Mr. JOHNSON. The compact entered into was between the two States with each one looking after the other?

Mr. McGOWAN. We are downstream.

Mr. JOHNSON. You are downstream users, so naturally the contents of the compact were agreeable to you at the time it was adopted and validated here as far as Congress is concerned?

Mr. McGowAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. And you want to make sure the provisions of that compact are not nullified by this legislation?

Mr. MCGOWAN. Yes. We appreciate whatever flood aim there might be, but when you build a reservoir that can store 10 times the amount they are able to store now, it makes you a little nervous. Since there is nothing in controversy about the seven conditions, we fail to see why they can't be part of the legislation. This is our same position as we took at the Senate hearing, which has been passed without any amendment. But anyway, this is our position, and we just ask that you consider it and that they consider it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Wouldn't you figure that if this dam were to be constructed, it would give better regulation to the contents of the compact, Commissioner?

Mr. McGowan. If it were operated, built and maintained in accordance with the seven conditions, yes; we have no objection. But somehow some of the provisions sometimes get buried in reports and they somehow kind of get out of sight and out of mind and this would just keep any misunderstanding from occurring.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspinall?

Mr. ASPINALL. I have only one question and it has to do with Governor Smith's letter. I can understand the contents of this letter, but I can't understand whether or not the State of New Mexico, as represented by Governor Smith, is satisfied with the language that is presently in the bill.

Mr. MCGOWAN. No, sir. Well, the position of Texas or the intention of the Governor's letter as we understand-of course, we were in consultation with him on it-is we feel that the bill should be amended to provide specifically for those seven conditions.

Mr. ASPINALL. But you don't offer any amendments?

Mr. MCGOWAN. No, sir. Any language that New Mexico would care to put in that would reflect these things, which they have been well aware of for some months, or in agreement of, would be agreeable. You see, it is just a matter of whether they are in the bill or not.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recall Mr. Reynolds. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Reynolds, would you come to the witness stand? Mr. ASPINALL. I wasn't sure from your testimony as to whether or not you favor the inclusion of such language as has been suggested to take care of these points?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, it is my view-and I have discussed this with Mr. Lou McDaniels of the Water Rights Commission of Texas, and as far as I know he shares the view with me that the seven points are taken care of by the language in the bill which requires the Secretary to operate the bill

Mr. ASPINALL. All right, you don't have to go into all of that.
Mr. REYNOLDS. All right, sir.

Mr. ASPINALL. If after studying this over there is a chance of you folks not being together, I would like for each of you to advise this committee before we mark up this bill.

Mr. REYNOLDS. As far as I know, we are in complete agreement with the people in Texas, and the language is satisfactory.

Mr. ASPINALL. You better get together on the language because the gentleman from Texas has suggested that perhaps there is some additional language necessary to be placed in the bill, and I for one would like to know what it is before the bill is reported out.

Mr. MCGOWAN. I would like to ask Mr. Reynolds if any representative from the State of Texas is in favor of the bill as it is without these provisions and under what circumstances he formed that opinion.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I doubt that the gentleman from Texas has the right to ask Mr. Reynolds anything.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is true.

I presume that you people in New Mexico and your counterparts in Texas figure that the compact commission is going to be adhered to and that the project is going to operate under the criteria of the compact?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is right. And the bill specifically so provided that it will be operated in complete accord with the Pecos River compact.

Mr. MCGOWAN. Might I add one other thing? There is considerable disagreement insofar as certain terms and interpretations of the Pecos River compact, and that is one of the main reasons we want this language in the bill because I understand New Mexico's position, it is that they agree with the conditions, and so I see no reason why it shouldn't be included in the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON. If I might say, the terms of the compact, as ratified by the Congress, would have to be changed by the States and brought back. That is not a part of this legislation.

Mr. McGowan. I understand, but the operation of the

Mr. JOHNSON. It spells out it should operate under the terms of the compact.

