Mr. LUJAN. As to some of the solutions to this problem, you talk about possibly forming a water company to drill wells and that it could be used, and the necessity for a water company is because there may not be water under a particular farm. Have you pursued that pretty well and is that an acceptable solution or part of a solution to the problem? Mr. LANGENEGGER. Mr. Chairman, may I sort of narrate a little background on this?

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly.

Mr. LANGENEGGER. Gentlemen, this forming of a water company has not been pursued for very long. Of course, the development of supplemental water has been pursued for a number of years, and it took several years to get a test case through the Supreme Court because the Carlsbad Irrigation District protested all of our efforts to do this. We finally were successful and received a favorable decision in the Supreme Court that we could do this on an individual basis.

As we worked on our problems and as we met with the State Engineer and made a trip to Amarillo and visited with Mr. Hill of the Bureau of Reclamation and Mr. Reynolds of the State Engineer's Office and suggested the possibility that the Interstate Stream Commission might be able to assist us if we wanted to form a water association in developing plans and in financing the construction of the distribution system and the drilling of the wells. We are working on this. Now, it developed further, when we talked to Mr. Hill, that there was a part of the reclamation law that allowed the Bureau of Reclamation to loan funds if we met the requirements; so, we are attempting to look into this, too. We have tried to leave no stone unturned. We have talked to the State Engineer; we have talked to the Carlsbad Irrigation District; we have talked to the Bureau of Reclamation; we have talked to the Pecos Valley and Artesia Conservation District, and we are trying to do everything we possibly can to solve our problems and to operate in cooperation with everyone to the fullest extent of our ability, and we would like to see this bill authorized. We are just afraid, though--we have reservations is the only thing.

Mr. JOHNSON. Would you yield at this point, Mr. Lujan?

Mr. LUJAN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. In your discussions with Mr. Hill, were you pursuing a project here under Public Law 984?

Mr. HILL. That is the one.

Mr. LANGENEGGER. I do not know. He gave us a brochure, but I do not recall the number of it.

Mr. LUJAN. Let me pursue this matter of the amendment a little further.

Is there someone with you that could explain to us the difference between the Senate amendment and the proposed amendment that you have handed us this morning, and why one would be more acceptable than the other?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. Well, of course, I will attempt to.

Well, my thought was-and then I will ask our attorney, Mr. Eaton, but it just seemed like the amendment that we proposed-which, by the way, would affect all the water users on the river.

For example, if Los Esteros is constructed, you have 1,500-acre contractors, some below there and above for the summer, and they are going to be in the very same position we are presently in with the dam

constructed above them, and-well, we felt this would be a directive the Secretary from the Congress to promulgate proper operatin criteria. Other than that, it has been a suggestion, and he could, if 1 decided to, and he did have to if he did not want to.

Mr. LUJAN. You feel, then, that the Senate amendment is simply suggestion and the proposed amendment is a directive?

Mr. LANGEN EGGER. That was my interpretation.

Let me ask our attorney, because I am a farmer, and he is the lawyer. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Eaton, would you identify yourself?

Mr. EATON. I am Paul Eaton from Roswell, Mr. Chairman, with th law firm of Hinkle, Bondurant, Cox and Eaton. Our firm represent the Pumpers Association.

It is my understanding that the amendment to the Senate bill was simply a little tack-on phrase which, in effect, said: "provided the Secretary of the Interior shall operate Alamogordo Dam and Res ervoir," period. And that is all.

This proposed amendment, of course, is a specific direction for the promulgation of operating criteria to cover the entire river, or at least all of the Government's projects on the river so that the Government will not operate them to the detriment of the users on the river.

Mr. LUJAN. So that you are looking toward getting both wording in there, leave the Senate one in and add this proposed one?

Mr. EATON. Yes, sir, and as Mr. Langenegger stated, although we are the moving party here, there are other river users who, in effect, would be in the same position as the pumpers are in and who should receive the same protective benefits.

