Mexico regardless of ownership at the time such waters entered the reservoir, and this effect would continue until Mexico had completely filled its conservation storage capacity in Amistad Reservoir. Water in addition to this amount, if and when any entered the reservoir, would presumably be released to flow on to Falcon, retaining its character as Mexican or American water, or mixed water as the case might be, depending on its ownership on entering the full reservoir. The American conservation storage in Falcon Dam would then be increased by whatever American waters flow into Falcon. Under these circumstances, Mexico would undoubtedly maintain a full storage in Diablo and would attempt to leave an unused reserve storage in Falcon. This could result in additional American water being transferred at Falcon to Mexico immediately upon the filling of the American share of its conservation storage space at Falcon, since Mexico would have unused space in this reservoir. This would largely eliminate the benefit of the provision in the above-quoted paragraph providing for temporary use by one country of unused storage capacity of the other because this provision applies only to capacity not currently being used in the upper reservoirs.

It is obvious that if this condition were to occur, all users of water on the Rio Grande River below Amistad Dam to the Gulf of Mexico could lose substantial amounts of water now available to them. It is our opinion that such losses could exceed the amount of any additional waters that might be conserved and saved by the building of Amistad Dam. If the U.S. Government attempted to meet its treaty obligations by constructing the dam in this fashion, it would take from the users of waters in the United States substantial amounts of water now available to them when no surplus of water exists, and on which water the very economic life of the whole area depends. Without water from the Rio Grande River, the irrigation development on the American side of the river would be destroyed. It is therefore our feeling that even though the United States would not normally build conservation storage at this cost for the purpose of saving the additional amounts of water above mentioned, and even though the construction of the conservation storage facilities for the United States in Amistad Reservoir might not be physically of tremendous conservation benefit to water users below the reservoir site, still such conservation storage must be built in order to protect the American users of water from losing water now available to them, and that might otherwise be lost by transfer to Mexico.

The District is also vitally interested in the construction of Amistad Dam by virtue of the fact that during a large percentage of the year, the flow of the Rio Grande at the district headgates consists of water coming from the Rio Conchos, the Pecos River, and the Devils River. These flows are ground-water flows and the Pecos River portion is relatively large during these periods. The Pecos River water is extremely saline and the quality of irrigation water during the time when the river is not carrying floodwaters is poor. The use of this water tends to have a very definite dampening effect on crop production because of the accumulation of soluble alkaline and saline salts carried into the fields by the water. The effect of Amistad Dam would be to impound floodwaters and to greatly dilute the poor quality water from the Pecos River, which would result in a very considerable increase in quality in irrigation water for the farmers in the District.

In addition to its distribution of irrigation waters, the District diverts water for electrical power generation purposes. Because of the topographical condition of the land with reference to the river, it was possible for the District to construct its headgates and canal system in such a way that water flows directly by gravity from the channel of the Rio Grande itself into the District's canal system. The fall in the canal is substantially less per mile than that of the river and after leaving the river the main canal skirts the Quemado Valley section of the District and returns in a wide arc to the bank of the river itself. At this point, the water in the canal is high enough above the river to make power generation practical, and the canal system was designed to carry both irrigation water and water for discharge through a powerplant for the generation of power, which power water is discharged into the Rio Grande at the powerplant location.

The District's permit for the diversion of power water provides for a diversion rate of 1,000 second-feet. However, under conditions that have existed for many years, the total flows in the river at the district headgate frequently run below 1,000 feet for weeks and sometimes months at a time. The result of this

is that the power potential of the District is seriously impaired because of lack of water to run through its system for power purposes.

If Amistad Dam is built, it will capture the large flood flows that pass by the District headgates at the present time. The orderly release of the impounded floodwaters from the Amistad Reservoir will stabilize the channel flow so that the District may more fully utilize its power potential.

The District would further benefit in the Amistad Dam by virtue of the fact that the heavy silt load carried by floodwaters that do enter its system would be largely eliminated by the dam. At the present time, the District must constantly remove silt that is deposited in its canal system. This maintenance problem would be largely eliminated as most silt would settle out in the Amistad Reservoir.

