Mr. Dowd. I am here representing the city of Calexico. May I add a thought at this point? This situation is somewhat similar to the hoof-and-mouth disease problem. The main danger is not from the conditions developed by this sewage in the United States; it is from conditions developed in Mexico; for instance, the city of Mexicali. If you could see the way the people live there and see the way things are handled-they not only dump their human sewage raw into this little dry creek called New River, but they have a brewery and all of the refuse from the brewery is dumped there, untreated. They have a big slaughterhouse and in the past all the remains from the slaughterhouse have been dumped in there. Under those conditions the main danger is an epidemic in the city of Mexicali. And with the freedom of crossing back and forth across the line that we have, you just could not keep it out of the United States.

It was the same way when they had a terrible smallpox epidemic in 1922 in Mexicali and it spread all through the Imperial Valley. That is the main difficulty. So that we think that the United States should be willing to spend some money in addition to what might be considered the equitable share, for the protection not only of the city of Calexico but for the protection of all that area of the Southwest.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Is there a problem of maintenance in this?

Mr. Dowd. Yes, sir; because if it were just an outfall sewer as it is at Tia Juana, your problem of operation and maintenance would be simple. But it is a treatment plant and a treatment plant requires personnel. So you have a treatment plant here and I think you have one in Nogales and you have one in Douglas.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. That would mean an annual appropriation for that purpose?

Mr. Dowd. That is correct. What Calexico says is this. She is willing to pay her proper pro rata share of both construction and operation and maintenance, although we rather feel that Calexico is entitled to the same treatment on construction that all the other border towns have had. But we are willing, if the Congress so decides, to pay a fair pro rata share of both construction and operation and maintenance. All that Calexico asks is that it not be left with this problem of sewage from 60,000 people when this as a little community has only 5,000 people.

Mr. PATTEN. The cost of this will be $11,600 and the estimated operational cost is $5,800. That would be the United States' cost. The city of Douglas will pay a quarter of that.

Mr. PHILLIPS. What would be the estimated cost for Calexico and Mexicali? Has there been an estimate of the annual maintenance cost of that?

Mr. HERRICK. No, sir, we have no estimate of that.

Mr. Dowd. It would be comparable, I believe.

Mr. HERRICK. It would be in the same neighborhood, I believe. Mr. PHILLIPS. In other words, the annual maintenance cost, by the time it is divided between the United States and the local city and Mexico, does not represent a great amount of money.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Herrick, on the agreement to operate and maintain the plants under international agreement, do you think you can get an equitable agreement so that Mexico will carry its proportionate part of the cost of maintenance and operation?

Mr. HERRICK. In Calexico?

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes, or at any of these projects, for that matter, along the border.

Mr. HERRICK. The agreement, of course, is to be negotiated and we would certainly make every effort to obtain an equitable division between the two countries.

Mr. BURLESON. Do I understand, Mr. Dowd, that Nogales already has an operation of this sort?

Mr. Down. Yes, sir; built completely by the United States.
Mr. BURLESON. Who operates it?

Mr. Dowd. It is to be turned over to the city of Nogales.

Mr. HERRICK. That is under construction at the present time.

Mr. PATTEN. They are comparable in size; they are almost the same. Mr. BURLESON. But the operation will be by Nogales, Mexico, and Nogales, Ariz.?

Mr. PATTEN. Yes.

Mr. BURLESON. Why could not your situation, Mr. Patten, be handled in the same way?

Mr. PATTEN. One is so much larger than the other.

Mr. BURLESON. Could not the city actually operate the plant?

Mr. PATTEN. They are operating it, but the city of Douglas is a small city. It will do the best it can. But Agua Prieta on the other side has mushroomed and has gotten too big for Douglas. How can you justify taxing the people of Douglas because Agua Prieta has grown so large?

Mr. BURLESON. That is not my question. If the Federal Government makes its contribution, whatever it may be, could not the cities of Douglas and Agua Prieta operate the plants and carry on the administration themselves?

Mr. PATTEN. They are doing it now but, as Mr. Herrick knows, you have an entirely different situation in Mexico. Most of the towns in Mexico do not have a sewage-treatment plant. They do not have any sort of a tax structure to take care of one. They do not have the sewage-disposal facilities as you have in the United States. So here is the city of Agua Prieta and the Mexican Government will not stand hitched long enough to put money into Agua Prieta, when there are so many other towns in Mexico that do not have a sewage-disposal system.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I do not think that is what Mr. Burleson means. Douglas runs that plant. Of course, you do not know who is going to finance it. But you do not want somebody coming down from Washington to take over the plant and operate it, to turn it on and turn it off, do you?

Mr. PATTEN. No. It is being operated now, but Agua Prieta has gotten so big that Douglas cannot take care of the expense. They will operate the plant.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I think your bill is perhaps a little ambiguous in that. I think it indicates that the State Department could actually operate the plant. I believe that is what Mr. Burleson is inquiring about.

Mr. PATTEN. I do not think that was the intent.

