Twenty years ago there were no pumping wells in the San Joaquin Valley. At the present time, according to the engineer's statement, there are 8,000 in the delta of Kings River. That is included in the Fresno, Consolidated, and lower Kings River irrigation districts. I, myself, have put in six pumping wells in the last three years. Now in pumping that water we are lowering the water level. The demand for water is such now that we can not increase our acreage of irrigated land any more. We have reached the limit of water supply from Kings River. In fact, I think we have exceeded the limit which we can depend upon.

Last year was a dry year. We had very little snow. And the crops suffered accordingly. In order to maintain our present irrigation system, and especially if we should attempt to increase the area of irrigated land, it is necessary for us to conserve the flow of the water from Kings River by storage.

There is now contemplated a reservoir site, and it is very well under way of being constructed, a site known as the Pine Flat Reservoir. It is below what is proposed to be taken into the Sequoia National Park. That will store, we estimate, about 600,000 acre-feet of water, and an acre-foot of water means water that will cover an acre 1 foot deep. I quote the engineers, because I am not an authority on these things, and was not prepared to give you this data. The engineers say that the normal flow from Kings River is 1,900,000 acre-feet. That is the normal flow of the river. We hope to store 600,000 acre-feet of that in the Pine Flat Reservoir.

In doing that we create necessarily a possibility for power which should be utilized, and probably will be utilized, and if owned by the irrigation districts-I think there are five or six or seven of them that are uniting to build this reservoir, which will cost probably fifteen millions of dollars, their plan is either to sell this power to some company that is now distributing power, or, if necessary, to go into the distributing of it themselves for the purpose of pumping. Most of these wells of which I have spoken are pumped by electricity.

I want to speak particularly now of the enlargement of the park. because I am opposing it. The Sequoia National Park at the present time consists of seven judicial townships. I do not remember the acreage. Some one quoted it here-I don't know whether it is correct or not-as 160,000 acres. The proposed extension is 780,000 acres, making four times as much area to be taken into the park as now constitutes the park. Here is the Sequoia National Park as it now exists [indicating on map]. These four townships here, and three townships down here; rather an L shaped proposition. They propose to add to that territory all of this that is included in these boundaries [indicating on map], which is about four times as much as they now have in the park.

I do not know whether you gentlemen have been in the Sequoia National Park or not. That is where the big redwood trees are, probably the finest redwood trees in the world. The General Sherman is there. The General Grant is in the General Grant National Park. And they should properly be preserved. Now in increasing this area they take in practically all of the headwaters of the Kings River. Within that proposed enlarged territory there

are four possible reservoir sites that aggregate, according to the engineer's estimates, a storage capacity of about 100,000 acre-feet of water. Now these figures would have to be borne out by verifying the engineer's estimate. I think I am under his estimate, as I remember the figures.

Senator ODDIE. That figure represents the four sites combined? Mr. CHANDLER. Yes; the combined sites. I think one of them was 37,000 acre-feet, and one was 20,000, and then I can not give you the others exactly. Approximately about 100,000 acre-feet.

Now, these proposed reservoirs; that is, possible reservoirs of which I speak, are high up in the mountains. And it will be ex pensive to store the water there. And in my talk I want to refei particularly to what we may anticipate that we will need.

At the present time we probably would not go up there and build the reservoir in those particular four reservoir sites to which I have referred, but with the water supply of the river now having been all utilized we would regret very much to see possible storage reservoirs tied up in a national park, because the policy of the Park Service has been that they do not want any-I do not know what term to use there we will call it mercantile interests, to get in there and interfere either in the way of mining, only the mines that are already located there, or in the way of storage reservoirs, etc. We would regret to have that park enlarged including those four reservoir sites without a reservation whereby the irrigationists of the Kings River delta may go in there and create reservoirs when the time is such that they can do so.

Now, as I said, my talk will be disconnected. I have been unable to find who is really behind the enlargement of the parks. I was in hopes that Mr. Mather would be here this afternoon. I was in hopes Congressman Kent would tell us who is behind the theory of increasing these parks.

