'N O R T H LOUP DIVISIO N, MISSOURI RIVE Ri I

COVERNMENi

Stor age

BASIN PRO JEC T, NEBRASKA

C U M E N T S

SEP 2 6 1972 H E A R IN G

t v / s

I

T H E L I B R A R Y BEFORE THE

Kan sas state “"'^"SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER AND POWER RESOURCES

OF TH E

I

COMMITTEE ON

INTERIO R AND INSULAR AFFA IRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

NIN ETY -SECON D CONG RESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

S. 352

TO AUTHORIZE TH E SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN THE NORTH LOUP 

DIVISION, MISSOURI RIV ER BASIN PROJECT , NEBRASKA, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

S. 2350

TO AUTHORIZE TH E SECRETARY OF THE INT ERIOR TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN THE NORTH LOUP DIVISION, MISSOURI RIV ER BASIN PROJECT, NEBRASKA, AND 

FOR OTH ER PURPOSES

MARCH 20, 1972

Print ed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Ins ular Affairs

79-704 O

U.S. GO VE RN ME NT PR IN TI NG OFF IC E 

WA SH INGT ON : 1972
COMMITTEE ON INT ER IOR AND INSULAR AFF AIR S

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Cha irman

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico

ALAN BIB LE, Nevada

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N orth Dakota

GEORGE MCGOVERN, South Dakota

LEE METCALF, Montana

MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado 

LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho 

PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona 

CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming 

MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon 

HENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma 

JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York

1

J erry T. Verkler, St af f Directo r William J. Van Ness, Chief Counsel

Daniel A. Dreyfus, Pro fessional St aff Member Charles Cook, Minority Counsel

Subcommittee on Water and P ower Resources

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico, Cha irm an

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

FRAiNK E. MOSS, Utah

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North D akota

LEE METCALF, Montana

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado 

LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho 

PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona 

CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming 

MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon

(n )
C O N T E N T S

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page

S. 352__________________________________________________________ 1

S. 2350_________________________________________________________ 2

Department re po rts:

Budget _________________________________________________ 10

In te ri o r_________________________________________________ 3

STATEMENTS

Armstrong, Ellis L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, accompanied 

by Daniel V. McCarthy, Chief of P lanning Division, and Joh n F. Mayne, 

are a engineer, Grand Island, Nebr_______________________________ 16

Blessing, Alfred, Hastings, Nebr___________________________________ 86

Carter, Mary, citizen, Omaha, Nebr_________________________________ 94

Cook, Kenneth L., director, Agricu ltural Development, Burlington Northern, Inc_______________________________________________________ 95

Curtis, Hon. Carl T., a U.S. Senator from the Sta te of Nebraska_______ 43

Eason, Tom, Lower Loup-Platte Wa ter Association, Inc______________ 94

Geweke, Lloyd, Valley County, Nebr________________________________ 88

Goff, Clifford, Burwell, Nebr______________________________________ 91

Harmon, Carroll, Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission_ 96

Holcomb, Larry C., chairman, Quality Environment Council, Omaha,

Nebr__________________________________________________________ 54,60

Hruska, Hon. Roman L., a U.S. Senator from the Sta te of N ebraska_____ 14,15

Johnson, Ted, executive secretary , Nebraska Soil and Wa ter Conservation Commission, Lincoln, Ne br.; on behalf of Dan Jones, Jr., director 

of the Dep artm ent of Wa ter Resources, State of Neb raska_________ 24, 27

Kershaw , Dr. Vincent E., Omaha, Nebr_____________________________ 97

Kilburz, Max, general manager, Loup Power Di str ict ________________ 75

Krenscher, Glenn W., represen ting Hon. J. Jam es Exon, Governor of

the State of Neb raska_________________________________________ 11, 13

Lange, Henry, director of the Twin Loups Reclamation District, Ord,

Nebr., accompanied by Cyril P. Shaughnessy, St. Paul, Nebr_________ 49

Martin, Hon. Dave, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nebrask a___________________________________________________ 45

Schrup, Robert, member, Loup County Board of Commissioners_______ 92

Shaughnessy, Cyril P., St. Paul, Nebr., atto rne y for the Twin Loups

Irriga tio n Di str ict _____________________________________________ 51, 52

Svoboda, George E., attorn ey for Board of Public Works of the City of 

Frem ont, Nebr., County of Dodge, Nebr., and Lower Loup Platte Wa ter 

Association, Inc ________________________________________________ 39

Tye, Thomas W., represen ting “ Save the North Loup and Calam us Riv er” ; 

accompanied by Alfre d Blessing, Gaylord Wallace, Lloyd Geweke, 

Clifford Goff, and Robert Schrup________________________________ 75

Wallace, Gaylord, Burwell, Nebr___________________________________ 87

COMMUNICATIONS

Weems, J. Marvin, Na tur al Resources Committee, Ord Chamber of Commerce ; lette r to Senator Curtis, dated March 7, 1972________________ 46

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Petition to the Congress of the United Sta tes signed by many concerned 

citizens of Nebraska___________________________________________ 48

Petition—Stat e of Nebraska, county of Valley, signed by landowners and 

farme rs living in the North Loup project area _____________________ 48

Policy statem ent IV—North Loup division, Nebraska—Missouri River

Basin p r o j e c t 36

(in)
IV

RESOLUTIONS

Page

County Board of Commissioners of Loup County, resolution of--------------- 92

Legislative Resolution 44_________________________________________ 28

Legislative Resolution 51--------------------------------------------------------------- 32

Ord Rotary Club, Ord, Nebr., reso lution of----------------------------------------- 47

Valley County Board of Supervisors, reso lution of------------------------------ 47

APP ENDIX

Sta teme nt s

Fotli, Ha rry IL, Ord, Nebr_______________________________________ 12G

Horn er, E. R., North Loup, Nebr---------------------------------------------------- 124

Kiburz, Max E., general manager, Loup Power District, Columbus, Nebr— 121

Lange, Henry G., president, Twin Loups Reclamation District ---------------- 118

Smith, W illiam C., J r., one of the board of directors of the National Water

Resources Association__________________________________________ 99

Staab, Rollie It., Ord, Nebr--------------------------------------------------------------- 131

COMMUNICATIONS

Bayless, G. E., Bellevue, Nebr______________________________________ 135

Bonne, Alfons, Ord, Nebr------------------------------------------------------------------ 118

Bonne, Joseph J., Ord, Nebr-------------------------------------------------------- 119,131

Bristol, Rupert and Iona___________________________________________ 133

Conner, Wa lter and Victoria, Ord, Nebr------------------------------------------- 133

Cooper, Vernon S., Carrington, N. Dak ---------------------------------------------- 121

Dreeszen, Vincent H., Lincoln, Nebr_________________________________ 119

Duvall, H. S., Ord, Nebr_________________________________________ 118

Edwards, Stan, president, Citizens National Bank, St. Paul, Nebr--------- 100

Gross, Mr. and Mrs. Ev ere tt W., Crete, Nebr__________________________ 134

Jack, Miss Nancy C---------------------------------------------------------------------- 126

Jensen, Russell, Omaha, Nebr______________________________________ 122

Jones, Dan S., Jr., Lincoln, Nebr___________________________________ 120

Roll, John L., Sr. and Jr., Twin-Loups Irr igati on project dis trict------------ 128

Larsen, Eldon and Darlene and children, Burwell, Nebr_______________ 130

Lewis, J. J., mayor, St. Paul, Nebr_________________________________ 100

May, Iven A., assis tant scoutmaster, Troop 64------------------------------------ 128

McComb, Fred R., Minneapolis, Minn------------------------------------------------ 124

Micek, Barney L., Columbus, Nebr--------------------------------------------------- 122