Mr. LUJAN. Have you had any discussions with the Carlsbad Irrigation District as to the wording of the Senate amendment, whether they felt it was all right or not?

Mr. EATON. We heard, after the Senate Committee hearings, that the Carlsbad Irrigation District has opposed the Senate amendment and that Mr. Runnells, I believe, contacted Senator Anderson and mentioned the proposed amendment, and that it would be satisfactory, and then I subsequently wrote Senator Anderson, I think. after the Senate passed the bill and told him that he had no objection to the amendment, that I did not think in practice it really changed the picture at all, because I had since discovered that the Bureau of Reclamation was in fact, operating Alamogordo.

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, might I ask the previous witness and probably Mr. Brantley if the Senate wording was all right with the Carlsbad Irrigation District?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. Brantley is right here.

Could you answer that question, Mr. Brantley?

Mr. BRANTLEY. The Senate wording as we understood it-I have not read the amendment, but in the letter to Mr. Runnels the Irrigation Board approved that amendment.

Mr. LUJAN. Let me go on then to the proposed amendment since there seems to be an agreement that the Senate amendment is fine.

Have you discussed with the Carlsbad Irrigation District this amendment we have before us?

Mr. EATON. No, sir.

Mr. LUJAN. You have not?

Mr. EATON. Because we just developed the language within the last 2 days. I did talk to Mr. Reynolds over the telephone yesterday morning-yesterday morning?-and I suggested to him what we were thinking about without reading to him any specific language or this exact language that we have submitted to this committee.

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get at whether there is an agreement on the wording that would seem to solve the problem if everyone was agreeable to it.

I realize that it is brand new and has just been brought up and that it would be difficult for Mr. Brantley to express the Carlsbad Irrigation District's position on it. Certainly we would not want to take that from him and he certainly would not want to take upon himself nor, I suppose, would Mr. Reynolds want to just make an offhand comment on it.

But could I possibly ask that we get an indication from the State Engineer's Office and the Carlsbad Irrigation District, to see if they would be in agreement?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, of this particular field hearing today we are glad to receive the suggested amendment. To me, it does not seem unrealistic, but this is only the field hearing.

You are bringing this to us for the first time.

Naturally, those representing the State of New Mexico and the Irrigation District as well as the Bureau of Reclamation people have found out about this just today.

This is only the field hearing, and we have a very detailed hearing to take place in Washington before the full subcommittee, and then we have the full Committee.

So, I do think prior to markup, we should have it more or less understood and have an understanding with all of the people affected as to the wording of this amendment. If they then can reach an agreement, why, we can easily hammer out an amendment. Our legal counsel on the Committee and our consultant Mr. Casey could work out an amendment similar to what you have here which would really make it a mandate upon the Secretary to assure fair treatment.

I do not think that that is unrealistic at all. We have this in pretty nearly every project we have. I know we went through a squabble on the uses above Sacramento in the big Central Valley Project. It took us about 10 years, or so, to work out all of the agreement; but, eventually, worked them out with the users above the Delta, and they seem to be happy with it now.

And I will say that your State Engineer who was here today and Mr. Brantley who was here today and others who may be in the room who are users on the river at the present time should all get together and see if you can get a consensus. Then our counsel and the legal counsel will take all of that into consideration after the hearings before the Subcommittee and, in the markup of the bill, we can draft the necessary language to do a fair job.

I am almost certain that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Secretary of the Interior would want to protect the users on the river. With today's water resources development, we do not try to get into a hassle with a full-fledged court suit if we can stay away from it.

I think proper language in the bill and proper language in the report and in the legislative history on the floor can be worked out to the satisfaction of most people. A lot of people did not have too mu

faith in legislative history, but in our great fight between CaliforniaArizona, we found out what legislative history meant, as we lost our case in California. It took about 25 years to get around to reaching an agreement on the Colorado, but I hope it is not that long here.

The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Runnels.

Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would, at this time, feel safe in speaking for Congressman Lujan and myself. We both stand ready to work and negotiate with all interested groups on this amendment, so we can present it to the full Committee.

