr DAVIS. I think nothing as acute as this. There are international problems and 
 also interstate problems. It occurred to me, merely as a suggestion I do not know 
 whether it is worth anything or not that a similar commission could be formed by 
 sending commissioners from Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon to examine 
 this matter and reach an interstate agreement concerning the development of these 
 waters, at a more opportune time, after this investigation which is now asked for is 
 completed. There would have to be a convention entered into, certainly in the 
 case of the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam. Either that would have to be 
 provided with a lock lifting boat something like 200 feet, or it would have to be re- 
 jected, or we would have to remove the treaty provision contained in our convention 
 with Canada that the United States will do nothing to interfere with navigation on 
 the Columbia River. Probably some objection might be made by Canada to the 
 diversion of the waters of the Pend Oreille River, but that is a remote possibility. 
 That was the purpose in putting Idaho and Montana on the board that investigated 
 this matter for the Federal Power Commission, but they bind nobody. 
 
 Their agreement to this report is not binding upon any State, nor was it expected 
 that it would be binding upon any State. Some binding agreement, I think, might 
 eventually turn out to be desirable. I am expressing a doubt about that because 
 disputes between States on a matter of this kind do not seem to be difficult of removal. 
 The storage of water there would be objected to, of course, at the Flathead by the 
 residents around the lake. To some extent the riparian land owners might object in 
 other places, but those objections can probably be overcome by the power of eminent 
 domain. On the other hand, if those objections are sufficiently strong to arouse a 
 State antagonism, the power of eminent domain can not remove those objections, and 
 rather than throw the matter into litigation those objections would better be removed 
 in some other way. That is really what the decision in the Colorado River case 
 amounted to. There was water enough for all and nobody was going to lose anything. 
 That explains why seven States could get together. Perhaps they could not have 
 done so if that had not been the fact . 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Seven States adjusted it among themselves and the Federal Govern- 
 ment is left out? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Well, in one sense; yes. The Federal Government was represented 
 and its representative agreed to this arrangement, but the arrangement is not valid 
 until it is approved by the United States Congress. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I was "read ing that, and I was just wondering whether or not that 
 arrangement between the seven States does not adjudicate everything against the 
 Federal Government. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think not. The fact is, however, that is a compact between the 
 .States and not with the United States. The United States is not a party to the com- 
 pact. It comes under the constitutional provision that such a contract can not be 
 valid until it is approved by the United States, but the consent of the United States 
 to the different States entering into an agreement among themselves does not neces- 
 sarily make it a compact with the United States.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 65 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Does not that leave out the United States in the adjustment of the 
 use of waters for purposes of this kind? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It is in that sense left out: but in another point of view the United 
 States has no interest other than the interests of the States and their mutual interests, 
 except the international interests. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In reading that Colorado case and reading this treaty and I have 
 read it two or three times I must confess that the purpose is not clear in my mind. 
 I was wondering what that agreement was drawn for. It is an adjustment between 
 the States, but it leaves out the Federal Government. It is just like a similar adjust- 
 ment that was made between the States of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington for the 
 purpose of building the Columbia River project. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. You would like to have my opinion of that? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I can not agree with the suggestion that it jeopardizes the rights of the 
 United States. There is one paragraph in that compact which provided for a pre- 
 dominence of irrigation and domestic uses and power uses over navigation. It was 
 claimed by the counsel of the United States that if that arrangement was approved it 
 would override and discard the authority of the United States over tha river, and in 
 order to guard against the disapproval by Congress of the whole compact a provision 
 was inserted in the agreement that if this paragraph was disapproved by Congress it 
 should not operate to vitiate the entire treaty, and therefore Congress may reject the 
 provisions of that paragraph without rejecting the entire treaty. That is tne way that 
 difficulty was overcome. The question you have raised was discussed by the com- 
 mission and I think I am violating no confidence when I say that it was resolved 
 in the way that the Federal representative desired. There was some justification in 
 the Federal act for assuming that this commission could divide the water. Most of 
 the States, on the contrary, passed an act to divide the use of the water, not making 
 any division of the actual corpus of the water. The word "uses' ' was incorporated in 
 it in order to remove any doubt in the matter as to whether or not it was a surrender 
 to the authority of the United States. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I did not have an opportunity to get all of the proceedings and I was 
 wondering whether or not that question had been gone into. It seems to me that the 
 agreement sets out the same question that is involved between the three States. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; the questions are somewhat similar. In this case I think it is 
 possible to get a maximum development from the natural resources without jeopardiz- 
 ing the interests of any State. That is also true of the Colorado River. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And still at the same time keeping us on terms of peace and justice 
 with foreign countries? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. Now, unless there are some further questions, I have con- 
 cluded. 
 
 Mr. SiNXOTT. Mr. Davis, I would like to ask you a question. This bill contemplates 
 an investigation and report upon the water supply which might be made available 
 for the Columbia basin project and also a report upon any other lands capable of being 
 irrigated by the waters to be conserved by this project. Now, right down here in 
 Oregon at this point on the map is what is known as the Umatilla project, a possible 
 power project where they hope to develop several hundred thousand horsepower 
 and irrigate from three to four hundred thousand acres of land both in Oregon and 
 Washington? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. The minimum flow of the Columbia River there is approximately 
 40,000 second feet. They propose to take out of the headwaters for the Columbia 
 basin project some 23,000 second feet. Now, could not this investigation and report 
 cover an investigation and a report bearing upon the effect of this diversion upon this 
 Umatilla project? That could all be reported at once, and investigated. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINXOTT. So that we may know how this Columbia River project is going to 
 affect the Umatilla project? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Do you mean to ask me whether this appropriation provided for in this 
 bill would be sufficient to fully investigate this project as well as the Columbia basin 
 project? 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. No; it would not. 
 
 Mr. SIXNOTT. So that we may know the effect of the diversion of this water upon 
 the Umatilla project? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That could be investigated, but if the investigation was to include an 
 investigation of the possibilities of power development in the Umatilla Rapids, it is 
 not sufficient for both purposes.
 
 66 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. About how much more would be necessary to cover that investiga- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I should say it would have to be probably doubled because it would 
 require borings and other investigations of the soil, etc. It has not been investi- 
 gated in that way at all. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Apart from the borings how much more additional would it take to 
 determine the effect upon the Umatilla project of the diversion of this water? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The effect could be determined without much investigation of the Uma- 
 tilla project because we could readily find out how it would affect the water supply 
 which would be mainly affected by that project. That could be determined without 
 reference to the feasibility or cost of this other project down here, but it would not be 
 of very much interest, of course, unless some light were thrown upon the feasibility of 
 the Umatilla Rapids, because if that project were not feasible it would not make any 
 difference, and on the other hand if it was feasible it would make some difference. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Assuming it was feasible, your investigation could cover an investi- 
 gation of the effect upon the .Umatilla project of the diversion of this water? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; but I do not know whether this language is sufficient, if that is 
 what you mean. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Well, we could easily change the language to cover that. I will say 
 there have been large public meetings in Oregon to consider the Umatilla Rapids 
 project. They have been very much interested in the Umatilla project. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes; I am aware of that. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. And I would like to know the effect of the Columbia Basin project 
 upon that project. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes; that could be determined. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You think your report could cover that? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The report could cover the effect upon the water supply, but I am not 
 sure whether this language would be sufficient to cover an investigation of the Uma- 
 tilla Rapids. A thorough investigation would require more money. The matter of 
 setting forth the area and the amount of pumping required could be accomplished 
 with a small amount of money if the language was changed. I think such an investi- 
 gation would be pertinent to the subject, but whether the language would be sufficient 
 to cover it, you would have to ask a lawyer after the bill had been signed. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Before you conclude, 'Mr. Davis, have your investigations so far 
 made enabled you to determine which of the two plans is the more feasible pumping 
 or gravity? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; I have not been able nor willing to make up my mind on that 
 subject so far. The arguments on both sides are pretty heavy, and the facts are not 
 all agreed upon in the different opinions that have been expressed. I have not given 
 it sufficient investigation personally to determine those facts for myself, nor do I think 
 the investigations so far are sufficient. I base that opinion largely on the opinion of 
 the Federal Power Commission's board because they have made far more exhaustive 
 investigations on this subject than I have, and it is a large board with very competent 
 men upon it. I defer to their opinion in that respect. I do not think the facts are 
 sufficient for the purpose, and, in fact, I know a good many places where they are 
 lacking. For example, one opinion is that the borings that the commission has made 
 at the Grand Coulee Dam site are more favorable than was assumed in the report, and 
 the other opinion is that they are less favorable. I have not examined sufficiently to 
 determine which of those two is correct or whether either one of them is true. It is 
 not a very easy matter to determine, because the conditions are different from what 
 they were some time ago, and whether they are improved or hampered by one thing 
 or another is always a question of opinion, and I am not able to exppess an opinion at 
 this time. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Take the State of Montana as it is delineated on the map, with the 
 watershed, with the heavy blue line. This investigation would determine the water 
 supply in that State, its source, and the available lands for irrigation and whether it 
 was feasible over the greater part of the State of Montana, would it not? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. This problem involves a discharge only at the outlet of the lake, and 
 other details at the reservoir sites, and the discharge at the two points, the point of 
 diversion here and the other point there [indicating on map]. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. It appears to me that before any work could be accomplished on either 
 of these two or three lakes, Priest Lake, Flathead Lake, or Pend Oreille Lake, that all 
 the available land and water and the application of the water to the land would have 
 to be determined by these two States within this watershed so as to see how much 
 water they would need for the two States before any of this water would be permitted 
 to come into the Columbia irrigation project.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 67 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Estimates of the required consumptive use of water in those States, of 
 course, are necessary to find out how much would be left for the use of this project, if 
 those developments" were to be left unhampered. Estimates of those uses have been 
 made by the State engineers and are considered by the Federal Power Commission. 
 My belief is that they are probably ample. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What I am getting at, Mr. Davis, is that it would be a practical exam- 
 ination of all of this territory as to the available irrigable land and the amount of 
 water applicable to it, and then a determination whether or not it would be feasible 
 in these States within the territory before you could come to a conclusion as to the 
 Columbia Basin. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think not. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Then I will put it this way. It would be necessary to obtain that 
 information? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It would be necessary to have some idea of it. It would not have to 
 be known accurately, probably not more accurately than it is now. I think it would 
 "be well to check up the statements of the State engineers regarding the amount of 
 water required, and we may generally assume that the statements they make are 
 ample in size, and as made now they show a surplus. In other words, for the gravity 
 project we would not need all of those reservoirs. We could get along with the Pend 
 Oreille Lake and either of the other lakes, Flathead or Priest Lake. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. What I want to convey to you is this, that the feasibility of the Colum- 
 bia Basin project in the State of Washington could not be fully determined, as General 
 Goethals said, until the States of Montana and Idaho were satisfied relative to the 
 impounding of water in Flathead Lake, Pend Oreille Lake, and Priest Lake, so as 
 to make an equitable adjustment. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes; as a human and physical fact that is true. They must be satisfied. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Now, that being true, what I want to know is this. The last state- 
 ment being true, and it seems to be conceded by all, then it would be necessary to 
 make a fairly accurate survey of the land and water resources of those two States 
 within the watershed. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. We would have to have sufficient information to satisfy them on that 
 point. Now, the point which I have been trying to make is that we do know those 
 facts, with so wide a margin that it covers any error in the available data. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. The question I want to ask you is this and this is a good opportunity 
 to put my question on the Colorado River, because if you have not investigated it 
 yet this will give you an opportunity to do so whether or not the Government would 
 be justified in putting money into an irrigation project like the Columbia Basin at 
 a cost of $250,000,000 unless it knew under the law it had a right, by virtue of prior 
 appropriation, to control the waters that would come into that basin for future use? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The Government would have to be satisfied before it could wisely do 
 that, that there was no reasonable probability of an interference with the water sup- 
 ply that would vitiate the feasibility of the project. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And the Government would have to have a prior right to divert the 
 use of that water, the same as a private individual? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes; the Government's rights in that respect are not thoroughly decided. 
 No court has decided what its rights are. There are three different theories that were 
 advanced in the recent Colorado-Wyoming case, only two of which were decided. 
 Wyoming argued for prior appropriation. Colorado argued that it owned all the water 
 that fell upon its soil. The United States claimed that all of the unappropriated 
 waters of the public-land States belong to the United States until appropriated to use, 
 and that question was not decided. * 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But it does hold that the Federal Government had a right to appro- 
 priate the water in either of those States the same a? a private individual, and because 
 there were State lines it did not affect the right of the Federal Government in the 
 matter. Is that right? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think there was no decision in the case that touched upon that ques- 
 tion. They ignored it. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Judge, was the Federal Government an applicant? 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Not necessarily an applicant but it was involved. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. It was acting as a private individual? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; but Attorney General Davis intervened and made the argu- 
 ment in favor of the principle that the United States owned all the unappropriated 
 waters of the public lands as a riparian owner. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Does not that decision hold, in theory, but not directly, that the 
 Federal Government would have the right to appropriate the waters for a reclamation 
 project?
 