Scherzberg, Leland, North Loup reclamation ar ea ------------------------------- 129

Sebesta, Etta, Burwell, Nebr_______________________________________ 127

Sewell, Mr. and Mrs. Ernest, Burwell, Nebr__________________________ 128

Shaughnessy, Cyril P., St. Paul, Nebr------------------------------------------------ 104

Vancura, Charles, Jr., Ord, Nebr----------------------------------------------------- 133

Wagner, Donald L., Ord, Nebr_____________________________________ 117

Wismer, Bill, Hays, Rails________________________________________ 134

Wright, Mr. and Mrs. Cyrus and son, Burwell, Nebr---------------------------- 129

Youngblood, Harold D., Omaha, Nebr------------------------------------------------ 130

RESOLUTIONS

Howard County, Nebr., resolution of------------------------------------------------- 101

Ord City Council, resolution of____________________________________ 99

Ord Jaycees, resolution of________________________________________ 117

St. Paul, Nebr., Chamber of Commerce, resolution of---------------------------- 103

♦

f

*
NORTH LOUP DIVISION, MISSOURI RIVER

BASIN PROJECT, NEBRASKA

MOND AY , M A RCH 20 , 19 72

» U.S. S e n a t e,

S u b c o m m it tee on W at er and P ow er of t h e

C o m m it t e e on I nterio r and I n su lar A ffa ir s

Washington, D.G.

The committee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in room 3110, 

New Senate Office Building, Senator Quentin N. Burdick, presiding.

Presen t: Senator Burdick.

Also present: Je rry T. Verkler, staff director; William J. Van Ness, 

chief counsel; Daniel Dreyfus, professional staff member; and 

Charles Cook, minority counsel.

Senator B u r d ic k . The purpose of this hearing before the Subcommittee on W ater and Power this morning is to take testimony on S. 

352 and S. 2350, bills introduced by the Senators from Nebraska, to 

authorize the Secretary of the Inte rior to construct, operate, and 

maintain the North Loup Division, Missouri River Basin project, 

Nebraska, and for other purposes.

The proposed North Loup division is located in central Nebraska. 

The project would provide irrigation water service to some 52,600 

acres and would also provide fish and wildlife conservation and public recreation benefits.

The texts of the bills and reports of the executive agencies will be 

included in the record at this point.

(The bills and reports follo w:)

[S.352, 92nd Cong., first sess.]

* A Bill To autho riz e the Secre tar y of the In te rior to constru ct, opera te, and ma intain

the No rth Loup division, Missouri Riv er Basin pro jec t, Nebraska, and for other purposes.

Be if enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That the North Loup division is 

hereby authorized as a unit of the Missouri River Basin project for the purposes of providing irrigation water for approximately fifty-two thousand five 

hundred and seventy acres of land, enhancing recreation opportunities, conserving and developing fish and wildlife resources, and for other purposes. The 

construction, onevation, and maintenance of the North Loup division shall be 

in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17. 1902, (32 

Stat. 388), and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto). The principal features of the division shall include Calamus Dam and Reservoir on the 

Calamus River, Davis Creek Dam and Reservoir on Davis Creek, the necessary 

diversion facilities, pumping facilities, canals, laterals, drains, and other works 

needed to effect the aforesaid purposes.

Sec. 2. The conservation and development of the fish and wildlife resources 

and the enhancement of recreation opportunities in connection with the North 

Loup division shall be in accordance with provisions of the Federal Water 

Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213).

(1)
2

Sec. 3. North Loup division shall be integrated physically and financially 

with the other Federal works constructed under the comprehensive plan approved by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, as amended and supplemented.

Sec. 4. For a period of ten years from the date of enactment of this Act, no 

water from the unit authorized by this Act shall be delivered to any water 

user for the production on newly irrigated lands of any basic agricultural commodity, as defined in the Agricultural Act of 1949, or any amendment thereof, 

if the total supply of such commodity for the marketing year in which the 

bulk of the crop would normally be marketed is in excess of the normal supply 

as defined in section 301(b) (10) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, >

as amended, unless the Secretary of Agriculture calls for an increase in production of such commodity in the interest of national security.

Sec. 5. The interest rate used for purposes of computing in terest during construction and interest on the unpaid balance of the capital costs allocated to 

interest-bearing features of the project shall be determined by the Secretary of «

the Treasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which construction is 

initiated, on the basis of the computed average interest rate payable by the 

Treasury upon i ts outstanding marketable public obligations, which are neither 

due nor callable for redemption for fifteen years from date of issue.

Sec. 6. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

[S.2350, 92nd Cong., first sess.]

A Bill To auth oriz e the Secre tary of the Int eri or to constru ct, operate, and maintain 

the North Loup division, Missouri River Basin project, Nebraska, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That the North Loup division is hereby authorized as a unit of the Missouri River Basin project for the purposes of providing irrigation wate r for approximately fifty-two thousand five 

hundred and seventy acres of land, enhancing recreation opportunities, conserving and developing fish and wildlife resources, and for other purposes. The 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the North Loup division shall be 

in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902 (32 

Stat. 388), and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto). The principal features of the division shall include Calamus Dam and Reservoir on the 

Calamus River, Davis Creek Dam and Reservoir on Davis Creek, the necessary diversion facilities, pumping faci’ities, canals, laterals, drains, and other 

works needed to effect the aforesaid purposes.

Sec. 2. The conservation and development of the fish and wildlife resources 

and the enhancement of recreation opportunities in connection with the North 

Loup division shall be in accordance with provisions of the Federal Water 

Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213).

Sec. 3. North Loup division shall be integrated physically and financially 

with the other Federal works constructed under the comprehensive plan approved by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, as 

amended and supplemented. ,

Sec. 4. For a period of ten years from the date of enactment of this Act, no 

water from the unit authorized by this Act shall be delivered to any water 

user for the production on newly irrigated lands of any basic agricultural commodity, as defined in the Agricultural Act of 1949, or any amendment thereof, 

if the total supply of such commodity for the marketing year in which the 

bulk of the crop would normally be marketed is in excess of the normal supply 

as defined in section 301(b) (10) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 

as amended, unless the Secretary of Agriculture calls for an increase in production of such commodity in the interest of national security.

Sec. 5. The interest rate used for purposes of computing interest during construction and inte rest on the unpaid balance of the capital costs allocated to 

interest-bearing featu res of th e project shall be determined by the Secretary of 

the Treasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which construction is 

initiated, on the basis of the computed average interest rate payable by the
3

Treasury upon its outstanding marketable public obligations, which are neither 

due nor callable for redemption for fifteen years from date of issue.

Sec. 6. The North Loup division shall be so constructed and operated tha t no 

water shall be diverted from either the Calamus or the North Loup Rivers for 

any use by the division during the months of July and August each yea r; and 

no water shall be diverted from said rivers during the month of September 

each year whenever during said month there is sufficient water available in 

the division storage reservoirs to deliver the design capacity of the canals receiving water from said reservoirs.

w Sec. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for construction of the

North Loup division as authorized in this Act the sum of $73,400,000 (based 

upon October 1970 prices), plus or minus such amounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in construction costs as indicated by 

engineering costs indexes applicable to the types of construction involved

• herein. There are also authorized to be appropriated such additional sums as

may be required for operation and maintenance of the division.

United States Department of the Interior,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, D.C., February 2, 1972.

Hon. Henry M. Jackson,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.8. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This responds to your request for the views of this 

Department on S. 2350 and on S. 352, bills authorizing construction by the Secretary of the Interior of the North Loup division, Nebraska, of the Missouri 

River Basin project.

We recommend enactment of the enclosed draft of proposed legislation, 

which is similar in major respects to S. 352 and S. 2350 except as pointed out 

below.