3. We respectfully suggest that the following be substituted for section 3 of the act as now written :

"SEC. 3. If a dam is constructed pursuant to an agreement concluded under the authorization granted by section 1 of this Act, its operation for conservation and release of United States waters shall be integrated with other United States water conservation activities on the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman, Texas, in such manner as to provide the maximum feasible amount of water for beneficial use in the United States, with the understandings that (a) releases of United States waters from said dam for domestic, municipal, industrial and irrigation uses in the United States shall be made pursuant to order by the appropriate authority or authorities of the State of Texas, and (b) the State of Texas having stipulated that the amount of water that will be available for use in the United States below Falcon Dam after the proposed dam is placed in operation will be not less than the amount available under existing conditions of river development, it shall be the exclusive responsibility of the appropriate authority or authorities of said State to distribute available United States waters of the Rio Grande in such manner as will comply with said stipulation." We make this suggestion in the belief that the foregoing section 3 would serve the purposes of the bill better than section 3 as now drawn, and would better accomplish what is intended by the present section 3.

CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing, the City of Eagle Pass, Tex., the County of Maverick, Tex., the Maverick County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, and the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Eagle Pass, Tex., respectfully submit that the bill should be reported favorably out of subcommittee to the committee and by the committee to the Congress, and that it should pass.

JEREMIAH INGELS RHODES. Jeremiah Ingels Rhodes, speaking for City of Eagle Pass, Tex., County of Maverick, Tex., Maverick County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, and the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Eagle Pass, Tex.

Mr. SELDON. Thank you very much, Mr. Rhodes, for your fine

statement.

Are there any questions by members of the subcommittee?

Mr. Fascell.

Mr. FASCELL. I see you have offered an amendment to the bill.. Would you tell us simply what that is?

Mr. RHODES. Yes, sir. Our thought is that this does exactly what the other section does, but simply says it in a better way. That is lifted bodily out of the report of Colonel Hewitt. There are two words added to it. We thought the State Department improved on the original bill then we thought we would improve on the State Department bill.

We made no particular point of it, but just simply wanted to point that out to the committee for whatever it was worth. That appears on page 150 of the report.

There are two additional words to be added and I would like to call' those to the attention of the committee.

*

Counting from the lefthand side, the fifth line from the bottom of that small typed paragraph where it starts, "not less than the amount available * * *" we added these two words: “* * not less than the amount available under existing conditions of development We added there the word "river." So that it reads, "not less than the amount available under existing conditions of 'river' development ***99

The way the book would read, we added there "exclusive." "* * * 'exclusive' responsibility of the appropriate authority or authorities of said State ** *99

I believe those are the only changes. If there are other changes, it is a typographical error. I checked that this morning as best I could and I believe it is exact.

I would like to say one other thing, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, and that is this, that I would like to thank each of you all, not only for myself but for all the people in our area for setting this hearing for us and for your very attentive attention to my little presentation here. We all appreciate it. We favor the legislation very much and like to know we have had our chance to be heard. Thank you very much.

Mr. SELDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rhodes.

Before you leave, Mr. Fulton wanted to ask you a question. Although not a member of this subcommittee, Mr. Fulton is a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. FULTON. We in Pennsylvania, of course, are very knowledgeable in and interested in flood control dams. What economic gain would come to your community and what economic benefit would inure to the economy of the United States if this dam was built?

Mr. RHODES. I think the report of Colonel Hewitt there will explain that much better than I could, but I will try.

Primarily speaking for our community first, I think our primary benefit would be the cessation or virtual cessation of losses from flooding. That is actual physical damage caused by floods in this river.

We would also, as a community-the Water District is really-it is just one of our local political organizations but it is a part of the community as much as anything else because it is created only for the purpose-it is not a profit organization; it is a municipal corporation and it is created only for the benefit of the farmers and the people in the community. The Water District will benefit from those points that I brought out a little earlier, the protection from floods fromI think we would benefit also from a more stabilized flow of the river from power angles and also in silting. And, of course, in times of drought in all likelihood we would get a little bit more water when we needed it, although in that particular region of the river we have never been seriously short of water.

Mr. FULTON. It would help basically and this is really a basic need of the community.

Mr. RHODES. I think it would improve our community tremendously and I know over the years it would save considerable amounts of cash money for us.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you. That is all.

Mr. SELDEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Chairman, just one or two questions.

Power development incidental to the project won't disturb you in any way, will it?

Mr. RHODES. Well, only in this way-and now I am speaking just as an ordinary citizen here. It would seem to be to the interests of the U.S. Government to have power developed in this dam purely from an angle of financing. Personally, I have no brief for any character of power.