 68 COLUMBIA BASIN" IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I do not think so. The right to appropriate water by the United States 
 Government is involved in the reclamation act that authorizes the appropriation 
 and directs that it be done in accordance with State laws, and that is the practice. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But the Government woiild have to obtain a prior right, as against 
 others who might divert all of the waters, before the Government would be justified 
 in expending a large amount of money? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You have been over the land in that vicinity? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, I have ridden over it but I have not made any examination of it. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You have seen the land that might possibly be irrigated? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Could not that land be investigated without very much cost to 
 determine the effect of the irrigation on these waters? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, I think some of the gentlemen of the committee are 
 laboring under a misapprehension as to the statement of General Goethals regarding 
 the effect of the engineering that has been done by the State commission. What 
 General Goethals was endeavoring to do was to show the different methods to be 
 employed in computing the cost of putting this water on each unit of the area to be 
 reclaimed, as against the method to be employed by the Reclamation Service in 
 similar projects. He did not say, and could not accurately say, that that prelimi- 
 nary work had, in fact, been done. Those estimates in some degree were estimates 
 and not based upon surveys which have alredy been agreed upon. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I do not know about that, Judge. I got the idea - 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. I do not want to make a statement myself but I want to have Mr. 
 Goodner, who is present in the room, explain the matter to the committee, as he has 
 all the facts. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. I would like to hear what Mr. Goodner has to say. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MB. IVAN E. GOODNEB, CHIEF ENGINEER, COLUM- 
 BIA BASIN SUBVEY. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Mr. Chairman, in conducting surveys by the State, we made the 
 actual instrumental surveys on the canals and locations in detail down to the 100 
 second-foot capacity canal, which covers about a 10,000-acre unit, on those areas 
 where we did not have already existing United States Geological Survey topographic 
 maps. Where those maps exist showing contours based on 10, 25, or 50 foot intervals, 
 it is possible to make an office location and check only the control points in the field 
 from the 10,000-acre size down. Both the State engineers and General Goethals checked 
 the cost as arrived at on the Federal and other projects per acre for small distribution. 
 Finding a close average on the southern Idaho area to be about $15 per acre, to the 
 estimates based on actual field surveys we added the lump sum of $15 per acre to 
 cover the detailed location of arm units. If the General gave the impression that the 
 farm units had been surveyed, it was due to an inaccurate expression on his part, 
 because it was not his thught to make such a statement. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you think it is necessary at this time to carry the survey 
 down to the farm unit? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. No, sir; not until you approach the construction point. That is 
 one of the construction details. That is not considered until you know you are going 
 to ,go ahead with the construction work. Where we are able to use the United States 
 topographic maps, they may be checked by actual field surveys. But I do not mean 
 to say that every part of the actual field survey is necessary down to the 40-acre unit. 
 That is usually only done when we get to the point of actual construction. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. Just what is the problem to be investigated if this appropriation 
 were made? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. All the points which have been made by Director Davis I will not 
 review. I would rather discuss the statements made by General Goethals. In 
 addition to the secondary storage problem which is expected to reduce the cost of 
 the main line, further studies must be made as to the areas in Montana which would 
 require water from above our diversion point, and the study of additional areas 
 which might be developed, and also a more general and broad study of the economic 
 phases involved as between a pumping project and a gravity project. To my mind 
 that is the initial thing to be worked out. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. What is that last statement you made? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. A broader study must be made as to the economic considerations 
 which should govern whether we develop a gravity project or a pumping project,, 
 assuming them both to be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 69 
 
 Mr. \VILLIAMSOX. Did you have in mind the possible losses by reason of the develop- 
 ment of the water power? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Yes, sir. Now, I would like to say that the recent report of the 
 Super-Power Commission, covering a study of the New England and intervening 
 areas as far south as this city, shows somewhere between five and eight million 
 hydraulic horsepower actually used in that region. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Is that a voluntary commission? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. No; that was a Federal commission. Perhaps Director Davis can 
 give you the exact title. I do not recall it. But the report was given out as the 
 report on the superpower project. It was authorized by act of Congress during the 
 war. Now, this entire industrial area uses between five and eight million horsepower. 
 In the area on the map, taking the radius of 300 miles from the Columbia Basin pro- 
 ject, the reports of the United States Geological Survey, water resources branch, 
 show somewhere between ten and thirteen million available horsepower. Now, 
 knowing that that horsepower is available for development in that area, which 
 lacks many-fold having the development that the area in the superpower survey 
 has, the State commission felt that there was no immediate necessity for it to make a 
 detailed analysis of the effect of either project on the power situation. The question 
 has been raised, and as Director Davis has well stated, it is a moot point as to the 
 effect, some claiming one thing and some claiming another. But as a matter of 
 economic development, one-half a million or a million horsepower in that particu- 
 lar area, which contains ten or thirteen million horsepower, with long distance 
 electric transmission available, is not so important as the development of 
 2.000,000 acres of land, with no other water available for irrigation of that land 
 than these two sources. 
 
 Now, answering the question that Mr. Sinnott asked regarding the effect on the 
 Umatilla project, our diversion of 23,000 second-feet would come during the months 
 of June, July, and part of August, during part of which time the Columbia River is 
 usually in flood flow. The flow at the Umatilla rapids at that time might be anywhere 
 from three-quarters of a million to a million second-feet and in some years much more 
 than a million second-feet. Therefore the diversion above of 23,000 second-feet 
 would not seriously deplete the power at that place. When the Columbia River 
 gets down to the point of 50.000 second-feet it is in the dead of winter, at which 
 time the Columbia Basin project would not be taking a single drop of water for any 
 purpose. 
 
 We have investigated the Umatilla to the extent that, when the Columbia River 
 flood is so great, I can not conceive of any power development using all that is remain- 
 ing after our irrigation development is made. 
 
 Mr. SINNOTT. You would have no objection, however, to having that included in 
 the report? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. No, none whatever. . 
 
 Mr. RAKER. I understood from General Goethals's statement that he was in a posi- 
 tion to give his opinion as to the feasibility of this project,' either gravity or pumping, 
 gravity at Albany Falls or pumping at Grand Coulee, from the information furnished 
 him in the surveys, but he was not in a position to give an opinion relative to the 
 amount of water that could be accumulated and held in storage and turned loose at 
 the proper time; that it would require further surveys of trie Flathead and Pend 
 Oreille Lakes. How is that? Did I get him wrong on that? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. I did not understand him quite as you understand him. Perhaps 
 that is because I am quite familiar with all of the details involved. I understood his 
 answer in the light of all the knowledge that I knew he had concerning it, and his 
 answer from an outside standpoint have conveyed to you the impression you have, but 
 not to me. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. How could he give his opinion that either one o.f those points were 
 feasible and were O. K., and he would put his O. K. on them, if it required a large 
 amount of money for further survey? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Let me answer your question by a very homely illustration. For 
 example, you have decided to build a $100,000 house. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Oh, no; I am not in that class. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. You are undecided whether you want a slate roof or a tile roof or a 
 shingle roof, which would make a difference of $5,000, but it does not affect the considera- 
 tion that such a house would be suitable for your needs. And similarly to that, on an 
 expenditure of $250,000,000 the substantial" things are self-evident: they have been 
 worked out. There may be variations of, say, $50,000,000, but that does not affect 
 the substantial thing, that it is a big, feasible, economically possible problem there, 
 nor the fact that a development varying, say, $5.000,000, for primary or secondary 
 storage does not affect the substance of the project.
 
 70 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. But how could the General give his opinion as to the Grand Coulee 
 project without a survey on which to base his opinion? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. The General's answer was based on this. I would say: Assume that 
 the dam site at Grand Coulee is feasible and the area to be irrigated is adequate, he 
 is still of the opinion, as a matter of construction, that there is serious doubt as to the 
 mechanical feasibility and operating cost. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. When did you say that you would withhold from the upper reaches 
 of the Columbia River the 23,000 second'-feet? 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. In the latter part of June, all of July, and the early part of August. 
 
 Mr: SIXXOTT. That would be the summer flow? 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. Yes; the early summer flow. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. As I recall, at the Umatilla Rapids project, the summer available 
 irrigation flow is about 120,000 second-feet. What were your figures? I think they 
 are given in the report upon the Umatilla project. 
 
 Mr. GOODXER. I believe I stated that during the flood period the flow of the Colum- 
 bia River would range from 750,000 to 1.000.000 second-feet. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Is the Umatilla project still in process of construction on the river? 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. Xo: they are agitating it. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Is that project in process of construction on the Columbia River? 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. There is the Umatilla project, which is near the Umatilla Rapids. 
 They can get a fall in the river of between 35 and 70 feet. Is not that so, Mr. Davis? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think so. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. They figure that they can develop some 300,000 or 400,000 horsepower, 
 aod they have a very small lift there. According to the figures that I have, during 
 the summer flow, the irrigation season, there is about 120.000 second -feet at that 
 point, and the people there propose to build a dam and develop power by using the 
 water from the river. Senator McNary has a bill pending in the Senate now for the 
 investigation of the canalization of the Columbia River. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is below the junction with the Snake River, the junction of the 
 Snake River with the Columbia River. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. I have a similar bill pending in the House and I would like to have 
 this committee investigate and report upon the effect of the diversoin of the upper 
 reaches upon the Umatilla project. 
 
 Mr. GOODNER. Following the flood months our demands would be drawn from the 
 storage of flood waters which would ordinarily have run to waste during June and 
 would have been surplus waste water at the Umatilla and at all points above. Our 
 maintenance of the ordinary navigation flow of the Clarks Fork or Pend Oreille River, 
 7,000 second-feet, would continue practically the year round; it would certainly 
 continue all through the summer season. Our withdrawal of water for the gravity 
 project from any storage above would not seriously deplete the flow which would be 
 passing the Umatilla point, because we would .be drawing our surplus over the 7,000 
 navigation flow out of stonvge. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. At the last meeting of the committee the wish was expressed that 
 there should be made a part of this hearing certain laws and decisions of the State of 
 Washington. I have secured that data and I would like to ask permission to make a 
 part of the hearings chapter 136 of the Session Laws of the State of Washington, 1919, 
 being the proposed constitutional amendment as to the power of eminent domain. 
 
 I should also like to make a part of the hearings chapter 158 of the same session laws, 
 an act known as the State reclamation act. 
 
 I should also like to make a part of the record chapter 188 of the same session laws, 
 an act known as the land settlement act. 
 
 Mr. SIVXOTT. How long are those acts, Judge? 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Some of them are of considerable length, but the proposed consti- 
 tutional amendment is quite short. The other acts cover several pages. The State 
 reclamation act covers about eight pages, and the land settlement act about four pages 
 printed on both sides. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. Without objection they will go in the record. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. I should also like to make a part of the record an amendment to the 
 land settlement act found in chapter 90 of the Session Laws of 1920 and 1921, the act 
 amending section 4 of the land settlement act . 
 
 I should also like to make a part of the record the decision of the Supreme Court of 
 the State of Washington filed on March 30, 1920, in the case of the State of Washington 
 on the relation of the State Reclamation Board et al, plaintiff, v. E. W. Clausen, 
 as State auditor, respondent, containing a discussion of the constitutional aspects of 
 the land settlement act, reported in 110 Washington reports, page 525. 
 