The division is a proposed multipurpose water resource development in the 

basins of the Calamus, North Loup, and Loup Rivers in central Nebraska. 

Flows of the North Loup and Calamus Rivers would be developed for irrigatin, outdoor recreation opportunities, and fish and wildlife enhancement.

Portions of the North Loup division were contemplated for development in 

S. Doc. 191, 78th Congress, and were authorized as an integral pa rt of the 

Missouri River Basin project by the Flood Control Acts of 1944 and 1946. Subsequent investigations disclosed desirable modifications in the original plans 

which were presented in the Secretary’s report of July 25, 1962, to the Congress (H. Doc. No. 491, 87th Cong.).

We have since prepared a reevaluation statement on the division, dated February 1971, which modifies the plan of development and operation presented in 

H. Doc. 491 and updates the estimated costs and the economic and financial 

analyses associated therewith. This reevaluation statement, a copy of which 

will be forwarded to the Committee shortly, supplements and modifies the Secretary’s report previously submitted to the Congress. Reauthorization of the division is required by the provisions of the Act of August 14, 1964 ( 78 Stat. 

446).

The plan of development does not include as objectives flood control, hydroelectric power generation, or provision of municipal and industrial water supplies. Floods on the North Loup River are not a serious problem, and storage 

regulation would provide insignificant flood control benefits. Development of 

hydroelectric power was found to be uneconomical. Regional needs for municipal and industrial water supplies can be met more economically by other 

means.

The division involves an area where the predominantly agricultural economy 

has suffered periodically from uncertain natural moisture conditions. This has 

tended to limit dependable farm income and has adversely affected th e interdependent urban economy. Lack of both job opportunities in the towns and stable employment on the farms has resulted in substantial migration from the
4

area , par ticula rly by the younger people. Construction of the division would 

have a favo rable economic and social impact in the area, and the proposal has 

strong local supp ort. The potential water use rs have formed the Twin Loups 

Reclamation and Irr igati on Districts to support authorization of the division 

and to assume responsibility for operation s and the repa yment of reimbursable 

costs.

The prin cipa l str uc tures proposed for the division include the Calam us Dam 

and Reservoir on the Calam us Riv er near Burwell, Nebraska, the off-channel 

Davis Creek Dam and Reservoir, and the Ken t Diversion works on the North 

Loup River near Burwell. Total capa cities of the two storage rese rvoirs would 

be 128,200 an d 32,500 acre-feet, respectively. Irriga tion water provided by these ►

facilities would be distrib uted to 52,570 acres of full irriga tion service lands 

thro ugh a complex of six principal canals, nine pumping plants, and lat era ls 

as requ ired to afford delivery to individual operators. Dra ins would be constructed to meet demonstrated needs for disposition of excess surface water 

and for subsurface drainage . Outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife facilities *

would be provided as a p art of the proposed development.

The Febru ary 1971 reev alua tion statem ent modifies the plan of development 

and operation for the division proposed in H. Doc. 491. Under the plan now 

recommended, no natur al flows of the North Loup and Calam us Rivers would 

be diverted for irriga tion purposes during the critical water supply months of 

July and August and some years in September. This would permit mainta inin g 

downstream flows in the Loup and Platte Rive rs for rech arge of ground water 

for existing municipal and irrigation uses and minimizing the adverse impact 

of project wa ter withdrawals on wa ter qua lity and the existing ecology. This 

operation al change would requ ire adding the Kent Diversion Dam and the 

Kent Canal to obtain water from the North Loup River and enlarging Calamus and Davis Creek Rese rvoirs to increase their conservation storage capacity by 30.000 acre-feet. This enlargement of the rese rvoir storage capacity 

would require a slightly higher dam in both cases.

The plan of development presented in H. Doc. 491 was reev alua ted to reflect 

more curre nt price levels and modification in the recommended plan of development. The total estim ated project cost for benefit analysis, based on October 

1970 price levels, is $76,466,000. The total includes the estimated construction 

cost of $73,400,000, plus an assignment of $1,207,000 of the Pick-Sloan Missouri 

Basin Program power investment for irriga tion pumping and $3,459,000 for interest during construction. $1,600,000 of preauthor ization costs have been deducted. The operation, maintenance, and replacement costs are estimated at 

$324,000 annually . The estim ated annual costs for economic analyses, which include the ann ual equivalent of the net project investment (to tal investment 

less preauthor ization investigation costs) and the annual operation, mainte ­

nance, and replacement costs, have been computed to be $2,915,000.

The ann ual benefits att rib uta ble to the project functions total $3,871,000. The 

total benefits to be derived from irriga tion of the division lands have been 

evaluated to be $3,804,800 annually and are comprised of $3,127,000 direct and 

$677,800 indirec t and public benefits. Recreation benefits of $37,500 annually «

would be derived from water-oriented outdoor recreation opportu nities created 

by construction and operation of Calam us and Davis Creek Reservoirs. Similarly , fish and wildlife benefits of $28,700 annually from hun ting and fishing 

would res ult from the construction and operation of the division.

As presente d herein, the economic justific ation for the division as demon- »

str ate d by the com parative ratio of the total evaluate d benefits ($3,871,000) to 

the estimated annual costs ($2,915,000) on the basis of a 100-year period of 

ana lysis at 3*4 percent inter est is 1.33 to 1. Using only direct benefits 

($3,193,200), the rat io would be 1.09 to 1.

The total estimated project cost of $73,007,000 has been allocated among the 

purposes as follo ws : $71,895,000 to irrigation, $750,000 to fish and wildlife, and 

$362,000 to recr eation. Simi’arly, the ten tative allocation of the $324,000 estimated ann ual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs is $298,000 to irrigation. $25,000 to recreation and $1,000 to fish and wildlife.

Pro jec t costs allocated to irriga tion would be reimbursable withou t inte rest 

within 50 yea rs following a 10-year development period after completion of the 

division’s irriga tio n facilities . The irrigatio n beneficiaries, princip ally the water
5

users, would repay an estimated $13,850,000 or 19 percent of the irrigation 

cost, plus the ann ual operation, maintenance, and replacement expenses allocated to irriga tio n ($298,000). Eithe r the Twin Loups Reclamation District or 

the Twin Loups Irriga tion District would con trac t for the repa yment of all 

reim bursable irriga tion costs by the beneficiaries. The $58,045,000 allocated to 

the irriga tio n function would be repaid from Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Pro ­

gram power revenues available for th at purpose during the 50-year repayment 

period.

The Twin Loups Reclamatio n District has indicated by lette r dated July 28, 

1969, its intent to adm inister the land and wa ter are as of the division for rec-

* reation and fish and wildlife enhancem ent and to repay with intere st one-half 

of the sep arable costs of the division allocated to those two functions, totaling 

$175,000, plus $3,000 intere st during construction and all annual operation, 

main tenance, and replacement costs of $25,000 incurred therefor, as provided

t

by the Fed era l Water Project Recreation Act.

* The rem aining $937,000 of project costs consisting of one-half the separable 

costs ($175,000) and all the joint costs ($762,000) plus $1,000 of ann ual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs are alloc ated to recreation and fish 

and wildlife func tions and would be nonreim bursable Federal costs as provided 

by the law. Reimbursement by irriga tion fish and wildlife, and recreation contra ctors and from Missouri River Basin power revenues would total about 

$72,073,000 o r n early 94 percent of the t ota l project and assigned costs.

Local sup port for the North Loup division is strong, as evidenced by the 

early organiz ation of the Twin Loups Reclama tion and Irr iga tio n Districts, 

which have indicated their willingness to consummate the required repayment 

contracts. The Nebraska Soil and Wate r Conservation Commission supp orts the 

authorization of the plan of development now recommended for the North 

Loup division.