Let us take the Yellowstone National Park. They propose to take in the Teton Mountains. Now, I have hunted all through that country. The Jackson Hole country there is as fine a cattle range as I ever saw. I don't know whether they are taking all of it in, but I know they are taking part of it in. I don't know who is behind it. Now, I have no objection to increasing the national parks, providing they do not interfere with just such things as irrigation and possibly cattle raising, etc. I am interested in irrigation. I can not talk cattle or sheep, but I can talk irrigation. We would regret to see those power sites tied up with enlarged parks without a reservation whereby we might go in there and protect ourselves.

In the territory to which I refer, the delta of Kings River, there are probably 100,000 acres in grape vines. Some of those vines grow comparatively low on the ground. Probably 3 feet high. And they spread out over a territory 6 feet across, or or 8 feet-sav, 62 feet. Other varieties are staked up high, as high as my head, and cover the space solidly between the rows. If all of those vines could grow on the ground they would cover 100,000 acres of ground 1 foot deep with a solid formation of foliage. That means a vast amount of evaporation or a vast demand for water. Now, the thing that makes a leaf cool is evaporation. You take a leaf off of a tree and place it to your cheek on a hot day, and it is

cool. Why isn't it hot when it is in the sun? Just because, as in the case of your body, of evaporation.

Now, the demand on water was exemplified probably most clearly by this gentleman, Mr. Schaefer, to whom I have just referred, who is now sick. He had been connected with the ditches there for the last 45 years, and in taking over one ditch to superintend it he found about three-fourths of a mile of the ditch full of what we call cat-tail flags, tules, as we refer to them. The men at the lower end of the ditch were not getting any water to speak of, and they asked him about it, and he said, "Well, the tules are taking up a good deal of that water." "Well," they said, "if that water is coming in above it has to come through some time." "Well," he said, "the tules are taking some of that water."

He took a 16-inch concrete tile, cemented the bottom of it, and filled it with muck, such as the tules grow in, planted it to tules, let it grow one year, and the next year he watered it every morning. During the warm period of the year it took 4 gallons of water a day to supply the tules in a 16-inch tile, or less than 12 square feet of surface.

Now, when I tell you that there is a foliage covering 100,000 acres of land, and no tules, by the way-tules will take more water than grape vines will, and tules will take more water than alfalfa will, and they will take more water than cotton will-but when I tell you that there are 100,000 acres there covered solidly with foliage you can imagine the demand that we have on water there.

Now, we are lowering our water level. There is a question in my mind whether we have not already exceeded the acreage which Kings River will supply, because we are now pumping out the water that was formerly stored there by this river, and we are pumping it out because we are using more water than we used to use. We are using more water than we used to use, because we have more acreage in cultivation, and we have learned that we can grow larger crops by using more water than we used to use.

Now, I am going to make my point concretely, and you ask me such questions as you want to ask. We would be very sorry to see the Sequoia National Park increased in area to such extent as they propose to increase it, without a reservation whereby we may protect ourselves when the time comes with those reservoir sites.

Now, they say that it is impossible for us to go up there and to utilize them. I will answer that by saying that if we look back 25 years, let us ask ourselves what we would have said then about impossible things. Twenty-five years ago we did not have any concrete roads in California. Now you can drive from San Diego to the north boundary of the State on a concrete highway all the time. Twenty-five years ago if a man would ask you when you were going to fly from Los Angeles to New York City you would have told him that he was crazy. Five years ago if you would have asked a man if you could hear the Eskimos talk or sing their native songs in New York City you would have said he was a lunatic. And yet we have done all of those things within the lifetime of some of the young men. Now, you say we will not need those reservoirs. We do not know what we are going to need, but we do know that if they are tied up in the parks, that unless the policy of the Park Service

changes we are going to be deprived of possibilities that we would regret very much to lose.

Now, we in the West-and when I speak of the West I speak of the territory west of the Rocky Mountains-we of the West are handicapped somewhat in national legislation, particularly with regard to irrigation, for this reason. I do not know the percentage of the Representatives in Congress of both Houses representing the territory east of the Rocky Mountains. I would guess about 75 per cent. I might be too high there. Now of that 75 per cent I am guessing that there are very few who know a thing about irrigation. They know about as much about it as I do about growing opium in China. They know of it, but they have no definite knowledge of the demands of irrigation.