 Mr. SIXXOTT. That is the act that was requested the other day.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 71 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, this concludes all of the evidence that we care to 
 submit in connection with this bill, and I therefore commit it to the enlightened con- 
 science and constructive statesmenship of the committee so far as I have anything to 
 do with it. 
 
 (The papers submitted by Mr. Webster are inserted at the conclusion of the hearing.) 
 
 STATEMENT OF MB. A. P. DAVIS Continued. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Davis one question, and that 
 is whether the passage of this bill and the contemplated investigation would in any 
 way interfere with the prosecution of the smaller projects throughout the West? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I see no possibility of such interference. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Many of us are interested in the smaller projects as well as in the 
 larger projects, and I thought it was well that we might have your views as director of 
 that service. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I think that the full investigation and 
 decision regarding the wide scope and feasibility of the Columbia Basin project is 
 important to determine the irrigation of some lands that might be irrigated by smaller 
 projects. For example, if the Columbia Basin project should be definitely decided 
 to be unfeasible, it would still be possible to irrigate a portion of that project from other 
 sources. One portion south of Snake River can be irrigated from Snake River, and 
 so can a portion by the use of the Wenatchee River. The original Palouse project 
 might be revived. It is possible to construct small pumping plants on the Columbia 
 River and irrigate small areas at various adjacent points. 
 
 That will be the character of development that may be carried out in the future in 
 the larger project if not carried out. If the larger project is to be carried out it may not 
 be wise to carry out some of these smaller projects, on account of the duplication at 
 greater expense that would be involved per acre, for the small projects would cut the 
 heart out of the big one before it is built. So that the policy regarding the develop- 
 ment of the smaller project is dependent to some extent upon the policy to be adopted 
 concerning the large ones. Whether or not it is to be definitely decided that this is 
 feasible and will be built or decided to be unfeasible and turned down, either one 
 would have a determinating influence on the smaller projects. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Mr. Davis, may I ask you a question suggested by the gentle- 
 man from W T ashington? Are the funds availabe now by which new and feasible 
 .schemes of much smaller magnitude can be begun? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Can be begun? No, not in the Reclamation Service or anywhere else. 
 
 Mr. LEATHSRWOOD. That is, new feasible schemes of any size can not be begun? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. 1 will answer that in the way in which I have always answered con- 
 gressional committees when that question has been brought up, that for the last 15 
 years at least the work under way by the Reclamation Service has been larger than was 
 wise to be taken up with the funds in sight, and that is still the case. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I quite agree with you. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. One of my principal jobs, and one of the most disagreeable ones that 
 I have had in the past "10 years, has been to prevent the taking up of new projects 
 before funds are available therefor. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. If we can have additional funds provided for the reclamation 
 fund in order to start a very small project, do you still think that the spending of 
 money on these large national scope projects would not affect the beginning of a new 
 scheme of small magnitude? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I do not think so, because nobody has suggested that the Columbia 
 Basin project be built from reclamation funds. Those funds have not been adequate 
 and will not be adequate for that purpose for many years. The reasons for these 
 investigations are two : First, to determine what are the natural resources and how 
 they should be handled in relation to the development of power on the Columbia 
 River in such a way that it will not interfere with irrigation ; second, to resolve the 
 doubts concerning its feasibility as related to smaller projects in the same area that 
 can be irrigated from other sources. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Am I safe in assuming, Mr. Davis, that without additional 
 appropriations by Congress into the reclamation fund, it will be a long, long time before 
 we can hope for any new projects? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Well, no; I would not say that. That is a very indefinite term. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Then I will say 20 years. 
 
 1 Mr. DAVIS. I would say a long time instead of a long, long time. That is dependent 
 on the present state of the reclamation fund and its income. There are required now 
 some seventy-five or eighty million dollars to complete the projects that have already
 
 72 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 been taken up by the Reclamation Service. As the money comes in, if no others are 
 taken up, that would require 10 or 12 years to complete those projects, and it would 
 not be necessary to postpone taking up new projects that long. But as it happens, the 
 projects have been taken up by one authority or another. We have kept ahead of the 
 available funds to such an extent that the point at which a new project could be 
 wisely taken up has not approached any closer in the last 10 years than it was 10 
 years ago. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Then if you say a long period instead of a long, long period, 
 you might easily figure that a conservative estimate would be 15 years? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Oh, 5 or 10 years. I think we could finish all projects entirely in less 
 than 10 years. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. How much is available for construction this year? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. About seven or eight million dollars per annum. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. What has been the effect of the operation of the oil and gas leasing 
 bill upon your revenues? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The receipts from the oil fund, which covers the royalty from oil 
 development for the fiscal year 1920, were something over $4,000,000. That included 
 a lot of past production and some bonuses. For 1921 it was about a million dollars 
 less, being something over $3,000,000. For the next fiscal year they will be about 
 $4,000,000, according to computations. Then we have returns from the sale of public 
 lands, about a million dollars a year. 
 
 Now, in stating these amounts that are available for construction, I do not include 
 the amounts annually turned over for maintaining the projects, which amounts are 
 large. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it or not a fact that some of the projects now under con- 
 struction, or some that have been completed, are being practically doubled in capacity 
 upon the theory of expansion of the original project? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. There have been additions taken in, which were only tentatively con- 
 sidered at first, in a remote way, including the additional use of the w aters of the same 
 rivers by construction of further storage facilities, and the construction of further 
 canals is being undertaken from time to time. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is being done not as a new project but as an expansion 
 of an old project? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And in some cases the expanded area is some distance from the- 
 original project? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I do not recall any case of that kind but that might possibly be so. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I have in mind the Minidoka project which has been rather 
 liberally appropriated for. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The area that is being appropriated for by the Government is imme- 
 diately adjoining the project. The construction of the American Falls reservoir and 
 the irrigation of about 115,000 acres of land is in addition to the originally conceived 
 project, that is true. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The bulk of the land is some distance from the original project? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It adjoins the Minidoka project as close as it is possible to put it. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is, the two tracts are contiguous? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes; absolutely. I should say that all that has been done along that 
 line has been done under the supervision of Congress. It has all been undertaken 
 since Congress had a say as to where the money should be spent, and no concealment 
 of facts has been made. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is the line of contiguity of any considerable length between 
 the two? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Oh, yes; it extends longitudinally through the tract. That is, a canal 
 is built irrigating a portion of the land below it and another strip of land running along 
 the entire length of the area is proposed above that tract. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I did not ask the question in any spirit of criticism. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Oh, I understand that. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. But I was wondering how long these expansion schemes would 
 consume the available money rather than the new projects. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It is true there has been considerable expansion. The development of 
 the Snake River by large storage reservoirs is to be largely carried out by private 
 funds. I think the Secretary in approving that proposition was largely influenced 
 by that fact. There have been about 32 private companies from the irrigation dis- 
 tricts and canal systems that have entered into a contract to pay in advance their^ 
 proportion of the cost of the project. The United States is not supposed to put any- 
 thing into it except its proportionate share for reclamation of public lands which are 
 contiguous to the original project. While the American Falls reservoir has for many
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 73 
 
 years been considered as the key to the development of the Snake River, it was not 
 in contemplation in the original conception of the Minidoka project. That is, it was 
 not considered as a part of that project but it was contemplated that something should 
 be done there sometime. 
 
 Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Are there any other contiguous tracts that maybe made later 
 a second addition to the Minidoka project? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. There are other tracts of land that might be included by the construc- 
 tion of the American Falls reservoir at the capacity of which it is capable. They 
 are not at the present time contemplated, although we are investigating them by 
 money put up by the States and by private individuals, for the investigation of two 
 tracts which would furnish sufficient water and as to which a choice would have to 
 be made as to which would 1 utilize sufficient water for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. As I understand your answer to Mr. Leatherwoqd, you made a remark 
 a while ago that you wanted a thorough investigation regarding the availability of 
 water for irrigation which would apply to the Columbia Basin project. Now,. is there 
 any lack of funds or lack of investigations by the water power commission, when it 
 starts out to have a project examined, to see whether or not they will grant the right 
 to a power company to use the water at various points along the river? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I can not answer that question because it involves the intentions of 
 other people about whose intentions I am not informed, but I can see how there might 
 be a doubt in the minds of the Federal Power Commission as to whether or not cer- 
 tain permits should be granted. That is the only thing. A permit may be granted 
 that would interfere with the proper development of the stream if it had no restrictions 
 upon it, and at the same time it might be possible to grant that permit and not inter- 
 fere with the stream. Xow. the character and the amount of restrictions to put on 
 are as important as the granting of the permit. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. Xow, I was on that water-power committee for five months and I asked 
 every witness that came before that committee whether or not it would permit devel- 
 opment not only for power purposes but for irrigation, and you will find that every 
 man that came before that committee, all the experts, Secretary Lane, and Secretary 
 Baker, agreed that it would. At one time they secured in the bill the words "and 
 irrigation." That was to determine the feasibility for power purposes and the feas- 
 ibility for irrigation purposes, so that none of the uses for any particular locality 
 would be overlooked. 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. I think the thing of first importance in the arid West is to utilize the 
 water regardless of the power, because the land is unlimited and the water is limited. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That is true, and the water-power bill contains that provision, and 
 all of the witnesses testified that that is one of the functions in that respect, that no 
 claims would be turned down for irrigation if it is more valuable for irrigation than 
 for power purposes. 
 
 Mr. ARENTZ. That seems to be the only thing that the Federal Power Commission 
 should decide, whether the water is more valuable for irrigation or for power. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. That seems to be conceded, and I am going to ask Mr. Davis if, up 
 to the present time, it has been his observation that either one of these uses has been 
 overlooked so far as he knows? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. No; as far as I know there has been no interference with irrigation by 
 any license granted by the Federal Power Commission. They have undertaken a 
 very wise policy to determine in what manner these waters may be utilized and the 
 greatest uses that can be made for irrigation purposes. In the agreement which has 
 been signed by the Colorado River Commission there is a proviso that power shall 
 be forever subservient to irrigation, and that, the lawyers tell us and it was so under- 
 stood by the commission would mean that any power development in the Colorado 
 Basin is forever subservient to irrigation, and the water can be taken for irrigation 
 without asking their permission and without condemnation or compensation of any 
 kind. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. In other words, power projects can be authorized which would not 
 interfere in any- way at all with the water for irrigation purposes if the discharge is 
 provided for at a proper location? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And both uses can be made effective to the full extent of the water 
 available? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is very often the case: yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. RAKER. And that is what they are trying to do in this instance? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, this concludes the hearing, and 
 the committee will stand adjourned. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 12.10 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.)
 
 74 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 [Session Laws, 1921, State of Washington. Chapter 90. (S. B. 227.) Land settlement.] 
 
 AN ACT Relating to the upbuilding of the agricultural resources of the State, establishing and denning 
 a State policy for land settlement, amending section 4, chapter 188, Laws of 1919, adding a new section 
 to said chapter 188, to be known as section 11, and providing penalties for violations thereof. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington: 
 
 SECTION 1. That section 4 of chapter 188, Laws of 1919. be amended to read as 
 follows: 
 
 "SEC. 4. The board shall have power: 
 
 "To investigate and select for settlement suitable areas of undeveloped lands in 
 this State available for settlement. 
 
 "To purchase and acquire on behalf of the State such privately owned lands as in 
 its judgment are available for settlement, whenever the same shall be within the 
 limits of an approved project and after full investigation and official approval thereof. 
 
 "To subdivide any lands owned by the State and found available for settlement, 
 including lands purchased or acquired for that purpose, into tracts suitable for farms 
 and farm laborer's allotments. 
 
 "To make on any such farms and farm laborer's allotments such improvements as 
 may be necessary to render the same habitable and productive. 
 
 "To accept from private owners deeds or other instruments of trust relating to 
 land and to subdivide, improve, and sell such lands. 
 
 "To lease to prospective settlers any land selected by the board of settlement. 
 
 "To dedicate to public use appropriate tracts for roads, schoolhouses, or other public 
 purposes. 
 
 "To purchase and acquire under state laws any state, school or granted lands of the 
 State wnich the board shall determine are available for settlement under the provisions 
 of this act, whenever the same shall be within the limits of an approved project and 
 after full investigation and official approval thereof. 
 