Mr. MCFARLAND. I wonder if it might be agreeable to both parties if in our report where we refer to the fact that this project will operate under the provisions of the compact, that we spell out in the report the specific operating criteria. Would that be agreeable to you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think that would be very useful. It is sort of the thing that we contemplated would happen; that these seven conditions would be clearly reflected in the record and perhaps in the committee report.

Mr. McGowan. Well, that would certainly be better than the way it is now. But we would prefer it to be a part of the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON. In the bill it does refer to it, and it mandates the operation to comply with the interstate compact commission on the Pecos River. We fully realize in the carrying out of the conditions of the compact, sometimes there is a little disagreement, but I think as far as we could go on this, we could put it in the record. The record is the legislative history too. But to put all of that language in the bill, why it is in your compact.

Mr. MCGOWAN. Well, sir, it is not in the compact in the way it is in these seven conditions, and we were thinking it would eliminate a lot of chances for difficulties in the future, which I am sure the Federal interest would much prefer, and both States would prefer. So while we are in agreement, concerning the matters at hand, if it could be made part of the bill, it would be much better.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is pretty hard without New Mexico's concurrence, to try to write in a further provision of the compact into this specific legislation.

Mr. MCGOWAN. I understand that, but we are somewhat confused about the reluctance to do this.

Mr. JOHNSON. Anything further from the staff?

Mr. MCFARLAND. What I had in mind is language in the report which would refer to the operation of the project in accordance with the compact, and it would go on to say the committee understands that this includes the operation of the project under these criteria, and then we would spell them out.

Mr. MCGOWAN. These seven conditions?

Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you for coming here. It is good to have Mr. Reynolds on the standby in these matters of controversy. I am glad to see you are both in agreement that this would be written this way into the report.

Mr. McGOWAN. Am I right to understand my statement and the letter of the Governor is part of the record of this committee? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Our next witness is Mr. A. W. Langennegger, a private citizen.

STATEMENT OF A. W. LANGENNEGGER, A PRIVATE CITIZEN

Mr. LANGENNEGGER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record I am A. W. Langennegger. I am a farmer and a resident of Hagerman, N. Mex.

Mr. JOHNSON. The chairman says he is short on time, and I wonder if you would summarize your statement. Your statement will appear in the record in full.

Mr. LANGENNEGGER. I would be most happy to. I would like to talk about a few points of interest, if I may. I am here representing a group of water users, who divert their water directly from the Pecos River. They are an unincorporated group of about 24 farmers who irrigate about 3,900 acres. Except for one operation, the acreage is less than 150 acres.

We all have valid water rights, and some of our rights are superior in time to those of the Carlsbad rights, and the remainder of our rights are subsequent in time to those rights.

We are in between reclamation projects, dams, controlled or operated by the Carlsbad irrigation district for the Secretary of the Interior.

Now, the reason we are here today is that we have been running short of water during the irrigation season, and we feel that it is possible that the construction and operation of the Brantley project may worsen our position.

This would depend upon how the Government operates the project in conjunction with its storage reservoirs upstream from our pumps. There are two reasons for our water shortage. One reason is that the drilling of water wells in the Roswell Artesian Water Basin. Another reason was the construction of the Alamogordo Dam and Reservoir on the Pecos River about 160 miles upstream from our pumpers.

This dam was built in 1937 for the benefit of the Carlsbad project and intercepts all of the river flow. No water is allowed to pass through except that required by the Fort Sumner irrigation district, which lies immediately below the reservoir. If it were not for the Alamogordo Dam, a portion of the river flow at Alamogordo would reach our pumpers.

The Government has dried up the bed of the river to the detriment of the downstream users. This arises from the fact that a dry riverbed soaks up the occasional inflows from tributary streams which lie below Alamogordo. In other words, we get a diminished benefit from tributaries inflows because the dry river soaks up the water before it gets to us.

Because of this, except when the Government releases water from the reservoir for the benefit of its Carlsbad project, we have been forced to rely upon those releases for our survival, and we are fearful that with constuction of additional storage that it would be possible that the operation of the dams would be operated to our detriment.

