with respect to unsafe Federal structures and pending reevaluation under the Water Resources Council's proposed "Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed principles and standards published in the Federal Register make it clear that it is not intended that projects for which feasibility reports are complete, or even nearly complete, should be reevaluated. I make specific reference to paragraph 1.E. appearing at page 24150, volume 36, No. 245, of the December 21, 1971, publication of the Federal Register.

Mr. Chairman, it would seem to be imprudent, particularly where unsafe structures and hazard to life and property are involved, to spend additional years reevaluating feasibility reports and reconsidering Federal policy with respect to unsafe Federal structures.

At the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission hearing on the Brantley project in Carlsbad, N. Mex., on October 13, 1969, the Pecos River Pumpers Association advised that the association is unalterably opposed to the construction of Brantley Dam unless its members receive concrete assurance that their rights can and will be protected. This issue is treated in detail in my written statement. I submit that the concern of the association is not well founded. The rights of the Pecos River Pumpers and the Carlsbad irrigation district are adjudicated and fully protected by a Federal court decree and by existing law. The construction and operation of the Brantley project downstream from the Pumpers' points of diversion in the manner proposed in the Bureau of Reclamation report could not deprive them of water they are entitled to under their rights. The protection of life and property in and near the city of Carlsbad from floods and from the hazards of the failure of the existing dams is so urgently needed that the opposition of the Pecos River Pumpers should not be allowed to delay the authorization of the Brantley project.

S. 50 as introduced was identical to H.R. 5042. In an effort to allay the concern of the Pecos River Pumpers, the bill was amended to require the Secretary of the Interior to continue to operate the existing Alamogordo Reservoir. While the amendment apparently did not achieve that objective, legislation in the form passed by the Senate would be satisfactory to the State and to the Carlsbad irrigation district.

At the April 15 field hearing in Carlsbad, the Pecos River Pumpers Association proposed a further amendment to the bill. By a letter dated April 17 to Mr. Paul Eaton, counsel for the Pumpers Association, I proposed some minor, but I believe significant, modification of the amendment proposed by the association. By letter dated April 24, Mr. Jay Forbes, counsel for the Carlsbad irrigation district, advised that the language I proposed is acceptable to the Carlsbad irrigation district. Since that I have made a further suggestion as to amendments in a proposal made by the Pumpers Association, they have agreed to the language that I have suggested. The district has not yet had the oportunity to fully consider my proposal. But inasmuch as the new language is acceptable to the Pumpers Association and to me, I would like to read that language into the record with the hope that the district may yet be able to agree to that language or to sug

gest some modification acceptable to the association and to myself as State engineer.

The amendment would add at the end of section 1 as passed by the Senate, the following language:

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.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge this distinguished committee's early and favorable action on legislation to authorize the Brantley project and I express appreciation on behalf of the State of New Mexico for this opportunity to present the views of the State on the project.

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank you, Mr. Reynolds, for your statement. While it is brief, your other statement is much more lengthy and was placed in the record when we held the field hearings. But I do think in your statement here you point up the possibilities of flood damage and you also point up the dates as to when the Bureau of Reclamation presented their feasibility report to the Assistant Secretary's office and it was approved on July 2, 1969, I understand. Mr. REYNOLDS. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. In the meantime, they are consulting other agencies as to an overall policy. But also you point up in your statement, and it makes it very clear to us, that there has been examples covering this matter as far as the new spillway that was put in and the Alamogordo Dam that was put in there in 1937.

Now, I fully agree with you here if we have unsafe dams, on a river that has the currency power that the Pecos River has, with the nature of your storms down there and the further hazard of the sedimentation filling these dams, as far as capacity is concerned it even makes it

worse.

Now, I think that beyond a question of doubt, it should be a Federal responsibility. I think it should be nonreimbursable, personally. Do you agree?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I agree, sir. I certainly do.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now in connection with the amendment you just read, your proposed amendment, is that agreeable to the Pumpers?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. But as far as the district, the district is still considering the matter?