 "To purchase and acquire lands in cooperation with the United States under such 
 conditions as may be deemed advisable for the purposes of this act, and to convey the 
 same under such conditions and restrictions as may be approved by the Secretary of 
 the Interior. 
 
 ' ' To arrange with the Federal Government for sharing in the expense of furnishing 
 agricultural training for settlers so as to render them better qualified for the cultivation 
 of their lands, under appropriate conditions of supervision by the Federal Government. 
 
 "To sell and convey such improved farms and farm laborer's allotments subject to 
 the limitations of this act. 
 
 "To make such rules and regulations and perform any and all acts as may be neces- 
 sary and proper for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act. 
 
 "If it shall appear that Federal aid and cooperation shall not be available, or the 
 board shall determine to adopt and proceed with any land settlement project without 
 Federal aid and cooperation, then and in such event the board may acquire lands for 
 such land settlement project and conduct their settlement with moneys from the State 
 reclamation fund appropriated for land settlement purposes. 
 
 "The board shall have power and it shall be its duty, upon request of any land 
 settlement or colonization company operating in the State of Washington, to make, or 
 cause to be made, a careful examination and, providing investigation warrants, to 
 certify to the following conditions in reference to said company and its project : 
 
 "(1) That the land is suitable to agricultural purposes and in passing upon this 
 feature it shall first procure a report from the Washington State College and make 
 such further investigations as the board deems advisable. 
 
 "(2) That its location in reference to markets, public roads, and transportation 
 facilities makes it suitable for colonization purposes. 
 
 "(3) That the proposed plan of settlement and colonization is in the interest of the 
 settlers and especially in reference to the following points: 
 
 "(a) The price at which the land is proposed to be sold. 
 
 "(b) The aid to be rendered the settlers in improving the same. 
 
 "(c) The rate of interest to be charged and the length of time within which pay- 
 ments are to be made. 
 
 "(4) That provision is made for deferred payments on the amortization plan matur- 
 ing in not less than 20 years. 
 
 "The expense incurred in making such examination and certification shall be paid 
 by the applicant therefor. 
 
 "Before any such certificate is issued such settlement and colonization company 
 shall fully satisfy the board that it is able to and will faithfully carry out its plan of 
 settlement and colonization and all contracts entered into with settlers.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 75 
 
 'Whenever any such certificate shall be issued it shall be lawful for such settlement 
 and colonization company to advertise the fact that its plan of settlement and coloniza- 
 tion has been approved by the State of Washington. 
 
 "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to claim, represent, ad- 
 vertise, or hold out in any manner that the board has issued to him or it any such certifi- 
 cate mentioned in section 1 of this act, unless such certificate has actually been so- 
 issued and unless such person, firm, or corporation shall have fully complied with, 
 and is complying with,. such certificate and the terms and conditions therein pre- 
 scribed and the rules and regulations of said board." 
 
 SEC. 2. That there be added to chapter 188, Laws of 1919, a new section to be known 
 as section 11. to read as follows: 
 
 "SEC. 11. Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the provisions- 
 of this act shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor." 
 
 Passed by the senate March 3. 1921. 
 
 Passed by the house March 7, 1921. 
 
 Approved by the governor March 16, 1921. 
 
 [Laws of 1919. State of Washington^ Chapter 136. (S. B. 257.) Proposed constitutional amendment? 
 as to power of eminent domain.] 
 
 AX ACT Providing for the amendment of section 16 of article 1 of the constitution of the- State of Washing-- 
 ton, relating to eminent domain. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington: 
 
 SECTION* 1. That at the general election to be held in this State on the Tuesday 
 next succeeding the first Monday in November, 1920, there shall be submitted to the 
 qualified electors of the State, for their adoption and approval or rejection, an amend- 
 ment to section 16 of article 1 of the constitution of the State of Washington, so that 
 the same shall when amended, read as follows: 
 
 "SEC. 16. Private property shall not be taken for private use, except for private 
 ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or across the lands of others for 
 agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes. No private property shall be taken or 
 damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made,, 
 or paid into court for the owner, and no right of way shall be appropriated to the use 
 of any corporation other than municipal until full compensation therefor be first made 
 in money, or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit 
 from any improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall he 
 ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be waived, as in other civil cases in courts of record, 
 in the manner prescribed by law. Whenever an attempt is made to take private 
 property for a us.? alleged to be public, tb.3 question whether the contemplated use be 
 
 regard 
 private 
 declared 
 to be for public use." 
 
 Passed by the senate March 8, 1919. 
 
 Passed by the house March 11, 1919. 
 
 Approved by the governor March 17, 1919. 
 
 [Laws of 1919. State of Washington. Chapter 158. (H. B. 200.) State reclamation act.] 
 
 AN ACT Providing for the development of the agricultural resources of the State and the reclamation o i 
 arid, swamp, overflow, and logged-off lands, establishing a State reclamation revolving- fund, and pro- 
 viding for tax levies to produce revenues therefor, creating a State reclamation board and defining its 
 powers and duties, conferring certain powers upon districts organized for the reclamation of lands, and 
 making appropriations. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington: 
 SECTION 1. This act shall be known and cited as the "State reclamation act. " 
 SEC. 2. The object of this act is to provide for the reclamation and development of, 
 such of the arid, swam]), overflow, and logged-off lands in the State of Washington 
 as shall be determined to be suitable and economically available for, reclamation, 
 and development as agricultural lands, and the State of Washington in the exercise 
 of its sovereign and police powers declares the reclamation of such lands to be a State 
 purpose and necessary to the public health, safety, and welfare of ite people. For 
 that purpose there shall be and hereby is established a department of State govern- 
 ment to be known as "The State Reclamation Service of Washington," which shall;
 
 76 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 consist of the State reclamation board and such field experts and other assistants 
 and employes as the board shall from time to time deem necessary. 
 
 SEC. 3. The State reclamation board, hereinafter called the board, shall consist 
 of five commissioners the State commissioner of public lands, the State treasurer, 
 the State hydraulic engineer, the State commissioner of agriculture, and the presi- 
 dent of the State College of Washington, ex officio. 
 
 The board shall, on its organization and biennially thereafter on the 1st day of April, 
 elect from among its memebers a chairman and a secretary, and shall maintain offices at 
 the State capital and hold such regular and special meetings as the business of the 
 . department shall require, and keep a record of its proceedings, and may from time to 
 time adopt rules and regulations for the transaction of its business. Three members 
 of the board shall constitute a quorum, and may exercise all the power and authority 
 conferred on the board. The attorney general shall be the legal advisor of the board". 
 The members of the board shall receive no compensation for services rendered as mem- 
 bers, but shall be reimbursed for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the 
 performance of their duties as members of the board, to be paid from the moneys 
 appropriated for the administrative expenses of the board. 
 
 SEC. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act there is hereby 
 created in the State treasury a State reclamation revolving fund, hereinafter called the 
 reclamation fund, which shall consist of all sums that may from time to time be appro- 
 priated thereto by the legislature from other funds in the State treasury; all gifts, 
 donations, bequests, and devises, made to the State therefor, and the proceeds of the 
 sale thereof; the proceeds of the sale or redemption of and the interest earned by 
 securities purchased or acquired with the moneys thereof; all reimbursements fo'r 
 moneys advanced for the payment of assessments on State, school, granted and other 
 public lands for the improvements thereof, as hereinafter provided; and all taxes 
 received under levies authorized by the legislature therefor. 
 
 Whenever the total amount in the reclamation fund, including cash on hand, 
 market value of property, and par value and accrued interest of securities owned, 
 reimbursements due or to become due for moneys advanced for the improvement of 
 State, school, granted, and other public lands, and all uncollected taxes, including 
 the current levy, less all outstanding warrants drawn against such fund, shall equal 
 $5,000,000, all taxes from future levies authorized by this act made therefor shall be 
 paid over, to the respective funds in the State treasury from which moneys have been 
 appropriated for the reclamation fund, until such funds are reimbursed for all sums so 
 appropriated. 
 
 From the moneys appropriated from the reclamation fund there shall be paid, upon 
 vouchers approved by the board and signed and attested by the chairman and secre- 
 tary, the administrative expenses of the board and such amounts as shall be found 
 necessary or expedient for the investigation and survey of reclamation projects pro- 
 posed to be financed in whole or in part by the board, and such amounts as may be 
 authorized by the board for the reclamation of logged-off lands and for the reclamation 
 of lands of diking, drainage, diking and drainage, and irrigation districts duly and 
 regularly organized under the laws of this State, and such other districts as shall from 
 time to time be authorized by law for the reclamation or development of waste or 
 undeveloped lands, and all of the respective districts hereinabove referred to hall, 
 for the purposes of this act, be known and designated herein as reclamation districts. 
 
 SEC. 5. In carrying out the purposes of this act the board shall be authorized and 
 empowered : 
 
 To make surveys and investigations of the unreclaimed and undeveloped lands in 
 this State and to determine the relative agricultural values, productiveness and uses, 
 and the feasibility and cost of reclamation and development thereof. 
 
 To formulate and adopt a sound policy for the reclamation and development of the 
 undeveloped agricultural resources of the State and from time to time select for recla- 
 mation and development such lands as may be deemed advisable, and the board may 
 in its discretion advise as to the formation and assist in the organization of reclamation 
 districts under the laws of this State. 
 
 To purchase the bonds of any reclamation district whose project is approved by the 
 board and which is found to be upon a sound financial basis and to contract with any 
 such district for making surveys and furnishing engineering plans and supervision 
 for the construction of its project and to accept the bonds of such district in payment 
 therefor and to expend the moneys appropriated from the reclamation fund in the 
 purchase of such bonds or in carrying out such contracts. 
 
 To sell and dispose of any reclamation district bonds acquired by the board at public 
 or private sale and to pay the proceeds of such sale into the reclamation fund: Pro- 
 vided, That such bonds shall not be sold for less than the purchase price plus accrued 
 interest.
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 77 
 
 To, whenever it shall deem it advisable, require any district with which it may 
 contract, to provide such safeguards as it may deem necessary to assure bona fide 
 settlement and development of the lands within such district, by securing from the 
 owners of lands therein agreements to limit the amount of their holdings to such 
 acreage as they can properly farm and to sell their excess land holdings at reasonable 
 prices. 
 
 To clear and reclaim logged-off lands in the manner hereinafter in this act provided. 
 
 To employ all necessary experts, assistants, and employees and fix their com- 
 pensation and to enter into any and all contracts and agreements necessary to carry 
 out the purposes of this act . 
 
 To have the assistance, cooperation, and services of, and the use of the records and 
 files in, all the departments and institutions of the State, particularly the office of the 
 commissioner of public lands, the State department of agriculture, the office of the 
 State hydraulic engineer, the bureau of farm development, the bureau of statistics, 
 agriculture, and immigration, the State College of Washington, and the University 
 of Washington ; and all State officers and the governing authorities of all State insti- 
 tutions are hereby authorized and directed to cooperate with the board in furthering 
 the purposes of this act. 
 
 To cooperate with the United States in any plan of land reclamation or land settle- 
 ment or agricultural development which the Congress of the United States may 
 provide and which may affect the development of agricultural resources within the 
 State of Washington, or the settlement of soldiers, sailors, and other worthy persons, 
 on the agricultural lands within this State, and the board shall have full power to 
 carry out the provisions of any cooperative land settlement act that may b,e enacted 
 by the United States. 
 
 The board shall prepare and report to the legislature, at the commencement of each 
 biennial session, a full statement of its operations and recommendations. 
 
 SEC. 6. The board shall have the power to cooperate and to contract with the United 
 States for the reclamation of arid, swamp, overflow, or logged-off lands in this State 
 by the board or by the United States, and shall have the power to contract with the 
 United States for the handling of such reclamation work by the United States and 
 for the repayment of such moneys as the board shall invest from the reclamation fund, 
 under such terms and conditions as the United States laws and the regulations of 
 the Interior Department shall provide for the repaymnt of reclamation costs by the 
 lands reclaimed. 
 