Now, we have been, of course, in close contact with both State engineers and the Carlsbad irrigation district and various other organizations, and as you know, Mr. Chairman, we have proposed an amendment at the field hearings in Carlsbad.

There was objection by the State engineer and the Carlsbad irrigation district to the wording of our amendment, but in a real effort to cooperation-and I want to make it clear that we are not opposing the bill-we are for the construction of the dam if we think we can receive reasonable assurances that our rights would not be infringed upon, and we have gone a long way to attempt to cooperate and we did agree to Mr. Reynolds' version of an amendment.

I have copies here if you want them for the record, and when he read the record, it is identical to the copies we have.

Mr. JOHNSON. They will be made a part of the record at this point. (The proposed amendment to H.R. 5042 follows :)

PROPOSED ADDITION TO H.R. 5042

Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior shall operate the existing Alamogordo Dam and Reservoir unit, and provided further, that the Secretary of the Interior shall familiarize himself with the water rights of appropriators of water from the Pecos River and shall promulgate criteria for the operation of the Brantley project and other irrigation storage projects on the Pecos River in the State of New Mexico that will preclude any detrimental effect on water rights in the Pecos River so that appropriators of water will not be adversely and unreasonably affected by such operations.

Mr. LANGENNEGGER. Senator Anderson made a statement that he felt that we should have operative criteria, and we endorsed that statement. We endorsed State Engineer Reynolds' wording that is being presented. We would hope that that bill could be approved with the amendment, and that we could get on with the construction, with the authorization, and with the funding and construction of this project because it is very badly needed.

Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to say, except I would like to read the last paragraph. It is rather short.

Our position is supported by the city of Roswell, the towns of Dexter, Hagerman, and Lake Arthur, and the Board of County Commissioners of Chaves County, the Roswell Chamber of Development and Commerce, and the Board of Directors of the Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District containing approximately 126,000 irrigated acres. Let me make clear that neither the Pecos River Pumpers Association nor these political bodies oppose the Brantley project. However, we deem it imperative that the Secretary of the Interior promulgate proper operating criteria. He has not done this to date with respect to existing storage projects, and we do not expect him to act in this respect unless Congress directs him to do so. If you will do this then we have confidence that the Government through the Secretary of the Interior will make an honest effort to operate its facilities on the Pecos River to do the least possible injury or detriment to any

user.

In behalf of the Pecos River Pumpers Association, I appreciate the opportunity to make this statement.

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank you for giving us the benefit of your

statement.

As you have summarized it, you have brought it back in a very clear way. You appeared before us in Carlsbad, and as I understand, your water rights are due to the Carlsbad irrigation district.

Mr. LANGENNEGGER. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. I can see where the releases from Alamogordo why, if they were dried up further, they would jeopardize you a little bit further because there wouldn't be the water that is coming down now when they are releasing water down to the irrigation district below the Alamogordo Dam.

Mr. LANGENNEGGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, if I understood Mr. Reynolds to say when he was here in his statement, all water rights, as far as New Mexico is concerned, were protected in the legislation. Now, did that include the water rights that these people had at the present time, Mr. Reynolds?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; Mr. Chairman. They are all of the rights. All of the rights of the Pecos have been adjudicated and protected by the Federal district court and are protected by that definition of rights. Mr. JOHNSON. Now, possibly you don't thoroughly agree with that? Mr. LANGENNEGGER. I don't disagree. I am just fearful. We would like to have emphasis and further assurance so that there will be no misunderstanding and Mr. Reynolds has assured the Pecos River Pumpers that in his opinion, this is certainly a reasonable request. He did say that he did not think it was absolutely necessary to be further emphasized, but in our opinion it would emphasize our problem and call it to the attention of the Secretary. We would be in a better position then to talk about it in the event that anything ever came up. Mr. JOHNSON. Does the gentleman from Colorado have any questions?

Mr. ASPINALL. No questions.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for your statement, as well as the one that was given to the committee in Carlsbad.