Mr. REYNOLDS. They have only had a brief time to consider it. I am hopeful that they will be able to agree to it or accept some modification acceptable to the Pumpers and to myself, or rather, to the State of New Mexico.

Mr. JOHNSON. Does the gentleman from Colorado have anything? Mr. ASPINALL. I am pleased to welcome you before the committee. I have only one question as far as your statement is concerned, and that is the concluding paragraph where you urge this committee to take favorable action. I believe that with your experience, you under

stand how difficult it is for us to give favorable action at this present time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I do understand the problem, Mr. Chairman, but again, I do urge that you consider the feasibility report that has been made a part of the record. And if it is at all possible, I urge you to find a way to authorize this project because it is badly needed. There is a real threat to life and property involved.

Mr. ASPINALL. I understand all of that, but what do you think are chances if the feasibility report is hanging up in the air at this time? It hasn't officially been given to this committee as such. What chances do we have of getting the project through the House of Representatives? You have been with us for a long time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I know the problems, but I cannot give up.

Mr. ASPINALL. I don't blame you for not giving up, but I want to be realistic.

I have a letter under the date of May 10, 1972, signed by Preston Smith, Governor of Texas, in which he sets forth seven requirements. Have you seen a copy of that letter?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ASPINALL. And what is your position on those seven requirements?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the letter to be made a part of the record at this time.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is there objection?

(No response.)

Mr. JOHNSON. Hearing none, so ordered.

(The letter of Preston Smith dated May 10, 1972, in full follows:)

GOVERNOR OF TEXAS,

May 10, 1972.

Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, U.S. Representative, State of Colorado, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ASPINALL: I appreciate the opportunity to comment for the State of Texas on the Brantley Dam and Reservoir Project, Pecos River, New Mexico, inasmuch as a large portion of the Pecos River Basin and water use is downstream from the proposed project, and most of this area is in Texas. The Texas Water Rights Commission and the Pecos River Compact Commissioner for Texas inform me, and I concur in their findings, that the State of Texas will not oppose the construction and operation of the project, provided that the following seven (7) conditions are contained in the authorizing document or made a part of the authorizing legislation:

1. The Brantley Dam and Reservoir will be operated solely by the United States Bureau of Reclamation in compliance with the terms and spirit of the Pecos River Compact, New Mexico and Texas, 1949;

2. Not more than 40,000 acre-feet of water, in excess of 2,000 acre-feet of combined inactive and dead storage, will be impounded in Brantley Reservoir for water-supply purposes at any time, and all inflows will be passed when the water-supply storage level is reached, except waters which are declared "unappropriated flood waters";

3. No "unappropriated flood waters" will be stored in the sediment reserve or other storage space until such waters have been determined by the Pecos River Commission;

4. The State of New Mexico and its Carlsbad Irrigation District will maintain the Avalon Reservoir spillway and downstream channel conditions of the Pecos River so that flood waters temporarily stored in Brantley Reservoir may be continuously evacuated at maximum channel capacity in accordance with flood protection rules consistent with downstream tributary inflows until Brantley Reservoir is evacuated to 40,000 acre-feet of conservation storage;

5. The McMillan Dam will be operated to insure that no more than 4,500 acre-feet of water will be impounded as seasonal storage, October through January, for the benefit of propagation of water fowl and that during the period February through September, the outlet gates will be maintained fully open to assure complete evacuation of all storage, drainage of McMillan Delta, and passage of all inflows;

6. New Mexico and Texas agree to cooperate diligently to the end that the water salvage work that can be done in the McMillan Delta under the authorization of P.L. 88-594 is completed concurrent with the completion of the Brantley Dam and Reservoir; and,

7. The State of New Mexico gives its assurances that all groundwaters withdrawn from bank, shallow or deep storage by pumping or otherwise, which diminish the flow of the Pecos River, shall be accounted as a part of the New Mexico apportionment in accordance with the Pecos River Compact.