We have examined the plan of development for compliance with Executive 

Orders No. 11296 and No. 11507, which prescribe regu lations concerning the relatio nship of Fed eral water resources projects to flood haz ard s and wa ter and 

air quality standa rds. No significant problems are foreseen in these respects 

except some increase in salinity may occur downstream in the North Loup and 

Loup Riv ers due to ret urn flows from irrigation. The res ultant salinity levels 

would not violate the Nebraska water quality standa rds which were approved 

by this Department.

The impact of the division on the environm ent has been considered pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The North Loup division 

will have a beneficial environmental imp act on the area and the State. Conversion of the present dryland agriculture to irriga ted agriculture would provide 

the impe tus for desirable social and economic opportunities. In addition, the 

enhancem ent of wa ter and rela ted land resources for fish and wildlife and outdoor recreation will improve the quality of the hum an environment.

No significantly unique natur al resource are as or conditions would be adversely affected by the proposal. A unique wildlife fea tur e of the area , a cot- 

> tonwood grove with a sub stantial heron rookery, would be protected and

preserved.

Certain environm ental impa cts may be adverse. Although sub stantial flows 

will remain, reduction of flows in the Calamus and North Loup and Loup Rivers may cause some minor ecological change. The present plan for the division

* includes measures to reduce the impact of diversions from the rivers for pro ject use, especially during summer months. River withdr awals will be restricted 

to the months during which there are higher flows. Adequate summer flows 

will thereby be maintained for the purpose of protecting wa ter quality. As previously mentioned, the proposed development would res ult in some increase in 

the dissolved solids in the North Loup. Loup, and Platte Riv ers during the 

summ er months from irriga tion retur n flows. We are review ing the possibility 

of using storage space in the project, which would be made available by withdra wals for irriga tion use, to store excess flows in July and August for use in 

September (th e month in which the lowest stream flows generally occur). This 

would benefit wa ter quality from the standpoint of dissolved oxygen and tota l 

dissolved solids. The conversion of 13 miles of the Calam us Riv er from a river 

ecology to a rese rvoir ecology would result in net benefits for recreation and
fish and wildlife enhancement. A more detailed statement of effects on the environment, prepared pursuant to section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is enclosed.

There is no alternative use of the water and related land resources which 

would achieve equivalent economic, social, and environmental benefits at comparable costs.

The human and natural resources of the area are utilized predominately in 

an agricultural economy. This relationship is not expected to change materially 

in the future , either with or without development of the North Loup division. 

Therefore, no major requirement is foreseen for the commitment of resources 

to uses other than those proposed, although such commitment would not be irreversible or irretrievable if higher value uses should arise at some future 

time. Thus, local short-term use of these resources is consistent with the need 

to m aintain and enhance long-term productivity.

The enclosed dra ft bill differs in several respect from S. 352 and S. 2350. 

Section 1 deletes as unnecessary the provision of both bills that the Secretary 

would be governed by the Federal reclamation laws since such laws would 

apply to the division by their own terms. Other minor drafting changes have 

also been made. The dra ft deletes section 4 of both bills which relates to surplus agric ultural products. The provisions of section 5 of the dra ft bill limiting 

diversions from the Calamus and North Loup Rivers are identical to section 6 

of S. 2350 which is not contained in S. 352. Section 6 of the draft bill and section 7 of S. 2350, consistent with current practice, set a limitation on the 

amount authorized to be appropriated for the division which takes into account the fluctuations in construction costs and authorizes appropriations for 

nonreimbursable operation and maintenance costs.

Enclosed is a statement concerning the estimated employment and expenditures required by 5 U.S.C. 2953 (1966), formerly Public Law 84-801 (5 U.S.C. 

642).

The Office of Management and Budget has advised tha t there is no objection 

to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s 

program.

Sincerely yours,

J ames R. Smith,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

NORTH LOUP DIVISION, MRBP— ESTIMATE ADDITIONAL MAN-YEARS OF CIVILIA N EMPLOYMENT AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE FIRST 5 FISCAL YEARS

(As required by 5 U.S.C. 2953 (1 96 6) ,formerly Public Law 801, 84th Cong.,
7

Summary—F inal E nvironmental Statement, North Loup Divisio n, 

Pic k-Sloan Misso uri Basin Program, Nebraska, Prepared by

Department of th e I nterior, Bureau of Reclamation,

Region 7

( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL

1. Administrative Action ( ) Legislative Action (X)

2. The North Loup Division consists of storage and diversion works on the

Calamus and North Loup Rivers and on a tributary of Davis Creek in central Nebraska.

4

3. Summary of environmental imp act:

(a) Increased economic activity totaling $36 million annually within 

Nebraska.

(b) Enhancement of the economic and social environment of this rural 

area would discourage the outmigration of people to large urban

a centers.

(c) Approximately 6,300 acres of water surface area would provide fishing and outdoor recreation opportunities.

(d) The reservoir would inundate 13 miles of stream fishery and approximately 6,300 acres of land including the associated terrestrial 

wildlife habitat.

(e) Downstream flows would be reduced.

4. List of alternatives considered :

(a) Nondevelopment

5. List of agencies from which comments have been requested :

Department of the Interior

(a) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

(b) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

6. Dra ft statement was sent to the Council on Environmental Quality July 12, 

1971.

EN VIRO NM EN TA L statement on PROPOSED NO RTH LOUP DIV ISIO N, PI CK-S LO AN

MISSO UR I BA SI N PROGRAM, NE BR AS KA , PU RSU ANT TO SECTION 102(2 ) (C) OF THE

NA TI ON AL EN VIRO NM EN TA L POLICY ACT OF 1969

Summary of effects on human environment

The proposed North Loup Division was planned cooperatively by the Bureau

of Reclamation with other Federal and State agencies and local organizations 

having an interest in the ecological systems and water and related land resources. The development would enhance the quality of the human environment by providing the impetus for important social and economic benefits 

through irrigation service to some 52.600 acres of land, facilities to serve an 

expected 50,000 visitor-days of public outdoor recreation use annually, and 

management of fish and wildlife resources to provide an additional estimated 

19,070 days of public hunter and fisherman use annually. It is estimated tha t 

the proposed irrigation development would create annually $36 million in new

* business activity in Nebraska. Significant employment opportunities would accrue from the proposed development to local labor resources which have substantial economic underemployment.

There would be some adverse effects on the environment from the proposed 

development. Natural flows of the North Loup and Calamus Rivers would not 

be diverted for Division needs during the critical summer months to minimize 

the adverse environmental impact on the North Loup and Loup Rivers principally. There would be some increase in the concentration of dissolved solids of 

the flows of the North Loup, Loup, and Pla tte Rivers during summer months 

from irrigation return flows. Land use changes associated with converting 

52,600 acres of land, now essentially all cropland, to irrigated agricultural production may reduce wildlife habitat.

Nature of the activity

The North Loup Division would be a multiple-purpose water and related 

land resources development situated in the Loup River basin in central Nebraska serving the functions of irrigation, recreation, and fish and wildlife. 

The principal features would include Calamus Dam and Reservoir to be constructed on the Calamus River to store and divert water. Kent Diversion
Works would be constructed on the North Loup River to divert water into the 

system for direct use or for storage in Davis Creek Reservoir. Davis Creek 

Dam and Reservoir, to he located on a tributary of Davis Creek, would serve 

as a storage and reregulating feature. Regulated irrigation releases would be 

made to five principal canals totaling 02 miles in length, one major and nine 

small pumping plants, and 212 miles of lateral systems to supply irrigation 

water to 52,600 acres of land. Recreation enhancement facilities are included 

but no features for fish and wildlife enhancement are recommended. Trees and 

shrubs would be planted on 150 acres of acquired land adjacent to the reservoirs to replace wildlife habitat lost by inundation and to maintain hunting 

opportunities and aesthetic values.