Mr. FASCELL. Its development will not hurt you; it will assist you. Mr. RHODES. Precisely. We would feel that the power development would certainly help us and I would think personally that power should be sold to whoever will pay the most for it regardless of who it is. That would be my own personal feeling. I make that statement purely as Jerry Rhodes and not as attorney for all these different people.

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you.

Mr. O'HARA. H.R. 8080, I take it, is the authorization for a public work which comes to this committee because it is a public work to be constructed under treaty agreements with another country?

Mr. SELDEN. That is correct. This measure authorizes the conclusion of an agreement for the joint construction by the United. States and Mexico of the Amistad storage dam.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, all of these fine people represent large and varied interests in Texas and, of course, they have our two fine colleagues here as their champions. They have appeared here in large numbers. Has there been any opposition?

Mr. SELDEN. There has been no opposition to date. These hearings are going to continue, however, and I think possibly there will be other viewpoints presented which will not necessarily coincide with the bill as presently written.

I don't think there is any basic opposition to the building of the dam itself.

Am I correct in that, Mr. Fisher?

Mr. FISHER. Yes.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Kilgore?

Mr. KILGORE. That is correct.

Mr. O'HARA. Have we any way of anticipating what this opposition might be so these witnesses, while they are here, can answer that opposition in advance?

Mr. SELDEN. We have a list of witnesses before us who will appear in addition to those who have appeared today. Representatives of several rural electric cooperatives in Texas as well as the general manager of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, who will appear tomorrow. I think perhaps they have objections insofar as the proposed legislation is concerned. They are not opposed to the construction of the dam.

I haven't had the benefit of their testimony, however.
Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SELDEN. Congressman Kilgore, do you have further witnesses? Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Chairman, if I might, there are two Eagle Pass representatives who were not in the room a moment ago but have come back in and I would like to present them to you at this time:

County Judge R. E. Bibb of Maverick County, who is, I will say to the committee, one of the best friends a Member of Congress could

ever want and Mr. Earnest L. Smith, representing the Retail Merchants Association,

Mr. Chairman, I think the committee very wisely set out the order of testimony of public witnesses as coming downstream from the proposed project. When you leave the Eagle Pass area, if you will note on the map, you come on down to the next major populated area, which is that of Laredo. Laredo and Nuevo Laredo across the river from it constitute a major population center along the river and there are many people here from Laredo. They have a spokesman whom I will introduce last.

Among the others from Laredo are Senator Abraham Kazen, Jr. He was my deskmate in law school, my deskmate in the Texas House of Representatives and is my longtime personal friend.

Chester C. Wine from Laredo. With the international aspect of this particular project, he is here in his capacity, as a member of the Texas Industrial Commission, and director and treasurer of the International Good Neighbor Council.

Up here is Mr. Jack Key, who is the executive vice president of the Laredo Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Elmore Borchers, who is the general counsel of the TexasMexican Railway Co.

Mr. Andrew M. Gault, who is the manager of the Laredo Bridge System for the city of Laredo. The International Bridge at Laredo, like the one in Eagle Pass, is publicly owned. In Laredo it is owned by the cities on respective sides of the river.

Their spokesman is Mr. Frank Y. Hill, a longstanding attorney in south Texas and special attorney for the city of Laredo, appearing here for the city of Laredo, for Webb and Zapata County governments, and for the Laredo Chamber of Commerce. Theirs is the next county downstream, Zapata.

Mr. SELDEN. We are delighted to have all the representatives from Laredo, and we will be pleased to hear from Mr. Hill.

Before you begin, Mr. Hill, I will recognize Congressman Fulton of Pennsylvania.

Mr. FULTON. I just wanted to say to the people who are here that your coming here does make a good impression. It shows the interest of the community to see a cross section of the communities come so far and urge the passage of this legislation.

May I say to my good friends, Congressmen Fisher and Kilgore, that I will be for this legislation. We in Pennsylvania always like to see Texas succeed. [Applause.]

At this time I have to go over to Baltimore to speak, to see that Abraham Lincoln is reelected.

STATEMENT OF FRANK Y. HILL, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LAREDO, COUNTY OF WEBB, COUNTY OF ZAPATA, TEX., AND THE LAREDO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, anything I might have to say at the moment might be a kind of anticlimax after the remarks of the Congressman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FASCELL. Do you mean you want to quit while you are ahead? [Laughter.]