In this territory of which I speak I do not know the size of the farms, but assuming that each farm consisted of 80 acres, and I think it would be very much less, on each 100,000 acres of irrigated land there would be 1,250 farmers. Those farmers are all going to be affected directly or indirectly by the supply of water. And the more we pump out the less we will have to draw from. Now, that is the principal argument that I have.

But what I was going to say about the Congressmen in the East is this: I have disconnected my talk somewhat. About 15 years ago or more there was a question raised by a certain doctor who was at the head of one of the departments, and who had to do with the administration of the pure food law, Doctor Wiley, who ruled that the sulphuring of dried fruit was injurious. Now in drying our peaches and apricots we sulphur them, and it makes a very fine quality of dried fruit. Doctor Wiley ruled that the sulphuring of dried fruit was injurious to health, and it should not be done. The ruling was made right when the fruit growers in our territory were cutting their fruit and placing it on the trays for drying, and it paralyzed the whole process, because they can not dry peaches and apricots successfully without sulphuring them. The Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Wilson, came west to investigate it. I met him here in San Francisco with a committee, and we discussed it for a whole day with him, and I prevailed upon him to come down into the valley and see the conditions under which we were working there and how unjust the ruling was right at that particular time. If he had told us six months before we were drying our fruit it would have been a little different, but he made the ruling right when we were cutting the fruit. I thought I had persuaded him to come, and he made this remark. He said, "Do you think I could see any peaches if I should go down there?"

Now, that is the idea that the Secretary had; that is the information that the Secretary of Agriculture had; and I say it with no disrespect for him whatever; he was a fine man; but showing that he knew absolutely nothing about the conditions in the West. And we had 100,000 acres of land that was covered with fruit, covered with peaches, and they had been cut and were lying out in the trays at that time, but yet he wanted to know whether, if he did go down. into that country, in the San Joaquin Valley, he would see any peaches.

Now, we are handicapped by the fact that Congress as a whole is not in touch with and does not have enough knowledge of the conditions and resources of the West.

I think that is all I want to say. I want to emphasize again that we would regret very much to see that territory tied up.

Now, the argument I am going to assume that Mr. Mather will make-I guess I had better not assume what position he will take; a man had better not assume anything if it concerns another man, and I think perhaps in doing so I would do Mr. Mather an injustice. I am very, very friendly with Mr. Mather. I think Mr. Kent knows some of the relations I bear to the interests in the park. I think I have the distinction of being the first tourist that went through McKinley National Park in this country. They tell me that I am. I could not believe it at that time. I went from McKinley Station to the foot of Mount McKinley, and at the base of the mountain we were at an elevation of about 3,000 feet. The mountain itself is 20,500 feet high. You could look right up for 17,000 feet straight to the top of the mountain. I have contributed some time and some of my means toward assisting in purchasing private holdings in national parks, and I am particularly friendly to national parks. I think I occupy a little the position that a small child would occupy if some foolish person should ask which he liked the best, his father or his mother. It is hard for me to tell which I have the greatest interest in, the national parks or in irrigation. I have the greatest interest in both.

Now, the only argument that I have ever heard for the increasing of this national park was that it would be conserving the proposed addition for the nature seekers, such as members of the Crockett Club and the Sierra Club of California. Now, they pass through that country now and they enjoy it. They think it is fine, and it is fine. It is under the Forest Service. Ex-Mayor Carter Harrison, of Chicago, made the statement in the presence of some of my friends that he had seen most of the mountain scenery of the world. He said he had crossed the Andes twice. He said he considered the territory lying between Yosemite Valley and Mount Whitney, covering just the territory that we are talking about, the finest mountain scenery in the world. He thought it had no equal. Now, he saw it when it was under the Forest Service. He said it was the finest in the world. Whether he is an authority or not I am not able to say. But that would be very good evidence that it was in pretty fair hands when it was in the hands of the Forest Service. And I see no reason for changing it. There has been no argument advanced by anyone as to why it should be changed. In fact, the men whom I believe are behind the enlargement of the parks for some reason or other have not made it clear why they want them enlarged, and I don't know. Are there any questions you wish to ask?

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, could you furnish this committee with figures representing the dollars that would be lost if the privilege or the right to store water was prohibited in the proposed extension to the park?

Mr. CHANDLER. That would be a very difficult thing to do, Senator, to put it in dollars and cents of what we would lose. That would be guesswork.