The North Loup Division operating criteria provide for passing all natura l 

flows of the North Loup and Calamus Rivers during July and August every 

year and during September when storage water is available to meet Division 

needs. These criteria reduce the impact of the Division on the environment by 

diverting the necessary water during the least critical periods.

The feasibility report of the Secretary of the Interior on the North Loup Division (H. Doc. 87^191) recommending authorization for construction was 

transmitted to the Congress in July 1962. Although this was prior to enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the policies, goals, and 

directives of the act have been met through provisions of law and Presidential 

instructions for coordination of planning studies and reports on Federal water 

and related land resources projects. This systematic, interdisciplinary approach 

was also used in the reanalysis of the Division presented in the Reevaluation 

Statement, February 1971.

Impact on the environment

The multiple-purpose North Loup Division would improve the social and economic environment of the region through the development, management, and 

use of affected water and related land resources.

Stabilized and increased agricultural production from the irrigation of 52,600 

acres of cropland would provide the impetus for important social and economic 

opportunities. A study developed by the University of Nebraska indicates $6.68 

of economic activity occurs within the State of Nebraska for each dollar of increased value attributable to irrigated crop production. Applying the results of 

this study to the North Loup Division shows tha t the irrigation development 

would cause an annual impact of $36 mil'ion to Nebraska business. This important economic impact would accrue both on the farm and to the business 

sector across Nebraska.

Economic underemployment of the civilian labor force averaged 46 percent 

in 1960 for the six-county area encompassing the North Loup Division. The 

chronic problem of underemployment within the area is reflected by a steady 

population decline from 36,300 in 1940 to 24,500 in 1970. The construction and 

operation and maintenance of the North Loup Division would provide local 

employment opportunities for unskilled and semiskilled labor. In addition, 

there would be a substantial increase in demand for hired farm labor. By enhancing the quality of the economic and social environment of a rural area, 

development of North Loup Division would help achieve the national objectives 

of full employment and population dispersal.

Calamus and Davis Creek Reservoirs would have total storage capacities of 

128,200 acre-feet and 32,500 acre-feet and up to 5,150 acres and 1,145 acres of 

water surface, respectively. Water-oriented outdoor recreation opportunities 

would be provided through the installation of facilities recommended by the 

Bureau of Outdoor Recrestion at the reservoirs. These facilities would include 

interior roads, parking and picnic areas, sanitary facilities, and boat ramps. It 

is estimated that there will be 50,000 recreation visitations annually.

Calamus Reservoir would provide reservoir fishery in lieu of about 13 miles 

of stream fishery. Davis Creek Reservoir would create a minor fishery in 

Davis Creek, an intermittent stream which now produces no fishing. The proposed development would increase fisherman use by an estimated 18.900 mandays annually. In addition to the water surface areas, 3,750 acres of acquired 

lands at Calamus Reservoir and 2,510 acres at Davis Creek Reservoir would 

provide opportunities for wildlife habitat development and management and 

public hunting. Both reservoirs will provide habitat, mainly resting for migratory waterfowl, and would increase waterfowl hunting an estimated 340 man-
9

days per year. In the intere st of ma intain ing a variety of hun ting opportunities and aesthetic wildlife values, ha bitat losses would be replaced by pla nting 

150 acres of suitable trees and shrubs on the reservoir lands as recommended 

by the Bureau of Sport Fish eries and Wildlife. The one unique wild life feature of this area, a cottonwood grove with a sub stantial heron rookery, would 

be protected and preserved.

Adverse environm ental effects

Construction and operation of the North Loup Division would have certain 

adve rse environm ental impacts.

The plan of development recommended for the North Loup Division in the 

Iteev alua tion Statement, Febru ary 1971, has been modified from th at presente d 

in the feasibility repo rt of the Secretary of the Interior which was tra ns mitted to the Congress in 1962 to provide that the natural flows of the North 

Loup and Calam us Rivers will not be diverted for Division purposes during 

July and August and during Septem ber when storage water is ava ilab le to 

meet Division needs. Elim inating or reducing the withdrawals of the na tural 

flows durin g this critical period will reduce the adverse impact downstream on 

the flows of the Calamus, North Loup, and Loup Rivers, and the ecosystems 

associated therewith, and will contribute significantly to mainta inin g the qua lity of the present environment. The cost of the additional facilities required 

for the modified plan adversely affects the economic justification of the proposed development.

The proposed development wou’d result in some increase in the dissolved solids in the North Loup, Loup, and Platte Rivers during summer months from 

irriga tion ret urn flows. The res ult ant wa ter quality would be with in the crite ­

ria specified in the Wa ter Quality Sta ndard s adopted by the Sta te of Nebraska 

and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. As suggested by the Wa ter 

Quality Office, Environmental Protection Agency (formerly Fed eral Wa ter 

Quality Ad ministration), considera tion will be given during advance planning 

to furth er modification of the operation s plan to make add itional wa ter avail ­

able in the month of September in the intere st of wa ter qua lity control.

At conservation capacity, the two rese rvoirs will inunda te 13 miles of the 

Calamus River and 6.295 acres of land inclu ding the associated terrestri al 

wildlife hab itat. The 150 acres of valuable wooded ha bitat would be replaced 

as a project mitigation measure. The effects of Calam us and Davis Creek Reservoirs will be a loss of 750 man-days of stre am fishing, 170 man-days of deer 

and upland-game hunting and a reduction in fur-anim al har ves t of 35 pelts an ­

nually. Land use changes th at would result from the irriga tion of 52.600 acres 

of cropland may have an adverse effect on wildlife habit at and popu lations although this is not indicated or established in the Reevaluation Report of the 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries an d Wildlife on th e North Loup Division.

No significantly unique resource or na tural aesthetic conditions would be ad ­

versely affected by the proposal as the exis ting natur al conditions of the Division are preva lent throughout the region.

A potential for adverse effects such as increased mosquito population, increased sediment production to strea ms, increased stre am pollution from 

anim al feedlots, and pesticide pollution exists in irrigated areas. Such adverse 

effects can be prevented by proper development and management practices.

Provisions have been included in the estimate of construction costs for seeding and mulching where necessary to assure revegetation of all are as bared by 

project construction.

Alternatives to proposed action

Any alt ern ati ve development would either forgo the economic and social benefits to be derived from the proposal or would transpose these benefits to another area . The re are no altern ative means of utilizing the land and wa ter 

resources which would provide equivalent economic, social, and environmen tal 

benefits at comparable costs. The practic al altern atives are limited to va riations in the design and location of the physical works required. Leaving the 

water and the rela ted land resources in their present sta te is not a viable al ­

ternative as this would forgo extensive benefits and constitute the continu atio n 

of an inefficient use of n atu ral and hum an resources.

Numerous altern atives were studied initially in the process of formulati ng 

the plan of development recommended for the North Loup Division. These al-
10

ternatives included various reservoir sites, other facility locations, methods of

irrigation service and lands to be irrigated. Selection of the plan of development recommended in the Secretary of the Interior’s feasibility report which

was transmitted to the Congress in July 1962 was based largely on engineering

and economic considerations and represents the most likely alternative to the

plan presented in the February 1971 Reevaluation Statement. The feasibility

report plan, which did not limit withdrawals of water for irrigation during

the critical summer months, would reduce the estimated construction costs of

the Division by $5.6 million.

Relationship of short-term uses versus long-term needs

The human and natural resources of the area are utilized predominantly in 

an agricultural economy. The fishery and wildlife resources are influenced by 

this association. This relationship is not expected to change materially in the 

future, either with or without the proposed development. Therefore, common 

relationship exists between local short-term use of these resources and the c

need to maintain and enhance the long-term productivity of the environment to 

satisfy human needs.