 SEC. 7. Every diking, drainage, diking and drainage, and irrigation district duly 
 and regularly organized under the laws of this State, or such other district as shall 
 hereafter be authorized by law and organized for the reclamation or development of 
 waste or undeveloped lands, shall be and is hereby authorized and empowered to 
 enter into all contracts with the reclamation board for the reclamation of the lands of 
 such district in the manner provided in this act, or such manner as such districts are 
 now authorized by law to contract with the United States or with individuals or cor- 
 porations, for the making of surveys and furnishing engineering plans and supervision 
 for the construction of, or for the construction of, all works and improvements neces- 
 sary for the reclamation of its lands, and for the sale or delivery of its bonds. 
 
 SEC. 8. Whenever in the judgment of the commissioner of public lands any State, 
 school, granted, or other public lands of the State will be specially benefited by any 
 proposed reclamation project approved by the board, he may consent that such lands 
 be included in any reclamation district organized for the purpose of carrying out such 
 reclamation project, and in that event the reclamation board shall be authorized to 
 pay, out of the current appropriations from the reclamation fund, the district assess- 
 ments levied as provided by law against such lands, and any such assessments paid 
 shall be made a charge against the lands upon which they were levied, and the amount 
 thereof, but without interest, shall be added to the appraised value and included in 
 the sale price of such lands when sold, and the State treasurer shall, upon the certifi- 
 cate of the State land commissioner, credit such amount of the proceeds of the sale, 
 when received, to the reclamation fund. 
 
 SEC. 9. Whenever the commissioner of public lands shall believe that any tract 
 of cut-over forest or logged-off State, school, granted, or other public lands of the State, 
 is of such quality and so situated that it may be profitably cleared and made ready for 
 cultivation for agricultural purposes under the provisions of this act, he may request 
 the State reclamation board to make a survey and investigation thereof and to deter- 
 mine the cost of clearing the same and whether such clearing will increase the value 
 of the land sufficiently to warrant the expense. 
 
 SEC. 10. Upon the filing of such request by the Commissioner of Public Lands the 
 board may in its discretion cause a survey and investigation of the lands described
 
 78 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 in the request to be made, and determine whether the land is of such character and 
 eo situated that it can be profitably cleared and made ready for cultivation for agri- 
 cultural purposes under the provisions of this act. In making such determination 
 the board shall take into consideration: (a) The character and quantity of stumps and 
 debris on the land and the cost of removing and destroying the same: and (b) the char- 
 acter of the soil, its depth and fertility, the number and kinds of crops to which it is 
 adapted, the local climatic conditions, the local annual rainfall, the water supply 
 upon the land, the drainage, the number and extent of the markets accessible, the 
 distance and means of transportation to market, the amount of similar land already 
 under cultivation and accessible to the same market or markets, and the ordinary 
 margin of profit per acre between the cost of production and the market price of the 
 various crops to which the land is adapted. 
 
 Upon completion of the investigation the board shall make a detailed report of its 
 findings and furnish a copy thereof to the commissioner of public lands and such report 
 shall be kept on file for the information of the board and the commissioner and shall 
 be open to public inspection. 
 
 SEC. 11. If the board shall determine that the State lands investigated as provided 
 in the preceding section can be profitably cleared and made ready for cultivation 
 and sold at an advanced price sufficient to cover the cost of clearing, it may cause the 
 same to be cleared and pay the cost of such clearing out of the moneys appropriated 
 from the reclamation fund for the reclamation of lands, and the cost of such clearing 
 shall be made a charge against the lands cleared and included in the sale price thereof 
 when sold, and such lands may be sold upon such terms as to deferred payments, 
 including the cost of clearing, as is provided by law for the sale of State, school, granted, 
 or other p'ublic lands of the State. 
 
 SEC. 12. For the purpose of raising revenue for the carrying out of the provisions ot 
 this act, the State board of equalization shall, beginning the fiscal year of 1919, and 
 annually thereafter, at the time of levying taxes for State purposes, levy upon all 
 property subject to taxation, and the proper officers shall collect, a tax of one-half of 
 1 mill. The revenue so raised shall be paid into the State treasury and credited to the 
 State reclamation revolving fund. 
 
 SEC. 13. There is hereby appropriated out of the genefal fund in the State treasury 
 into the State reclamation revolving fund the sum of $100,000; for the purpose of making 
 surveys and investigations of unreclaimed and undeveloped lands in this State and 
 for general administrative expenses of the State reclamation board there is hereby 
 appropriated out of the State reclamation revolving fund the sum of $50,000, or so much 
 thereof as may be necessary; for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act 
 relating to the purchase of the bonds of reclamation districts, the performance of 
 contracts made with such districts, the payment of reclamation district assessments 
 levied against the lands of the State, and the payment of the cost of clearing logged-off 
 lands of the State, there is hereby appropriated out of the State reclamation revolving 
 fund the sum of $1,000,000 or so much thereof as may be necessary: Provided, That 
 no warrant shall be drawn upon the State reclamation revolving fund in excess of the 
 amount in the State treasury to the credit of said fund. 
 
 SEC. 14. If any section or provision of this act shall be adjudged to be invalid or 
 unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the act as a whole 
 or any section, provision, or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. 
 
 SEC. 15. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, 
 health, and safety and shall take effect immediately. 
 
 Passed the house March 6, 1919. 
 
 Passed the senate March 11, 1919. 
 
 Approved by the governor March 18, 1919. 
 
 [Laws of 1919. State of Washington. Chapter 188. (S. B. 184.) Land settlement act.] 
 
 AN ACT Relating to the upbuilding of the agricultural resources of the State, establishing a State policy 
 for land settlement, defining the powers and duties of the State reclamation board in reference thereto, . 
 and making appropriations therefor. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Stale of Washington: 
 SECTION 1. This act shall be known and cited as the "land settlement act." 
 SEC. 2. The State of Washington in the exercise of its sovereign and police powers 
 declares that the settlement of such portions of the undeveloped lands in this State 
 as may be determined to be suitable and economically available therefor is a State 
 purpose and is necessary to the public health, safety, and welfare of its people. In 
 the exercise of such power the State, acting for itself and in cooperation with the
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 79 
 
 United States, hereby establishes a definite land policy providing means whereby 
 soldiers, sailors, marines, and others who have served with the armed forces of the 
 United States in the war against Germany and her allies, or other wars of the United 
 States, hereinafter generally referred to as "soldiers," and also industrial workers 
 and other American citizens desiring a rural life, may settle upon and become owners 
 of small improved farms and farm laborer's allotments. 
 
 SEC. 3. That the State reclamation board created by the sixteenth legislature, here- 
 inafter called the ''board," shall have power to cooperate with the Federal Govern- 
 ment in the settlement of any undeveloped lands in this State, and to avail itself 
 of any authority of Federal laws, rules, and regulations therefor when any such 
 settlement project shall be approved and adopted by both the Federal Government 
 and said board. Before said board shall expend any of the moneys appropriated 
 for the settlement of land, except as herein otherwise provided, it shall enter into 
 a written agreement with the Federal Government, setting forth the plan and basis 
 of cooperation between the State and the Federal Government, and the expendi- 
 tures to be incurred by each, and the provision for their repayment. 
 
 The contract with the United States may provide for the subdivision of the lands 
 and other work needed to render one or more groups of farms available for agriculture. 
 
 The board is authorized to secure from the United States, subject to the provisions 
 of Federal laws, the necessary funds for making permanent improvements and for 
 the purchase of necessary equipment. 
 
 SEC. 4. The board shall have power: 
 
 To investigate and select for settlement suitable areas of undeveloped lands in this 
 State available for settlement. 
 
 To purchase and acquire on behalf of the State such privately owned lands as in its 
 judgment are available for settlement. 
 
 To subdivide any lands owned by the State and found available for settlement, 
 including lands purchased or acquired for that purpose, into tracts suitable for farms 
 and farm laborer's allotments. 
 
 To make on any such farms and farm laborer's allotments such improvements as 
 may be necessary to render the same habitable and productive. 
 
 To accept from private owners deeds or other instruments of trust relating to land and 
 to subdivide, improve, and sell such lands. 
 
 To lease to prospective settlers any land selected by the board for settlement. 
 
 To dedicate to public use appropriate tracts for roads, schoolhouses, or other public 
 purposes. 
 
 To purchase and acquire under State laws any State, school, or granted lands of the 
 State which the board shall determine are available for settlement under the pro- 
 visions of this act. 
 
 To purchase and acquire lands in cooperation with the United States under such 
 conditions as may be deemed advisable for the purposes of this act, and to convey the 
 same under such conditions and restrictions as may be approved by the Secretary of 
 the Interior. 
 
 To arrange with the Federal Government for sharing in the expense of furnishing 
 agricultural training for settlers so as to render them better qualified for the cultivation 
 of their lands, under appropriate conditions of supervision by the Federal Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 To sell and convey such improved farms and farm laborer's allotments subject to the 
 limitations of this act. 
 
 To make such rules and regulations and perform any and all acts as may be neces- 
 sary and proper for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act. 
 
 If it shall appear that Federal aid and cooperation shall not be available, or the 
 board shall determine to adopt and proceed with any land settlement project without 
 Federal aid and cooperation, then and in such event the board may acquire lands for 
 such land settlement project and conduct their settlement with moneys from the State 
 reclamation fund. 
 
 SEC. 5. That the board shall give to soldiers the preference right to purchase or lease 
 such farms and farm laborer's allotments. 
 
 A qualified applicant must be a citizen >of the United States and must satisfy the 
 board that he is not the holder of agricultural land or possessory rights therein which, 
 together with the land and improvements to be purchased hereunder, shall exceed a 
 value of 15,000. Xo purchaser shall at any one time hold more than one farm or farm 
 laborer's allotment. Every purchaser shall satisfy the board as to his fitness, both 
 financial and otherwise, to cultivate and develop the same successfully. 
 
 Each approved applicant shall enter into a contract of purchase which, shall provide 
 for the payment of the purchase price of the land, the reclamation costs, and the farm 
 improvements and other charges, if any, and shall require the purchaser actually to 
 
 2541022 6
 
 80 " COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 occupy the land within six months and actually to reside thereon for at least eight 
 months in each calendar year for a period of at least five years, unless prevented by 
 illness or other cause satisfactory to the board ; and other absence from the land exceed- 
 ing four months in any calendar year shall be a breach of the contract. 
 
 The contract shall provide that it shall not be assigned without the consent of the 
 board. 
 
 The purchase price of the land shall be paid in annual installments to be fixed by 
 the board for a total period of not to exceed 40 years, with interest on deferred payments 
 from the date of the contract at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. 
 
 Title to the land shall not pass until full payment has been made for the land and 
 improvements. 
 
 SEC. 6. The lands disposed of under this act shall be leased or sold, in accordance 
 with regulations adopted by the board, after public notice in at least one newspaper 
 published in the State and of general circulation therein, and one newspaper pub- 
 lished in the county where the land is situated , once a week for five consecutive weeks, 
 the first date of publication being at least 60 days prior to the date of lease or sale, 
 setting forth generally the location of the land and the terms of lease or sale and stating 
 that detailed information can be obtained at the office of the board, and such other 
 convenient places as are designated in the notice. 
 
 SEC. 7. That the board shall investigate land settlement conditions in other States 
 and elsewhere. The board shall report biennially to the legislature, giving a full 
 statement of its operations and recommendations under the provisions of this act, and 
 shall furnish a copy of its report to the secretary of the interior. 
 
 SEC. 8. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act relating to acquir- 
 ing lands and improving the lands of the State, and the lands acquired or taken in 
 trust under the provisions of this act, there is hereby appropriated out of the State 
 reclamation revolving fund the sum of $150,000, or so much thereof as may be neces- 
 sary ; for the administrative expenses of the board in carrying out the provisions of this 
 act there is hereby appropriated out of the general fund the sum of 10,000, or so much 
 thereof as may be necessary: Provided, That no warrant shall be drawn upon the 
 State reclamation revolving fund in excess of the amount in the State treasury to the 
 credit of said fund. 
 
 SEC. 9. If any part of this act shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, 
 such adjudication shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the act as a 
 whole, or of the part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. 
 
 SEC. 10. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, 
 health, and safety, and shall take effect immediately. 
 
 Passed the senate March 8, 1919. 
 