I feel that the preceding conditions are the minimum requirements in protecting the intent and purpose of the Pecos River Compact as ratified in 1949 and this concurrence in the Brantley Dam and Reservoir Project is given in a spirit of good will and comity between the States of New Mexico and Texas. Sincerely,

PRESTON SMITH,
Governor of Texas.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I may have been premature in my answer when I said yes. I saw a letter addressed to Senator Jackson. Mr. ASPINALL. No; this is a letter addressed to me. I don't know whether it is the same thing or not.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I have not seen the letter to you. I am advised it is the same as the letter to Senator Jackson, but I cannot be sure of that, of course.

Mr. ASPINALL. Well, look at it. Look at the letter and see if you are advised of its contents.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir; it does appear to be the same seven points. Those points are discussed in some detail in my lengthily written statement, and it is my view of the matter that all of those points are resolved as between the two States, and that each of the seven conditions set out in Governor Smith's letter is provided for in the Pecos River compact, the Bureau of Reclamation's project report, or the terms of the proposed legislation and therefore that no amendments to the bill are required to implement these conditions, and the State of New Mexico is most grateful for Governor Smith's position in this matter.

Mr. ASPINALL. And we shall listen to their representatives when they come before the committee. Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Does the gentleman from California have any questions?

Mr. HOSMER. I appreciate your testimony. I was unable to attend the field visit. I have no questions, however. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

Our next witness will be Mr. Draper Brantley, president, Carlsbad irrigation district.

We are very glad to have you here. I want to thank you for your appearance before the committee in Carlsbad and also your conducted tour throughout the flood plain. It has been very helpful to us. You were a very fine host down there for the evening we spent on the banks of the Pecos River.

STATMENT OF DRAPER BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT,

CARLSBAD IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Mr. BRANTLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Draper Brantley. I am president of the Carlsbad irrigation district, a Bureau of Reclamation project. I previously have testified before your counterpart in the Senate on S. 50 and at the field hearing held by this committee in Carlsbad, N. Mex., in April of this year.

The Carlsbad irrigation district approves and endorses the Brantley project now under your consideration.

The irrigation district's board and members continue to make every effort for passage of this legislation, as we know the need of flood protection for our city and its people.

The plan arrived at by the Bureau of Reclamation provides for utilizing the available water supply through multipurpose development to maximize the resulting benefits. As mentioned, the flood control is paramount, but also to be benefited will be fish and wildlife, recreation, and irrigation.

Our area needs Brantley Dam and the Carlsbad irrigation district hopes for favorable action on H.R. 5042. Thank you for this opportunity to present our views.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you for your very brief but comprehensive statement stating your support. There is only one thing that developed there in Carlsbad that Mr. Reynolds spoke about.

He spoke about some proposed language for amendment of H.R. 5042 which would be acceptable to the Pumpers association and your own irrigation system.

Now I don't know whether you are in a position to give us your sentiments as far as your consideration about this or if it is still pending within your irrigation board of directors. Possibly your legal counsel is working it over at the present time.

Mr. BRANTLEY. As you remember at this hearing, the Pecos River Pumpers presented a proposed amendment to the legislation, and the irrigation district and the State engineer immediately took these under advisement and the State engineer submitted to us a slight change in wording to this proposed legislation.

Our irrigation district met and, after careful study, approved the State engineer's suggested revision. We have heard no more from either party until the first part of this week in which they have a new version with some additional wording. So insomuch as there was not time to thoroughly study this, the irrigation board did not call a meeting inasmuch as we just had a day to do it, and at the present time, we approve of the proposal that the State engineer made immediately following the hearing. We will consider this additional change, but at this time, I am authorized only to accept the first proposal submitted.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Colorado?

Mr. ASPINALL. No questions.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we want to thank you, Mr. Brantley.

Our next witness will be the mayor of the city of Carlsbad, the

Honorable Walter T. Gerrells.