Irreversible commitment of resources

The proposed North Loup Division would utilize an average of 64,600 acrefeet of the flow of the Calamus River and 72,000 acre-feet of the flow of the 

North Loup River annually to irrigate 52,600 acres of land for the useful life 

of the development, which is considered to be 100 years for the purpose of feasibility evaluation. Such commitment of these water and land resources would 

not be irreversible or irretrievable should uses having a higher value to fulfill 

human needs arise at some future time.

A total of 6,295 acres of land and 13 miles of the Calamus River and the 

ecosystems associated therewith would be inundated by the proposed Calamus 

and Davis Creek Reservoirs.

The commitment of labor and par t of the materials required to construct the 

works would be irreversible and irretrievable.

Executive Office of the President

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, D.C. January 27, 1912. Hon. Henry M. J ackson,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

3106 New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your requests of March 4 and 

August 9, 1971 for the views of the Office of Management and Budget on S. 352 

and S. 2350, two bills “To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, 

operate and maintain the North Loup division, Missouri River Basin project, •

Nebraska, and for other purposes.”

In its report, the Department of the Interior recommends enactment of a 

proposed bill in lieu of either S. 352 or S. 2350. The Office of Management and 

Budget concurs in the views of the Department of the Interior and accordingly 

would have no objection to the enactment of the substitute bill in lieu of ei- *

ther S. 352 or S. 2350.

Sincerely,

Wilfred H. Rommel,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

Senator Burdick. Due to the fact tha t some of the witnesses did 

not notify us in time, there is some disorder regarding the witness 

list, but we will proceed as best we can.

Do I understand tha t Senator Hruska and Senator Curtis are not 

here at the present time? If they are not here, they will be heard 

when they come.

I would like to hear from Mr. Glenn W. Krenscher, who represents the Governor of Nebraska.
11

STATEMENT OF GLENN W. KRENSCHER, REPRE SEN TING THE

HONORABLE J. JAMES EXON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF

NEBRASKA

Mr. Krenscher. T am Glenn Krenscher, representing Governor J. 

James Exon, this morning.

In presenting the Governor’s testimonv with regard to the North 

Loup Divison of the Missouri River Basin project, I have offered a 

copy of the Governor’s testimony, so I will just make some brief remarks regarding his testimony.

Since most of the activity of this development preceeded the current administration, I think it is well to mention and make it a m atter of record, that the current administration supports and 

encourages the same development for this project as you previously 

heard in previous testimony.

Mr. Dan Jones and Mr. Dale Williamson and others from the Department, I think Mr. Carroll Hayman here this morning, will be 

presenting testimony on the technical part, so I will forego any discussion on the technical part.

I think the important thin g to consider is that, as all of you 

know, Nebraska is presently predominantly a rural State, and the 

overwhelming characteristic of that State is in terms of agricultural 

economy. O ur future depends on food production and associated industries.

It is the development of projects like this which can be the most 

meaningful programs to stabilize our economy and furnish futu re 

protection for food and fibre, protection at a time when the appreciation of agricultural land in many populous States becomes desired for our use.

I would like to call to the attention of the committee that while 

you may have some tha t wonder why a person is interested in development, while making reference to surpluses, these are very vague 

food supplies. Just a year ago when blight threatened our corn crop, 

we were in danger of food shortages. If we would have stopped developing our resources in the 1940’s America would be a very hungry nation. I think this is something we need to keep closely in context, the whole economy of the project area has been depressed for 

years, and we have the opportunity to make use of this project.

Today, with the cost of agriculture, drought is something you cannot afford, and it is something we need protection from.

The great need for this project has caused people to put aside 

their differences. I think this is one of the most apparent things I 

have seen about this project. The project now proposed represents 

equitable, and I believe, reasonable separations of differences, as the 

basis of support I previously described.

This upstream-downstream agreement is very significant. The willingness to leave the status quos during all of Jul y and August is a 

big step in preserving the environment and the social and economical and human pluses of this protection, outweighs any adverse effects.

We, of Nebraska are convinced of the benefits tha t will come from 

this project. We know that the past projects have benefits for people 

far beyond the numbers of tba benefit cost ratio.
12

Again, it should be pointed out that the project has met economic 

tests and on top of tha t it has met a very, very important people 

test. The project has been endorsed as a principal part in Nebraska’s 

statewide plan for developing our water resources, and I would like 

to call attention to the committee that finally the legislature has 

without a single objection endorsed this project and joins the Governor in urging early authorization and funding of this division.

The reservoirs associated with this project will be a positive addition to the fate of the State of Nebraska.

Mr. Chairm an, and members of the committee, this project is ur ­

gently needed and Governor Exon wholeheartedly supports its 

authorization.

Thank you. Are there any questions ?

Senator Burdick. Thank you very much. I have a question or two.

You say tha t the interests of Nebraska are united on this plant 

now?

Mr. Krexsciier. Yes, I would say they are.

Senator Burdick. I)o you have any dissidents at all ?

Mr. Krexsciier. I would expect you might have a few people that 

would question some of the environmental effects, but I would like 

to point out this is a project I think can be improved environmentally. If we would have stopped, as I mentioned previously, stopped 

development of our State and had not continued it, we would never 

have been able to keep pace with the great development tha t has 

made us such a leader.

I think we can develop projects as this and meet our environmental requirements. As far as the question of some people offering testimony, where they suggest a wide membership involved by a few 

spokesmen, if we were to combine the national members of the agricultural groups, you would be into the millions if you were to take 

tha t group as to what the best reason is for resource development.

Senator Burdick. I notice in your statement another point that 

deserves consideration; namely, that one-third of the years in Nebraska 

are years of severe drought.

Mr. Krenscher. That ’s right.

Senator Burdick. During what period of time has tha t record 

been kept ?

Mr. Krexsciier. This is over manv years. What you are confronted with in Nebraska, in addition to severe droughts, is tha t 

practically every year we will hit this period of shortage of water 

and it is most important to have projects tha t can carry us through 

this period so that we are able to keep pace today with what the requirements are in production of food and fibre.

Senator Burdick. In other words, if the water supplement was 

available at the particu lar time needed it would be important in 

carrying the crop through ?

Mr. Krexsciier. Yes.

Senator Burdick. We have authorized a project similar to this in 

North D akota and South Dakota, so we know what it means.

Mr. Krexsciier. We just had a symposium at the University of 

Nebraska, where we brought in people from all over the State to 

discuss th is subject. We can see t hat through the development of our
13

resource projects, it would be possible to almost double the economic 

resources of our State.

Senator Burdick. Thank you very much. Your full statement will 

be made a part of the record.

(The prepared statement of Governor Exon follows:)

Statement of Hon. J. J. Exon, Governor of the State of Nebraska

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, one of the most pleasant opportunities I have as governor of Nebraska is to give support to worthwhile 

projects and programs which are forward looking, well thought out and 

strongly supported within the State. The O’Neill Unit project is in that category and the long time that has been involved in coming to this point only increases my pleasure in assisting to build your record by setting forth my position as clearly as I can.

Jus t as you do, I daily face the problem of deciding which, among a variety 

of good programs and projects, are of such value that they deserve immediate 

action and a priority in the use of what is always too small a purse.

Your committee will be receiving testimony of several Nebraska State agencies. Mr. Dan Jones, Director of the Conservation and Survey Division of the 

University of Nebraska and Mr. Dayle Williamson, Executive Secretary of the 

Soil and Water Conservation Commission are here to not only present their 

statements but to answer questions. Therefore, I don’t propose to discuss the 

technical aspects of this project at all. Instead, I would like to make a few 

general points regarding the importance of this project to all of Nebraska and 

our state position toward it.

