Because of essentially a dry river except when the Government releases water from Alamogordo Reservoir for the benefit of its Carlsbad project, we pumpers have been forced to rely upon those releases for our survival. We are fearful that the construction of Brantley, which will enable the Government to store 19 percent more irrigation water than it can presently store at McMillan Reservoir, will afford it the opportunity to control upstream storage so that it will be able to change the timing of releases or their amount to our detriment. As a consequence, we are here today to ask Congress, if it sees fit to authorize the construction of Brantley Dam, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate criteria for the operation of the Brantley project and upstream irrigation storage projects so that the users of the waters of the Pecos River will not be adversely or unreasonably affected by such operation. Since the Government effectively controls several hundred miles of the Pecos River through a series of dams and reservoirs, we feel that the promulgation of operating criteria as we have outlined is an absolute necessity on a river such as the Pecos River.

Senator Clinton P. Anderson, who with Senator Montoya introduced S. 50. a bill similar to the present House resolution, stated to the Water and Power Resources Subcommittee of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee as follows:

I have some uneasy feelings about reports of a disagreement between the Pecos River Pumpers Association-whose members are users of water above McMillan Reservoir and the members of the Carlsbad Irrigation District. I understand that the pumpers irrigate about 3.900 acres with Pecos River water. They are fearful that construction of Brantley Dam will result in the establishment of operating criteria for release of water from the Alamogordo Reservoir which would dry up the pumpers' water supply during the season when it is most needed. most needed.

Even though we may get the project authorized, it is doubtful that it could be funded until proper operating criteria is developed, which would protect the rights of all concerned. I certainly urge that the Bureau of Reclamation, the New Mexico State Engineer's Office, officials of the Carlsbad Irrigation District, and the Pumpers Association, begin working in this direction. I sincerely hope that the record developed during the hearing will be helpful in this regard and will enable us to complete action on this bill as soon as possible.

We endorse Senator Anderson's statement. We agree to the necessity for the establishment of operating criteria. We will gladly work with others in suggesting proposed criteria. Nevertheless, it is the Government through the Secretary of the Interior which has the responsibility for the operation of these dams and storage projects. For this reason, we respect fully urge this committee to propose an amendment to House Resolution 5042 which will specifically direct the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate proper operating criteria for the reasonable protection of all Pecos River users who will be affected by the operation of Brantley as it is operated in conjunction with upstream storage projects.

Our position is supported by the city of Roswell, the towns of Dexter, Hagerman, and Lake Arthur, the Board of County Commissioners of Chaves County, the Roswell Chamber of Development and Commerce, and the Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District containing approximately 126,000 irrigated acres.

Parenthetically, let me say that I have statements from all of these organizations. I believe they were presented to the Senate committee,

but we do have them here again, and if you want more statements we certainly want to have them available.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think they should be made a part of this record, too, and if you will submit them we will have them appear in the record after your statement.

Mr. LANGENEGGER. We will be most happy to do so.

Let me make clear that neither the Pecos River Pumpers Association nor these political bodies oppose the Brantley Project.

Let me digress there. These various organizations that I have just named agree with the statement that I am going to make.

We deem it imperative that the Secretary of the Interior promulgate operating criteria. He has not done this to date, and we do not expect him to act in this respect unless Congress directs him to promulgate operating criteria. If you will do this, then we have the 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.

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I want to say that I am very glad to have this statement as detailed as it is, pointing out the problem of the Pecos River pumpers who have been operating ranches along the river and pumping from the river for their water requirements.

The only thing I could think of that would be more expensive than another trip to Washington would be another good lawsuit. Water law is quite complicated, and suits can be very expensive. I know, because we have much of that in California where water is short. We always have a number of lawsuits and actions taken by people.

But I think you have pointed up the real problem very clearly here in your statement. I might say that possibly the reason there have not been any operating criteria developed is that the Secretary of the Interior has not been too enthusiastic about this project. At the present time, he is, in his report, asking for more time and deferred action for further feasibility study.

Now the Congress is moving just a little ahead of the Secretary's wishes. The Senate has passed the bill with the amendment to which you refer here, but the House will move slower, I am sure. Just in the ordinary routine of our handling things in the House, we move much slower than the Senate of the United States. We may catch up with the Secretary's thinking and try and convince him that he should try and give us a little more in the way of detailed information as to operating criteria during our hearings in Washington.

As far as your local Representatives are concerned, I believe both Mr. Runnels and Mr. Lujan have pretty well agreed to the Senate. amendment being placed in the House bill. That should eliminate some of the opposition.

Now, you want further operating criteria to be spelled out to give you added protection.

Now, looking at the map, I gather that your main pumping points are between Alamogordo and Brantley. You take water out below Alamogordo at the present time?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is the water of better quality at that particular point than it is down here in a reservoir such as McMillan at the present time?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. Mr. Chairman, the base flow of the Pecos River which, of course, is really the discharge from the Roswell-Artesia Basin is a very poor quality at the present time. It is much worse than in its virgin state, because there is so much less water. Of course, when we have a release from the Alamogordo Reservoir, the quality is a great deal better.

Mr. JOHNSON. When your quality is poor, it takes more water, I presume. In order to irrigate your crops do you have to use more water in the process to make sure that the amount of water is proper for your crops at that lower quality?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. This is certainly right. I can see that you understand irrigation waters. We, of course, must leach the salts from our soils, and the saltier the water the less efficient your use of that water is. So, we must use more.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, now, you state that you irrigate approximately 39,000 acres?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. Thirty-nine hundred, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Or 3,900, rather.

You do not anticipate any more lands coming in under irrigation from the river?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. Absolutely, none.

Mr. JOHNSON. Your water rights are limited to those 3,900 acres? Mr. LANGENEGGER. It is a fully appropriated river.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan.

Mr. LUJAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Langenegger, is this proposed amendment in the same wording as the addition to the Senate bill?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. No, sir, not identically.

Mr. LUJAN. Does it differ substantially?

Well, let me ask this first: With this amendment to H.R. 5042, you would then support the legislation?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LUJAN. Is that correct?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LUJAN. Would you support it with the wording of the Senate bill amendment that was added to the Senate bill?

Mr. LANGENEGGER. Well, I cannot answer that without a meeting of our people. They were fearful that this was merely suggestive and not directive, and we would like direction.

Mr. LUJAN. I see your attorney is shaking his head; so, I would imagine then that it is not quite as acceptable as this.

Mr. LANGENEGGER. That is right.

(Copy of the proposed amendment follows:)

PROPOSED ADDITION TO H.R. 5042

Section The Secretary of the Interior shall familiarize himself with the uses 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 so that appropriators of water from the Pecos River will not be adversely or unreasonably affected by such operations.

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 to the Secretary from the Congress to promulgate proper operating criteria. Other than that, it has been a suggestion, and he could, if h decided to, and he did have to if he did not want to.

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

Mr. LANGENEGGER. 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 the law firm of Hinkle, Bondurant, Cox and Eaton. Our firm represents 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 Reservoir," 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 pieture 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?