We will also be happy to work on a program with Mr. Hill on supplemental water in any way we can so that we can get the problem ironed out and get it in a suitable form as suggested by the Chairman.

We both stand ready at all times to work with all groups.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you gentlemen for your appearance here and your excellent statement presented here and your responses to the questions.

I know that the matter of water is very dear to your people because it is the lifeblood of your community and your existence. When the Government comes in to participate in the development to enhance the water resources of an area, certainly, it should consider those who are there and have established rights.

I am pleased that you could come.

Thank you.

Mr. LANGENEGGER. Thank you very much, and we will bring all of these statements.

Mr. JOHNSON. Fine. The statements that you will leave with us will appear in the record right after your statement. (The documents referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF CITY OF ROSWELL, SUBMITTED BY HON. WILLIAM F. BRAINERD, MAYOR

The City of Roswell, New Mexico has a direct interest in the welfare of not only its inhabitants, but also the inhabitants of the Pecos Valley who contribute to the well-being of Roswell and other nearby communities. The City has an interest in the welfare of those men and their families in Chaves County who farm their lands with waters from the Pecos River. Those people have indicated to us their concern that the proposed Brantley Dam may be operated in conjunction with Alamogordo Reservoir in such manner as to affect adversely the availability of water to their farms.

We do not oppose Brantley Dam as a flood control project for the protection of our neighboring City of Carslad. We do, however, share the concern of our Pecos River pumpers. If the construction of Brantley Dam be approved, we ask only that it be approved upon the condition that safeguards for the protection of our pumpers be required of the Carlsbad Irrigation District and the Bureau of Reclamation. We feel confident that the good sense and fair play of Congress will provide these safeguards.

To whom it may concern:

TOWN OF DEXTER.
DEXTER, N. MEX.

The City Council of Dexter, New Mexico, in the interest of preserving and maintaining the general economy of this community, must protest the proposed Brantley Dam at Carlslad, New Mexico, due to it's negative effect on the water quality of Pecos River water pumpers.

It is our considered opinion that the proposed dam would render many acres of quality land useless due to deterioration of water quality. We understand that

there will be no scheduled water releases during the regular irrigation season, hence only high salt content water will be available. If this be true, the loss of families currently deriving their livelihood from these farms will be a severe blow to our economy.

We, the Trustees and Mayor of the Town of Dexter, do reaffirm the above statement.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 11th day of April, 1972.

My commission expires 2–7–76.

DE SOTO F. POWERS,

Mayor.

CLYDE L. NORTHCUTT,
Notary Public.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD GEORGE, MAYOR, TOWN OF HAGERMAN AND FOR THE

TOWN COUNCIL

We have studied the problems of the Pecos River Pumpers and agree with them that a solution must be found. If a compromise is not reached with the Carlsbad Board and the State Engineer in regard to Brantley Dam being built and to turnouts from Alamagordo Dam and the proposed Los Esteros Dam, the Pumpers will be in a very bad situation.

If these people have no water in the irrigation season it just means; no waterno crops-no money. This would have far reaching consequences for a large area. (Signed) LEONARD GEORGE, Mayor, Town of Hagerman. APRIL 11, 1972.

GENTLEMEN: As the Mayor of Hagerman I do hereby reaffirm the above statement for my part and for the town council.

LEONARD GEORGE, Mayor.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11 day of April 1972.

DITTA MAE MCCULLOUGH,
Notary Public.

My commission expires September 9, 1972.

LAKE ARTHUR, N. MEX.,
December 15, 1971.

Hon. HAROLD RUNNELS,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: In the event Brantley dam is built, we feel that it is imperative for the water from Almagordo dam be released at least five times through the growing farm season.

This is essential in order that the farmers along the Pecos river can maintain their livelihood. This also affects the economy of the Town of Lake Arthur. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Yours truly,

LAKE ARTHUR, BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

J. K. FUNK, Mayor,

WANDA WHATLEY,

ELMER ALLEN,

ALBERT ARAUP,

CLIFFORD GREY NELSON.