The State of Nebraska is a State composed of mostly agricultural lands. We 

have our urban areas but these are primarily in the eastern section of our 

state. After leaving this eastern sector of Nebraska, the economy basically relies on the extensive farm lands of central Nebraska and the cattle production 

in the vast sandhill areas of western Nebraska.

In looking to Nebraska’s future, we must base our future on a continuing 

advancement of the agricultural economy.

When we look at the overall use of the agricultural lands in Nebraska, we 

find our future will depend very definitely in increasing our support on a 

state’s agricultural production that can support the citizens and communities 

of our rural state. It would be impossible for Nebraska to use these lands for 

purposes other than agricultural production.

Because of our great dependence on agriculture, land and water development 

is of more than passing importance in Nebraska. Such development is absolutely essential if we are to develop and maintain the vigorous economy required to hold our youth in the state, let alone on our many family farms.

Another point tha t deserves your consideration is the fact tha t something 

like one-third of the years in Nebrasks are years of severe drought. Irrig ation 

is desperately needed to give the farmer some stability of production he can 

plan for and count on.

The O’Neill Unit project, like most others which reach this committee, has 

had a long history in which it has been necessary to meet and overcome a 

long series of delays. I admire the persistence and patience of the sponsors. 

They have tenaciously continued in spite of every setback until today to my 

knowledge, every obstacle has been overcome.

From the time it was conceived, the project has never been cause for the upstream-downstream division of opinion which often arises. From the indications of support I have received, I am convinced that an unusual degree of unanimity exists throughout the basin in favor of the project.

This project has received some publicity, locally at least, with regard to 

possible bad environmental effects which might result from its construction. 

Because the environemnt is such a major national concern at the present time, 

I want to deal specifically with this point.

First of all, I think we must realize man lives in more than just a physical 

environment. He also must live in an economic environment and a social environment. Taken together, these plus perhaps some others determine the quality 

of our lives. I believe it is this quality of life that we seek, not merely preservation in every case of the physical environment’s status quo.

79 -7 0 4 0 - 72 - 2
14

There is no doubt tha t construction and operation of the O’Neill project will 

cause a decrease in the flows of the Niobrara River. One can’t argue that the 

reservoir will put some nineteen of the four hundred miles of the Niobrara 

Valley under water. However, in addition to the old recognized values of irr igation and flood control, it will also create a tree lined reservoir which will be 

a place of real beauty. It will give us an opportunity to develop a recreational 

fishery that presently does not exist in the Niobrara River and it will be the 

base of an increasingly important tourist industry.

The State, through the several agencies and boards involved in resource development and ownership of our public lands, has spent considerable time in 

balancing the environmental pluses and minuses of the project. We feel that athe pluses far outweight the negative environmental effects and tha t the project, from an environmental standpoint, will be a major and definite asset to

Nebraska. Certainly then, when viewing this project in the full perspective of

its contribution to the overall quality of life in the Niobrara Basin and in Nebraska, there can be no doubt as to its desirability. *

The need for this project and the substantial public support in Nebraska for 

its authorization and construction has resulted in numerous endorsements of 

the project within the state. The O’Neill project is included as a principal feature of Nebraska’s State Water Plan which has been endorsed by the legislature without a single dissent, and the legislature has by resolution specifically 

requested congress to provide early authorization and funding of this project.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want the records to show 

tha t as Governor of the State of Nebraska and on behalf of the people of Nebraska, I fully support the authorization of the O’Neill project and urge you 

to favorably act on it at the earliest time possible.

Senator Burdick. I see Senator Hrus ka has arrived in the hearing 

room. You are next, sir.

Senator Hrus ka is one of the sponsors of this legislation and we 

are pleased to have him with us.

STA TEM ENT OE HON. ROMAN L. HRUSK A, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

TH E STA TE OF NEB RAS KA

Senator H ruska. Air. Chairman. T would like to inform the Chair 

tha t my colleage is on his way to Washington. He should be here at 

11:15 or so.

Aly oral statement w’ill be short, Air. Chairman. I have prepared 

a longer statement which I would like to insert in the record.

Senator Burdick. Without objection it will be received.

Senator Hruska. In th is way we will give the committee the bene- ,

fit of the convictions and thinking we have arrived at about the 

merit of this plan. By doing that the witnesses who have come a 

long way will have more time.

Nebraska is familiar w ith the pattern and with the basis for pro jects like this because it has shared in their benefits. We know how 

things are set up, we know how they are contracted for, what obligations are placed upon those for whom—in whose area the project is 

built. We also have witnessed the fruits tha t have come from similar 

projects. We believe that the technology is here, the necessary justification fo r a sound project are present in this instance and we urge 

the committee to study it carefully and to give us the benefit of any 

thinking they might have on it, and to authorize the project so we 

may go forwa rd with it.

Senator Burdick. Are you fam iliar with the cost benefit ratios 

and the technical aspects of the project?

Senator Hruska. The benefit cost ratio ?
15

Senator Burdick. I was coming to how the new proposed interest 

rate might affect this project.

Senator Hruska. We are honeful this will not be in the category 

tha t will fall by the wayside. We are hopeful that the new table of 

rates which is under consideration will take into account many 

things which are beyond the moneylenders consideration. But that 

remains to be figured out and the policy of the Congress has always 

been a kindly one for projects of this kind, and we hope it will continue.

Senator Burdick. I have a repo rt here, a memorandum, that ind icates th at the economic analysis of this project has been made using 

a discount of 3*4 percent, because it was transmitted to Congress 

prior to the formula adopted in 1968. The current discount rate will 

be 5% percent, so that will have a bearing on the benefit-----

Senator H ruska. It will indeed. There are social values, other values tha t all of us know. When we find the huge sums tha t are 

pumped into many metropolitan areas and we have a national policy 

to buildup and make more of those areas which are nonurban, we 

have to get into considerations other than, like I said a little while 

ago, the money lenders viewpoit.

It will depend upon the general policies which the Congress will 

want to adopt in that regard.

Senator Burdick. And I, like you, am very concerned with tha t 

policy.

Senator Hruska. Yes.

Senator Burdick. Thank you very much.

Senator Hruska. Th ank you, sir.

(The complete statement of Senator Hruska follows:)

Statem ent of Hon. R oman L. Hrus ka, a U.S. Senator from th e State

of Nebraska

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present my views on 

the North Loup Irrigation Project to your subcommittee. As you can well imagine, I have very pronounced views on the desirability and necessity of the 

project since I have worked for it, supported it and spoken out in behalf of it 

since it was first proposed many years ago.

Those of us who are concerned with the welfare and the future of central 

Nebraska are very hopeful this year tha t the project will receive your subcommittee’s favorable consideration.

Senator Curtis and I introduced legislation in 1963 and 1965 to authorize the 

project. Although reports were requested from the Department of Interior and 

the Bureau of the Budget, they were not received, and action by the Interior 

Committee wras thus precluded.

The bill you are ow studying was introduced by Senator Curtis and me last 

July, and I am happy to report that it has received a favorable recommendation from the Department of Interior and the Office of Management and 

Budget.

The North Loup Project would provide irrigation for about 53,000 acres of 

land in an area where rainfall is marginal and the water table has been steadily declining. A recent report from the Conservation and Survey Division of 

the University of Nebraska indicates tha t a downward trend of water levels 

has been established in the past three to seven years. Wells in the project area 

show declines of water levels from five to seven feet.

Since irrigation is essential to the economy of the area, the reduction of 

grouped water is of vital significance. Without the supplemental water w’hich 

can be provided only by the North Loup unit, the economy of the entire area 

will be adversely effected. The additional water will provide impetus to rural
16

development and stabilization by increasing both crop production and diversification.