 Passed the house March 11, 1919. 
 
 Approved by the governor March 20, 1919. 
 
 (No. 15620. En Bane. March 30, 1920.) The State of Washington, on the relation 
 of the State reclamation board et al., plaintiff, v. C. W. Clausen, as State auditor, 
 respondent. 
 
 Taxation (5) Restrictions Public purpose. No funds can be raised by taxation 
 except for a public purpose. 
 
 Constitutional law (3) Rule of construction. A statute will not be declared uncon- 
 stitutional unless it clearly so appears, and this rule is peculiarly applicable to an act 
 authorizing the levy of a tax for a public purpose. 
 
 Taxation (5) Restrictions Public purpose Land development act. The land 
 settlement act. Laws, 1919, page 583, authorizing the raising of funds by taxation for 
 the purchase, improvement, and settlement of undeveloped agricultural lands, to be 
 disposed of by the State to private individuals, is not unconstitutional as levying a tax 
 for other than a public purpose, the legislature, by the act, having decided that it was a 
 public purpose. 
 
 Constitutional law (103, 104) Discrimination Land development act. The land 
 settlement act, Laws 1919, page 583, for the development of agricultural lands to be 
 purchased, improved, and sold by the State, is not unconstitutional in that it discrimi- 
 nates in favor of agricultural lands. 
 
 Same (100, 102) Privileges and immunities Preference rights to soldiers. The 
 land settlement act, Laws 1919, page 583, for the development of agricultural lands, 
 giving soldiers a preference right of purchase, does not violate the equal privileges and 
 immunity guaranty of the constitution. 
 
 Same (129) Due process Taxation Public purpose. Since the land settlement 
 act, Laws 1919, page 583, does not provide for a tax for other than a public purpose, it
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 81 
 
 does not violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal 
 Constitution. 
 
 .Mackintosh and Mount, JJ., dissent. 
 
 Application filed in the supreme court November 4, 1919, for a writ of mandamus 
 to compel the State auditor to issue a warrant to relator in payment for land pur- 
 chased by the State reclamation board under the land settlement act. Granted. 
 
 The attorney general and Glenn J. Fairbrook, assistant, for relators. 
 
 Frank C. Owings for respondent. 
 
 Parker, J. This is an original mandamus proceeding in this court wherein the 
 relators seek a writ of mandate to compel the State auditor to issue a warrant against 
 the State reclamation revolving fund to the relator, George J. Hurley, in payment 
 for 160 acres of land purchased from him by the State reclamation board under the 
 land settlement act. Laws of 1919, chapter 188, page 583. The audoitr has refused 
 to issue the warrant as demanded of him, basing his refusal upon the sole ground that 
 the land settlement act is unconstitutional. 
 
 To the end that we have clearly before us the full purpose and scope of the land 
 settlement act, we deem it desirable at the outset to here quote the larger portion of 
 it, as follows: 
 
 AX ACT Relating to the upbuilding of the agricultural resources of the State, establishing a State policy 
 ior land settlement, defining the powers and duties of the State reclamation board in reference thereto, 
 and making appropriations therefor. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Slate oj Washington: 
 
 SECTION 1. This act shall be known and cited as the "land settlement act." 
 
 SEC. 2. The State of Washington in the exercise of its sovereign and police powers 
 declares that the settlement of such portions of the undeveloped lands in this State 
 as may be determined to be suitable and economically available therefor is a State 
 purpose and is necessary to the public health, safety, and welfare of its people. In 
 the exercise of such power the State, acting for itself and in cooperation with the 
 United States, hereby establishes a definite land policy providing means whereby 
 soldiers, sailors, marines, and others who have served with the armed forces of the 
 United States in the war against Germany and her allies, or other wars of the United 
 States, hereinafter generally referred to as "soldiers," and also industrial workers 
 and other American citizens desiring a rural life, may settle upon and become owners 
 of small improved farms and farm laborer's allotments. 
 
 SEC. 3. That the State reclamation board created by the sixteenth legislature, 
 hereinafter called the ''board," shall have power to cooperate with the Federal Gov- 
 ernment in the settlement of any undeveloped lands in this State. 
 
 ******* 
 
 SEC. 4. The board shall have power: 
 
 To investigate and select for settlement suitable areas of undeveloped lands in this 
 State available for settlement. 
 
 To purchase and acquire on behalf of the State such privately owned lands as in 
 its judgment are available for settlement. 
 
 To subdivide any lands owned by the State and found available for settlement, 
 including lands purchased or acquired for that purpose, into tracts suitable for farms 
 and farm laborer's allotments. 
 
 To make on any such farms and farm laborer's allotments such improvements as 
 may be necessary to render the same habitable and productive. 
 
 To accept from private owners deeds or other instruments of trust relating to land 
 and to subdivide, improve, and sell such lands. 
 
 To lease to prospective settlers any land selected by the board for settlement. 
 
 To dedicate to public use appropriate tracts for roads, schoolhouses, or other public 
 purposes. 
 
 To purchase and acquire under State laws any State, school, or granted lands of 
 the State which the board shall determine are available for settlement under the 
 provisions of this act. 
 
 To purchase and acquire lands in cooperation with the United States under such 
 conditions as may be deemed advisable for the purposes of this act, and to convey 
 the same under such conditions and restrictions as may be approved by the Secretary 
 of the Interior. 
 
 To arrange with the Federal Government for sharing in the expense of furnishing 
 agricultural training for settlers so as to render them better qualified for the cultivation 
 <>t their lands, under appropriate conditions of supervision by the Federal Government. 
 
 To sell and convey such improved farms and farm laborer's allotments subject to 
 the limitations of this act. 
 
 To make such rules and regulations and perform any and all acts as may be necessary 
 and proper for the purple of carrying out the provisions of this act. * * *
 
 82 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 SEC. 5. That the board shall give to soldiers the preference right to purchase or 
 lease such farms and farm laborer's allotments. 
 
 A qualified applicant must be a citizen of the United States and must satisfy the 
 board that he is not the holder of agricultural land or possessory rights therein which . 
 together with the land and improvements to be purchased hereimder. shall exceed a 
 value of $15,000. No purchaser shall at any one time hold more than one farm or 
 farm laborer's allotment. Every purchaser shall satisfy the board as to his fitness, 
 both financial and otherwise, to cultivate and develop the same successfully. 
 
 Each approved applicant shall enter into a contract of purchase which shall provide 
 for the payment of the purchase price of the land, the reclamation costs and the farm 
 improvements and other charges, if any. and shall require the purchaser actually to 
 occupy the land within six months and actually to reside thereon for at least eight 
 months in each calendar year for a period of at least five years, unless prevented by 
 illness or other cause satisfactory to the board; and other absence from the land 
 exceeding four months in any calendar year shall be a breach of the contract. 
 
 The contract shall provide that it shall not be assigned withoiit the consent of the 
 board. 
 
 The purchase price of the land shall be paid in annual installments to be fixed by 
 the board for a total period of not to exceed 40 years, with interest on deferred payments 
 from the date of the contract at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. 
 
 Title to the land shall not pass until full payment has been made for the land and 
 improvements. 
 
 SEC. 6. The lands disposed of under this act shall be leased or sold, in accordance 
 with regulations adopted by the board, after public notice in at least one newspaper 
 published in the State and of general circulation therein, and one newspaper pub- 
 lished in the county where the land is situated, once a week for five consecutive weeks, 
 the first date of publication being at least 60 days prior to the date of lease or sale, set- 
 ting forth generally the location of the land and the terms of lease or sale and stating 
 that detailed information can be obtained at the office of the board and such other 
 convenient places as are designated in the notice. 
 
 ***##** 
 
 SEC. 8. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act relating to acquiring 
 lauds and improving the lands of the State, and the lands acquired or taken in trust 
 under the provisions of this act, there is hereby appropriated out of the State reclama- 
 tion revolving fund the sum of $150,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for 
 the administrative expenses of the board in carrying out the provisions of this act 
 there is hereby appropriated out of the general fund the sum of $10,000, or so much 
 thereof as may be necessary: Provided, That no warrant shall be drawn upon the 
 State reclamation revolving fund in excess of the amount in the State treasury to the 
 credit of said fund. 
 
 SEC. 9. If any part of this act shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, 
 such adjudication shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the act as a 
 whole, or of the part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. * 
 
 The State reclamation act, Laws of 1919, chapter 158. page 442, provides for the 
 composition and organization of the State reclamation board mentioned in the above- 
 quoted portion of section 3 of the land settlement act. The State reclamation act 
 also renders it plain that the State reclamation revolving fund from which the appro- 
 priation made by the above-quoted section 8 is, and is to become, largely, if not 
 wholly, the product of taxes levied and to be levied upon all property in the State 
 subject to taxation in the same manner as the State general taxes are levied. In 
 view of the express provisions of section 9 above quoted, we need only concern our- 
 selves in this case with the question of the constitutionality of the act in so far as it 
 authorizes the expenditure of public funds raised by taxation in the purchase by the 
 reclamation board of land to be subdivided, improved, and disposed of as provided 
 by the terms of the act, since we do not understand the contention here made in 
 support of the auditor's refusal to issue the warrant as demanded of him to be rested 
 upon any other grounds of unconstitutionally than that the act. in so far as it author- 
 izes the expenditure of public funds raised by taxation, is in excess of legislative 
 constitutional power and that it is in effect an exercise of the power to tax and to 
 expend public funds so raised for a purpose not public but private that is, for a 
 purpose not governmental in the sense that such purpose is not a legitimate function 
 of government. 
 
 We must of course proceed with our inquiry, having in view the elementary prin- 
 ciple that a tax can be lawfully levied and the public funds so raised lawfully 
 expended only for a public purpose. The learned author. Gray, in his work entitled 
 "Limitations on Taxing Power," sections 169, 170, well states this elementary prin- 
 ciple as follows:
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 83 
 
 "In all the definitions of taxation and taxes, one element appears most promi- 
 nently, to wit. the necessity for a public purpose to justify the exercise of the taxing 
 power. Xo principle of law is better established than this: That taxes can only be 
 laid for public purposes: and that a tax laid for a private purpose or to bestow some 
 private benefit upon some individual or individuals is void, regardless of the absence 
 of express constitutional prohibitions. * 
 
 "This limitation upon the taxing power i? based upon and derived from the inherent 
 purposes of the State as a social organization." 
 
 The following authorities, and many others which might be cited, leave no room 
 to doubt this as being a settled rule "of American jurisprudence: Judson. Taxation 
 (2d ed.). section 376; Cooley, Taxation (3d ed.), page 181. The guaranty of section 
 3, article 1. of our State constitution that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, 
 or property without due process of law," and the like guaranty of the fourteenth 
 amendment to the Constitution of the United States, are manifestly all that this 
 principle needs to rest upon. 
 
 Our problem, then, is reduced to this, is the raising of funds by taxation and the 
 expenditure thereof for the purchase of land to the end that it be subdivided, improved, 
 and disposed of as by the terms of this act provided, the exercise of the power of 
 taxation and the expenditure of public funds for a public purpose? It may well be 
 doubted that there has ever come to the American courts any more vexatious question 
 than that of determining whether or not a particular purpose for which public funds 
 were sought to be raised by taxation and expended is a public purpose, when the 
 particular purpose in question lay within that twilight zone wherein the minds may 
 reasonably differ as to such purpose being a public one; the bounds of which zone are 
 ever changing with the passing of time, and within which new problems of public 
 welfare always first appear. That such a question, when arising in the courts, has 
 proven so vexatious is, we apprehend, because of its inherent nature, in that, in its 
 last analysis, it is not one of exclusive legal logic, but is one more or less of policy 
 and wisdom, properly determinable in the light of public welfare, present and future, 
 in a broad sense; and hence is not a pure judicial law question, except in those cases 
 clearly outside of the twilight zone we have alluded to. 
 