Mr. BURLESON. That is what I have been talking about and that is the way I understood you to reply to my question. That is what I am trying to clarify. Are you going to operate your own plantforgetting, for the moment, about the contribution? Are you going to turn it on and turn it off? Are you going to pull this lever over

here or push that button over there? Or are you going to have the Federal Government come down and do it for you?

Mr. PATTEN. Let me ask Mr. Herrick about that.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I think the point is in line 7 of your bill. I think there is some ambiguity there as to operation and maintenance by the International Boundary and Water Commission.

Mr. BURLESON. That is right.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I think the real problem is not who is going to hire the employees and turn the power on or off. I think it is a question of the cost of maintenance and operation.

By the way, in the case of Nogales, how will the cost be divided? Has that been decided yet?

Mr. HERRICK. The situation at Nogales is the same as at Douglas. Mr. PHILLIPS. The city will run it and the Boundary Commission will be responsible for financing it on some sort of agreement between Mexico and the United States, including the city of Nogales or, in our case, Calexico, and so forth.

Mr. HERRICK. The United States and Mexico will contribute to the cost of construction at Nogales, just as they did at Douglas and Agua Prieta. After the works are completed the situation is the same in both communities. That is, the local community takes over the operation and maintenance of the works in this country.

Mr. BURLESON. That is the point I am making, and that is the point I wish to have clarified in the legislation.

Mr. PATTEN. All we are asking is that the supplementary operational cost be borne by the Government.

Mr. BURLESON. If that point can be clarified, it would make me happier about the bill.

Mr. PATTEN. I think I see your point now. I am sorry I missed it before. I think it is the intent to operate the plant, and all they need is supplementary aid. That is all we are seeking.

Mr. BURLESON. That was my point a little bit ago and that is what I was trying to make clear.

Mr. Dowp. So far as Calexico is concerned, this bill is along the same line; that is, that the United States would operate it and Calexico would share in the cost of the operation. But, as I said before, Calexico is willing to do the physical operation provided she is not overburdened in the matter of the cost of that operation.

Mr. PATTEN. When you take a city of 60,000 against a city of 5,000, you cannot run an operation on a 50-50 basis.

Mr. BURLESON. I understand that point, but I was trying to get clear in my mind the other point which we have each time this matter has been considered. I can't imagine any town wishing the Federal Government to come in and run its business.

Mr. PATTEN. Would it be satisfactory for me to get some agreement with the cities of Douglas and Agua Prieta, Ariz., as to the operation of it?

Mr. BURLESON. It would seem proper if such details could be worked out by negotiations.

Mr. Down. Of course, there is no way that a city in the United States can negotiate with a city in Mexico.

Mr. BURLESON. You will have to have a basis of an international agreement. That is the purpose for coming in here.

Mr. PATTEN. Would that not be a more equitable arrangement? Would it not be better to let the cities run it and let the operational cost be paid by the United States Government?

Mr. HERRICK. I think that would be a matter, in the final analysis, for the Congress to decide.

Mr. BURLESON. Nogales is doing it now?

Mr. PATTEN. Douglas is doing it now.

Mr. Down. But the United States is not sharing in the cost. In most other matters, where the United States shares in the cost, it wants to say something about the operation.

Mr. BURLESON. That is like Federal aid to education.

Mr. Down. It would have to be under general direction or under rules and regulations prescribed by the Commission.

Mr. BURLESON. The Federal Government contributes to a lot of things, presumably they do not control; yet the Supreme Court says that when they do contribute they have a right to control. I believe that is the implication at least.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Are there any further questions?
Mr. BURLESON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chiperfield?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I have no further questions.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Do any of you gentlemen have anything further to say?

Mr. PATTEN. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will check with the people concerned to see what sort of an agreement we can get between them so far as the operation is concerned, to satisfy your question. I think that is all.

Mr. BURLESON. I think it would be a good idea to clarify that.

Mr. Down. To make it clear for the record, I put the letter in the other hearing that Calexico is agreeable to pay both for construction and the operation and maintenance costs on the basis of a formula to be agreed upon between the city and the American Commissioner. I am also authorized to say that Calexico is agreeable to physically operating the works, provided she is not overburdened on the matter of cost.

Mr. PATTEN. I do not have that authorization, but I would be almost willing to bet that that would be the situation.

Mr. CARNAHAN. If there is nothing further, the committee will go into executive session.

Mr. PATTEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon the subcommittee proceeded in executive session.)

APPENDIX

The Honorable A. S. J. CARNAHAN,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, D. C., July 21, 1950.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Southwestern Border Projects,

Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. CARNAHAN: Reference is made to the hearings on July 13, 1950, before your subcommittee, concerning H. R 6031, a bill to authorize an agreement between the United States and Mexico for the joint construction and operation and maintenance by the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, of a sanitation project for the cities of Calexico, California, and Mexicali, Lower California, Mexico.

During the hearings you requested information concerning the original division of cost of the construction of the international Douglas-Agua Prieta sanitation project.

The report dated May 20, 1941, of the International Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico, shows that the cost was divided on the basis of the relative populations of Douglas, Ariz., and Agua Prieta, Sonora. I trust that this information will answer your inquiry.

Sincerely yours,

JACK K. MCFALL,

Assistant Secretary, (For the Secretary of State).