 Some 50 years ago it became a much-debated question in this country as to whether 
 or not the levying of a tax and the expenditure of public funds raised thereby for the 
 purpose of construction or to aid in the construction of a railroad in a State or a com- 
 munity of the people so taxed was the exercise of the taxing power and the expendi- 
 ture of public money for a public purpose. Different State courts, the judges of which 
 were counted of eminent legal learning, even in a time of great judges and great 
 lawyers, entertained opposing views upon this question. Touching the real nature 
 of the question and recognizing that it lies very close to that line of uncertain location 
 dividing judicial from legislative functions, in a decision holding that such purpose 
 was public, or rather that the court could not say that it was not public when the 
 legislature authorizing the levy of the tax for the purposes had, in effect, determined 
 that it was public, Justice Ladd. speaking for the New Hampshire court, in Perry v. 
 Keene (56 N. H. 514, 531), said: 
 
 "Where is the line that divides the province of the court from that of the legis- 
 lature in a matter of this sort? The court is to expound and administer the laws, 
 and there the judicial function and duty end. How much of the question, whether 
 a given object is public, lies within the province of the law, and how much in the 
 domain of political science and statesmanship? When the judge has declared all 
 the law that enters into the problem, how much is still left to the determination of 
 the legislator? Admitting, as has indeed been more than intimated in this State 
 (Concord Railroad v. Greeley, 17 N. H. 57), that it is for the court finally to determine 
 whether the use is public, what is the criterion? What are the rules which the law 
 furnishes to the court wherewith to eliminate a true answer to the inquiry? In 
 what respect does the question as presented to the court differ from the same ques- 
 tion as presented to the legislature? If the courts stop when they reach the borders 
 of legislative ground, how far can they proceed? 
 
 "If the legislature should take the'property of A, or the property of all the tax- 
 payers in the town of A, and hand it over, without consideration, without pretence of 
 any public obligation or duty, to B, to be used by him in buying a farm, or building 
 a house, or setting himself up in business, the case would be so clear that the common 
 sense of everyone would at once say the limits of legislative power had been over- 
 stepped by a taking of private property and devoting it to a private use. That is the 
 broad ground upon which such cases as Allen r. Jay, 60 Me. 124; Lowell r. Boston, 
 111 Mass. 454; and The Citizens Loan Association r. Topeka, Sup. Ct. U. S. (not yet 
 reported (.were decided. And yet, what rule of law do the courts find to aid them in 
 thus revising the judgment of the legislature? Is it not clear that the question they
 
 84 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 pass upon is the same question as that decided by the legislature, and that they must 
 determine it in the same way the legislature has done, simply by the exercise of 
 reason and judgment? What is it that settles the character of a given purpose, in 
 respect of its being public or otherwise? It has been said that for the legislature to 
 declare a use public does not make it so (17 X. H. 57). and the same may certainly 
 be said with equal truth of a like declaration by the court. A judicial christening can 
 no more affect the nature of the thing itself, than a legislative christening. Judging 
 a priori, and without some knowledge of the wants of mankind when organized in 
 communities and States, I do not quite understand how it could be predicated of 
 any use, that it is per se public, as is said by Dixon. C. J.. in Whiting v. Sheboyean 
 Railway Co. (9 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.). 161)." 
 
 Of light, air, water, etc., the common bounties of providence, it might, indeed, be 
 said beforehand that they are in a very broad sense public; but it is not of such uses 
 that we are speaking. ^Vithout knowledge of human nature, knowledge derived from 
 experience and observation of what may be needful for the comfort, well-being, and 
 prosperity of the people of the State advanced in civilization and knowledge, gained 
 in the same way, as to what necessary conditions of their welfare will be supplied by 
 private enterprise, and what will go unsupplied without interference by the State-^- 
 I do not see how any use could be said to be per se public, or how either" a legislature, 
 or a court, could form a judgment that would not be founded almost wholly upon 
 theory and conjecture. No one doubts that the building and maintaining of our 
 common highways is a public purpose. Why? Certainly for no other reason than that 
 they furnish facilities for travel, the transmission of intelligence, and the transportation 
 of goods. But why should the State take this matter under its fostering care, imposing 
 upon the people a very great yearly burden in the shape of taxes for their support 
 any more than many others that might be mentioned, of equal and perhaps greater 
 importance to its citizens? Is it of greater concern to the citizen that ne should have 
 a road to travel on, when he desires to visit his neighbor in the next town, or transport 
 the products of his farm or of his factory to market and bring back the commodities for 
 which they may be exchanged, than that he should have a mill to grind his corn a 
 tanner, a shoemaker, and a tailor to manufacture his raw materials into clothing, 
 wherewith his body may be covered? Doubtless highways are a great public benefit. 
 
 Without them I suppose the whole State would soon return to its primal condition 
 of a howling wildderness, fit only for the habitation of wild beasts and savages. How 
 would it be if there were no mills for the manufacture of lumber, no joiners or masons 
 to build houses, no manufacturers of cloth, no merchants or tradesmen to assist in the 
 exchange of commodities? These suppositions may appear somewhat fanciful, but 
 they illustrate the inquiry, Why is the building of roads to be regarded as a public 
 service, while many other things equally necessary for the upholding of life, the 
 security of property, the preservation of learning," morality, and religion, are by 
 common consent regarded as private, and so left to the private enterprise of the 
 citizens? The answer to this question, surely, is not to be found in any abstract 
 principle of law. It is essentially a conclusion of fact and public policy, the result of 
 an inquiry into the individual necessities of every member of the community (which 
 in the aggregate show the character and urgency of the public need), and the likelihood 
 that those necessities will be supplied without interference from the State. Obviously 
 it bears a much closer resemblance to the deduction of a politician than the application 
 of a legal principle by a judge. * * * 
 
 "Enough has been said to show the delicate nature of the task imposed upon the 
 court when they are called upon to revise the judgment of the legislature in a matter 
 of this description. It is especially delicate for two reasons first, because the dis- 
 cretion of the legislature, with respect to the whole subject of levying taxes, is so very 
 large and their power so exclusive that it is not always easy to say when the limits of 
 that discretion and power have been passed: and, "second, because the rule to be 
 applied is furnished, not so much by the law as by those general considerations of 
 public policy and political economy to which allusion has been made. I do not 
 deny the power and duty of the court, when private rights of property are in question. 
 to settle those right* according to a just interpretation of the Constitution, and the 
 discharge of that duty may involve a revision of the judgment of the legislature upon 
 a question which like this partakes more or less of a political character. But before 
 the court can reverse the judgment of the legislature and the Executive and declare 
 a statute levying or authorizing a tax to be inoperative and void a very clear case 
 must be shown. 
 
 "After the legislative and the executive have both decided that the purpose for 
 which a tax is laid is public nothing short of a moral certainty that a mistake has been 
 made, can. in my judgment, warrant the court in overruling that decision, especially 
 when nothing better can be set up in its place than the naked opinion ot the court as 
 to the character of the use proposed."
 
 COLUMBIA BASIX IRRIGATION PROJECT. 85 
 
 These observations of that learned justice, though made in the centennial year of 
 our independence, nearly a half century ago. near the beginning of the expansion of 
 governmental activities in the interest of public welfare, are, we apprehend, as 
 illuminating, touching the real nature of our present problem, as can be found in our 
 legal literature. Plainly, since a correct solution of our present problem, because of 
 its inherent nature, calls for the consideration of something more than pure legal prin- 
 ciples, suggests that we exercise a great degree of caution to the end that we shall not 
 usurp powers which do not constitutionally belong to us. This court has adhered 
 steadfastly to the general rule, in common with other courts of our country, that a 
 statute can not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly so appears. Is not this 
 rule of peculiar force in its application to the question of whether or not a legislative 
 act authorizing the levy of a tax and the expenditure of public moneys so raised is for 
 a public purpose? We are decidedly of the opinion that it is. 
 
 Having, we think, with a fair degree of success ascertained the real nature of our in- 
 quiry, and the degree of caution we are to exercise looking to the avoidance of the usur- 
 pation of powers of a coordinate branch of the State government, the legislature, 
 let us inquire what are the considerations to be noticed as determinative of this case. 
 It would be of little aid here to review the decisions of the courts with a view to merely 
 ascertaining what particular purposes have been held to be public and what particular 
 purposes have been held not to be public. We would be but led into a maze of con- 
 flict in the holdings touching the particular purposes involved in the reported deci- 
 sions; and we may add, we think, also, into a maze of conflicting theories upon which 
 such decisions are rested . In so far, therefore, as we shall notice the decisions and other 
 authorities, it will be to the end that we have brought to our attention the broad 
 general considerations which have influenced the courts in deciding the questions of 
 public use in the particular cases brought before them, especially in recent years. 
 
 In Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. New York (8 App. Div. 230, 235, 40 X. Y. 
 Supp. 607), Justice Barrett, speaking for the court, in holding that the construction, 
 by the expenditure of public funds raised by taxation, of a city railway, to be operated 
 by others under a lease from the city, did not constitute the exercising of the taxing 
 power for a purpose not public, observed: 
 
 "No test is furnished in the case cited for determining the precise scope of munic- 
 ipal action, and none has been suggested to us which is in any way satisfactory. 
 In considering this question it must be premised that cities are not limited to providing 
 for the strict necessities of their citizens. Under legislative authority they may min- 
 ister to their comfort, health, pleasure, or education. They are not limited to policing 
 the city, to paving its streets, to providing it with light, water, sewers, docks, and mar- 
 kets. They may also be required by the sovereign power to furnish their citizens with 
 schools, hospitals, dispensaries, parks, libraries, and museums, with zoological, 
 botanical, and other gardens. They may thus even gratify our ears, with music of a 
 summer afternoon or minister to our comfort by providing us with public baths. 
 Expenditures in all these directions under legislative authority have never been ques- 
 tioned. Where, then, shall we draw the line? It would be very simple to draw it at 
 those purposes for which precedent in the past can be found and to exclude all others. 
 This test should be easy of application but would be essentially vicious and erroneous. 
 Growth and extension are as necessary in the domain of municipal action as in the do- 
 main of law. New conditions constantly arise which confront the legislature with new 
 problems. As the structure of society grows more complex, needs spring up which 
 never existed before. These needs may be so general in their nature as to affect the 
 whole country or the whole State, or they may be local and confined to a single county 
 or municipality. In any case it is the duty of that legislative body which has the power 
 and jurisdiction to apply the remedy. To hold that the legislature of this State, 
 acting as the parens patriae, may employ for the relief and welfare of the inhabitants 
 of the cities of the State only those methods and agencies which have proved adequate 
 in the past would be a narrow and dangerous interpretation to put upon the funda- 
 mental law. No such interpretation has thus far been placed upon the organic law by 
 the courts of this State. Whenever the question has been considered it has been uni- 
 versally treated in the broadest spirit." 
 
 The judgment rendered by the appellate division of the Supreme Court on that case 
 was thereafter affirmed by the court of appeals. (Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n 
 r. New York, 152 X. Y. 257, 46 X. E. 499, 37 L. II. A. 788.) 
 
 In Laughlin r. Portland (111 Me. 486, 90 Atl. 318, Ann. ('as. 1916, 734, 51 L. R. A. 
 ( X. S. i, 1 143 i there was involved the question of the city of Portland exercising its 
 taxing power in bringing about the establishment and operation of a municipal fuel 
 yard for the purpose of selling fuel to its inhabitants. In holding that such exercise 
 of power was for a legitimate municipal purpose that is, a public purpose, it being 
 authorized by an act of the legislature Justice Cornish, speaking for the court, made 
 the following pertinent general observations:
 
 86 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 "The courts have never attempted to lay down with minute detail an inexorable 
 rule distinguishing public from private purposes, because it would be impossible to 
 do so. Times change. The wants and necessities of the people change. The oppor- 
 tunity to satisfy those wants and necessities by individual effort may vary, What 
 was clearly a public use a century ago may. because of changed conditions, have 
 ceased to be such to-day. Thus the mill act, which came into being in the early days 
 of our parent Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was adopted by our own State, 
 was upheld as constitutional because of the necessities of those primitive times. The 
 courts in later days have strongly intimated that were it an original question it might 
 be difficult to sustain it in view "of present industrial conditions. (Murdock v. Stick- 
 ney, 8 Cush. 113: Salisbury v. Forsaith, 57 X. H. 124: Jordan v. Woodward. 40 Maine, 
 317.) 
 
 "On the other hand, what could not be deemed a public use a century ago may, 
 because of changed economic and industrial conditions, be such to-day. Laws which 
 were entirely adequate to secure public welfare then may be inadequate to accom- 
 plish the same results now. " 
 
 The decision of the State court in that case was thereafter approved by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States (Jones v. Portland, 245 U. S. 217, Ann. Cas."l918, 660>, the 
 question of the purpose being public being reviewed by that court in the light of the 
 due process of law guaranty of the fourteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution. 
 
 In Gray, Limitation of Taxing Power, at section 176, it is said: 
 
 " It is not possible to lay down any hard-and-fast rule by which to determine which 
 purposes are public and which private. Hardly any project of public benefit is 
 without some element of peculiar personal protit'to individuals: hardly any private 
 attempt to use the taxing power is without some colorable pretext of public good. 
 Each case must be judged on its own facts, and any attempt at fixed definition must 
 result in confusion and contradictions. 
 
 "The custom of the Government and the community is, perhaps, as definite a 
 guide as can be indicated." 
 
 Omitting the first sentence, we quite agree with this statement of the learned 
 author, but the suggestion that "custom " may be a true guide, it seems to us, leads us 
 nowhere except to stagnation. This, it seems to us, would be wholly out of harmony 
 with the thought permeating all of the later decisions, that new conditions and new 
 public necessities are weighty considerations in determining the question of public 
 purpose. For if custom is to be the controlling factor in deciding the question, then the 
 consideration of new conditions and new necessities are of little moment in deciding 
 the question. We are impressed with the observations touching custom as a guide 
 made by Chester Collins Maxey in an article to be found in the January- February . 1918 
 number of the American Law Review, at pages 215, 219, as follows: 
 
 "The usage rule settles nothing. If it be rigidly applied, it precludes all possi- 
 bility of growth and progress in this branch of the law; if. on the contrary, it be liber- 
 ally construed, it reveals the courts exercising the very discretion which they doubt- 
 less employed it to conceal. No one is surprised, therefore, that in later ca?es the 
 courts are found with very little to say about settled usage and very much to say 
 about the necessity of recognizing growth in matters of government and law and of 
 the deference to be paid to legislative determinations of public purpose." 
 
 We feel certain that these considerations, general as they are. lead irresistibly to 
 the conclusion that the question of public purpose involved in this case, because of 
 its inherent nature, because of the opportunity for difference of opinion as to whether 
 or not the purpose is public in the sense of it being a legitimate function of govern- 
 ment, and because of the question of public policy necessarily involved in it. is one 
 which we are not permitted to render a different decision upon than that rendered by 
 the legislature. Is there not abundant room for arguing that the development of our 
 unoccupied lands suitable for agriculture, by a land policy which would encourage 
 the settlement thereon of home-owning farmers, will materially contribute to the 
 welfare of our people as a whole? Can it not be argued with a fair show ol reason that 
 not only will such a policy ultimately lead to the enhancement of the material wealth 
 of the State, but that it will also make for better citizenship, better notions of necessity 
 for law and order, and a sounder and saner patriotism? In the light of the debatable 
 character of these questions, we are quite convinced that it is not within the province 
 of the judicial branch of our State government to answer them in the negative. Our 
 decision sustaining the workmen's compensation act of 1911. in State ex rel. Davis- 
 Smith Co. r. Clausen (65 Wash. 156, 117 Pac. 1101. 37 L. R. A. (X. S.) 466, 2 X. C. C. A. 
 823, 3 N. C. A. 599) seems quite in harmony with, and to lend support to, the con- 
 clusion we here reach. 
 
 Some contention is made, rested upon the theory that this act discriminates in favor 
 of agriculture as against other industries. This, to our minds, is no argument against
 
 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 87 
 
 its constitutionality, since it can not be said that the legislature has wrongly decided 
 that to so encourage agricultural developent in our State will promote its public wel- 
 fare. It hardly needs argument to demonstrate that no other industry is so closely 
 related to the welfare of the people as a whole. 
 
 Some contention is made that the law is unconstitutional in that it violates the equal 
 privileges and immunities guaranty of our Constitution, because it contemplates, in 
 the disposition of the lands, the giving of preference rights to soldiers. All arguments 
 that could be made against the law upon this ground could, with equal force, be made 
 against every pension law that was ever enacted by the Congress of the United States, 
 or any of the states. Manifestly this contention is without merit. 
 
 The contention that the law violates the fourteenth amendment of the Federal 
 Constitution, we think, is answered by what we have already said. We must concede 
 that the question of whether or not the tax is levied for a public use is a Federal as well 
 as a state question. To take property by taxation for other than a public purpose is 
 as much a violation of the due process of law guaranty of the fourteenth amendment 
 to the Federal Constitution as of any similar provision of the State constitution. This 
 is made plain by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Olcott v. 
 Supervisors (83 U. S. 678). 
 
 We are quite convinced that we are not privileged to now decide that this tax, and 
 the expenditure of public funds raised thereby, is for other than a public purpose, 
 the legislature having decided that is for a public purpose, which decision not being 
 manifestly wrong, the writ will issue as prayed for. 
 
 Tolman, Bridges, Mitchell, Main, and Fullerton, JJ., concur. 
 
 Mackintosh, J. (dissenting). As I gather the gist of my Brother Parker's opinion, 
 it is that the court will not declare unconstitutional an act which calls for the collection 
 of taxes to be used in the purchase and improvement of lands to be sold to private 
 individuals, for the reason that the legislature has decided that such taxation is for a 
 public purpose. Courts have found this an easy way to justify the laying of taxes to 
 be utilized in ways that appeal to them as beneficial or agreeable to their ideas of 
 proper commercial or economic development. The purpose of the act may be highly 
 commendable, and did it not call for the payment from the pockets of the taxpayer of 
 money in the possession of which he is supposed to be protected by constitutional 
 limitations, as a land development plan, it would merit the approval of those in- 
 terested; but to call it a public purpose is to stretch to the breaking point all funda- 
 mental ideas of what is meant by that term. 
 
 In Lowell v. Boston (111 Mass. 454, 15 Am. Hep. 39), an act was declared unconsti- 
 tutional which authorized Boston to bond itself for $20,000,000, to be loaned to the 
 owners of land, the buildings upon which had been destroyed by fire, for the purpose 
 of rebuilding the city. Repayment was secured by mortgages. The court said: 
 
 "The power of government, thus instituted to affect the individual in his private 
 right of property whether by enacting contributions to the general means or by 
 sequestration of specific property, is confined, by obvious implication as well as by 
 express terms, to purposes and objects alone which the Government was established 
 to promote, to wit, public uses and the public service. This power, when exercised 
 in one form, is taxation; in the other, is designated as the right of eminent domain. 
 The two diverse in respect of the occasion and mode of exercise, but identical in their 
 source, to wit, the necessities of organized society; and in the end by which alone the 
 exercise of either can be justified, to wit, some public service or use. It is due to 
 their identity in these respects that the two powers, otherwise so unlike, are associated 
 together in the same article. So far as it concerns the question what constitutes public 
 use or service that will justify the exercises of these sovereign powers over private 
 rights of property, which is the main question now to be solved, this identity renders 
 it unnecessary to distinguish between the two forms of exercise, as the same tests 
 must apply to and control in each. An appropriation of money raised by taxation, or 
 of property taken by right of eminent domain, by way of gift to an individual for his 
 own private uses exclusively, would clearly be an excess of legislative power." 
 
 In another portion of the same opinion it is said: 
 
 " The power to levy taxes is founded on the right, duty, and responsibility to main- 
 tain and administer all the governmental functions of the State, and to provide for 
 the public welfare. To justify any exercise of the power requires that the expenditure 
 which it is intended to meet shall be for some public service, or some object which 
 concerns the public welfare. The promotion of the interests of individuals, either 
 in respect of property or business, although it may result incidentally in the advance- 
 ment of the public welfare, is, in its essential character, a private and not a public 
 object. However certain and great the resulting good to the general public, it does 
 not, by reason of its comparative importance, cease to be incidental. The incidental 
 advantage to the public, or to the State, which results from the promotion of private
 
 88 COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 
 
 interests, and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify thoir 
 aid by the use of public money raised by taxation, or for which taxation may become 
 necessary. It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which 
 must determine its validity as justifying a tax and not the magnitude of tho interests 
 to be affected, nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and 
 thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. The prin- 
 ciple of this distinction is fundamental. It underlies all government that is based 
 upon reason rather than upon force. It is expressed in various forms in the con- 
 stitution of Massachusetts." 
 
 See also Olcott v. Supervisors (83 U. S. 678), Citizens' Savings & Loan Association v>. 
 Topeka (87 IT. S. 655), State ex rel. Garrett r. Froehlich (118 Wis. 129, 94 N. \V. f>(), 
 99 Am. St. 985, 61 L. R. A. 345), Auditor of Lucas County r. State ex rel. Boyles, 
 (75 Ohio St. 114, 78 N. E. 955, 7 L. R. A. 1196), State ex rel. Walton v. Edmondson 
 (89 Ohio St. 351, 106 N. E. 41), State ex rel. Griffith r. Osawkee Township (14 Kans. 
 418, 19 Am. Rep. 99), State ex rel. Garth v. Switzler (143 Mo. 287, 45 S. W. 245, 65 Am. 
 St. 653, 40 L. R. A. 280), City of Geneseo v. Geneseo Natural Gas, Coal, Oil, Salt & 
 Mineral Co. (55 Kans. 358, 40 Pac. 655), In re House (23 Colo. 87, 46 Pac. 117, 33 L. R. 
 A. 832), City of Baltimore v. Keeley Institute (81 Md. 106, 31 Atl. 437, 27 L. R. A. 
 646), Mayor, etc., of Jersey City v. New Jersey R. Co. (78 N. J. L. 72, 73 Atl. 609), 
 Fox t'. Mohawk & H. R. Humane Society (165 N. Y. 517, 59 N. E. 353, 80 Am. St. 
 767, 51 L. R. A. 681), State ex rel. Board of Control of St. Louis School and Museum 
 of Fine Arts r. St. Louis (216 Mo. 47, 115 S. W. 534), Feldman r. City Council of 
 Charleston (23 S. C. 63, 55 Am. Rep. 9), Aetna Fire Ins. Co. r. Jones (78 S. C. 445, 
 59 S. E. 148, 125 Am. St. 818, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1147), Trustees of Brooke Academy r. 
 George (14 W. Va. 420, 35 Am. Rep. 672), Minnesota Sugar Co. v. Iverson (91 Minn. 
 30, 97 N. W. 454). 
 
 It is needless to prolong a discussion already too ambiguous. On principle, and 
 under the authorities, I can not agree that a public purpose is being served by this 
 attractive bit of paternalistic legislation, and therefore dissent. 
 
 Mount, J., concurs with Mackintosh, J. 
 
 Holcomb, C. J. (concurring). The purpose of the reclamation act, as set forth 
 therein, is the settlement of undeveloped lands. The settlement and development 
 of unimproved lands for agricultural purposes is certainly a public benefit. It means 
 a direct increase in production of foodstuffs and an indirect increase in industry 
 within the State. That the State generally will receive a benefit it seems to me there 
 can be little doubt. 
 
 The fact that benefits will inure to certain classes of citizens within the State does 
 not lessen the public benefit that will result from the operation of the statute. The 
 benefit received by a class of citizens does not destroy the primary purpose the legis- 
 lature had in enacting the statute to increase the agricultural products of the State 
 and make productive lands heretofore unproductive. 
 
 Distinction can be made between the present case and Lowell r. Boston (111 Mass. 
 454, 15 Am. Rep. 39), quoted from in the dissenting opinion filed herein. There the 
 purpose of the statute was to raise funds to be loaned to owners of land, the buildings 
 upon which had been destroyed. The purpose in that case was to rebuild a devastated 
 portion of a city. It was peculiarly a private benefit, although to a large number of 
 inhabitants. It is not difficult to understand that the benefits to be derived from the 
 expenditure of money in that case could hardly be conceived as belonging to the 
 public generally. While there might be a remote public benefit, there hardly could 
 be such a direct and general one as under the statute here in question. 
 
 For the above reasons I concur with the majority.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY Pir 
 
 A 000013159 9