Further enhancing the value of this worthwhile project are the cost and environmental benefits it will provide. Estimated annual benefits will include 

S3.955.000 in irrigation benefits, $28,000 in fish and wildlife and $37,000 in recreation.

This project holds great promise for residents of the area, Mr. Chairman. Its 

present and future benefits are virtually incalculable. The project is greatly 

needed and your subcommittee’s approval is earnestly sought.

Senator Burdick. Now, we will hear Mr. Ellis Armstrong, Com- >

missioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.

STATEMENT OF ELLIS L. ARMSTRONG, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU

OF RECLAMATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL V. McCARTHY,

CHIEF OF PLAN NING DIVISION, AND JOHN F. MAYNE, AREA

ENGINEER, GRAND ISLAND, NEBR.

Mr. Armstrong. I have with me Mr. Daniel V. McCarthy, Chief 

of our Plannin g Division in Washington, and Mr. John F. Mayne, 

our area engineer in Grand Island, Nebr.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Water and 

Power Resources.

We are pleased to appear today to testify on the legislation to authorize the construction of the proposed North Loup Division of the 

Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, Nebraska. The Secretary’s feasibility report on this Division was submitted to the Congress on 

July 25, 1962, and was printed as House document No. 491, 87th 

Congress.

The views of the Department of the Inte rior on the bills S. 2350 

and S. 352 were presented in our letter of February 2, 1972, to the 

chairman of the Committee on I nterior and Insu lar Affairs. We note 

the following pen and ink changes tha t have been made to correct 

typographical errors in that le tte r: on page 2, last paragraph, 32,000 

changed to 30,000; and on page 3, first paragra ph, change 

$76,641,000 to $76,466,000, $3,634,000 to $3,459,000, and $2,921,000 to 

$2,915,000. Enactment of a substitute measure to provide conformity to other recently enacted measures authorizing units of the 

Pick-Sloan Missouri basin program is recommended in lieu of the ♦

several amendments tha t would be required to conform S. 2350 and 

S. 352.

Portions of the North Loup Division were originally authorized 

as a pa rt of the Missouri River Basin project by the Flood Control ♦

Acts of 1944 and 1946. However, the provisions of Public Law 

88—142 require reauthorization by the Congress of any units of the 

Missouri River Basin project on which construction was not underway as of August 14,1964.

The proposed Division, a multiple-purpose water and related land 

resources development, would provide for irrigation , enhancement of 

outdoor recreation opportunities, and conservation and development 

of fish and wildlife resources.

The basic plan of development as presented in House document 

No. 491, has been supplemented and modified by a reevaluation 

statement dated February 1971 which was a part of the Department’s report on S. 2350 and S. 352.
17

The North Loup Division involves an area where the predominantly agricultural economy has suffered extensively from inadequate natural moisture conditions. This has tended to limit 

dependable farm production and income and has adversely affected 

the interdependent urban economy. Lack of both job opportunities 

in the towns and stable employment on the farms has resulted in 

substatial out-migration from the area, particularly by the younger 

people. In fact, they have lost about one-third of the population

’ since 1940.

The display map shows the general location of the plan of the 

North Loup Divison in central Nebraska. Principal features of the 

plan as presented in House document 491 include: Calamus and 

Davis Creek dams and reservoirs, Geranium pumping plant, 375 

miles of canals and laterals, associated works for irrigation of 52,570 

acres of irrigable land, and facilities for recreation and incidental 

fish and wildlife uses.

Calamus Dam would be an earthfill structure about 85 feet 

above streambed with a crest length of about 6,400 feet. T otal capacity in Calamus Reservoir at the top of the conservation pool would 

be 128,200 acre-feet. Davis Creek Dam would also be an earthfill 

structure rising about 100 feet above streambed and 2,900 feet long. 

Total capacity in Davis Creek Reservoir at the top of the conservation pool would be 32,500 acre-feet.

Rights-of-way adequate for construction, operation and maintenance of Calamus and Davis Creek dams and reservoirs, the prin cipal regulation and storage works, would require the acquisition of 

approximately 13,450 acres of land.

Changes in the plan of development from tha t presented in the 

Secretary’s 1962 feasibility report resulted from furthe r consideration of the effect of the proposal on the flows of the Calamus and 

Loup Rivers, particularly during the summer months. Downstream 

interests, including a power district, municipalities, irrig ators, and 

others expressed concern over the cumulative effects of upstream irrigation development on the summer flows of theX^wp River.

By increasing the conservation capacity in the storage and regulatory reservoirs, the recommended plan presented in the February

* 1971 reevaluation statement would allow the project to fulfill its 

purposes without using water from the Calamus or North Loup Rivers during the critical water months of Jul y and August of every 

year as well as during most Septembers. Under the proposed plan,

* the natu ral flows would be by passed in those months to alleviate 

downstream municipalities’ concerns for river flows to recharge their 

well fields near the river. Such flows would also maintain downstream environmental conditions.

As a result of these changes, the proposal now has the full support of all concerned organizations and local and State agencies. In 

addition, national objectives would be served by maintaining and enhancing the quality of the environment.

Water requirements for the Division would average 137,400 acrefeet annually and would consist of direct flow and storage diversions 

from both the North Loup and Calamus Rivers.

The irrig ation service area of 52,570 acres of irrigable land is located in the upland and valley areas along the North Loup and
18

Loup Rivers. Project pumps would be required to serve about 10,000 

acres of the higher lying lands, and the balance would be supplied 

by gravity. Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program power would be 

utlized for pumping energy. Ground-water pumping for irrigation 

in the proposed service area has been increasing, particularly during 

dry years. Nebraska records of Jan uar y 1, 1972, list 264 wells in 

Valley County. Ground-water levels have dropped 12 feet in some 

places since 1967 with an average decline for the period 1967-71 of 

5.6 feet in Valley County.

The project’s assured water supply would yield total benefits from 

irrigation of $3,804,800 annually. There are many additional beneficial impacts that are induced by or stem from the increased production of irrigated land. A study which was made by the University of 

Nebraska and released in 1968, entitled “Economic Impact of Ir ri ­

gated Agriculture on the Economy of Nebraska,” determined tha t 

for each dollar of increased production due to irrigation , a total of 

$6.68 of economic activity occurs within the State. On this basis, it 

can be projected tha t irrigation development of the North Loup Division would stimulate an additional $36 million of business activity 

in Nebraska each year. This impact would result in employment opportunities for many segments of the State’s economy. Not measured 

by the University of Nebraska, but of recognized importance, is th at 

there would be additional positive economic impact occurring in 

other parts of the Nation. The stimulative effects of alternative Fed ­

eral programs have not been analyzed.

In its report (H. Rept. 91-986) on H.R. 780, 91st Congress, to authorize the Merlin Division, Rogue River Basin project, Oregon, for 

construction, the House Interior committee suggested tha t testimony 

in hearings on future reclamation authorizations take note of employment benefits created by the development of the project in any case 

where unemployment or underemployment jn the immediate county 

or region is greater than the national average. In keeping with tha t 

suggestion, we have made such an evaluation of the constraints of present policy and procedure, but have not included these benefits as a 

part of the economic analyses in the reevaluation statement, because 

it is assumed that employment opportunities elsewhere are the major 

reason for local population loss.

Agricultu ral Economic R eport No. 166 of the Department of Agriculture, dated October 1969, shows th at in 1960 the economic u nderemployment of the civilian labor force as measured by the median 

income was severe for nearly all of Nebraska. Fo r the six-county division area, the median income was only 46 percent of the median 

income of the Nation as a whole. Evidence tha t this severe underemployment still exists is contained in the 1970 population census. The 

six counties in which the North Loup Division would be located experienced an overall population loss of 9 percent from 1960 to 1970. 

This loss was during a period when the State was gaining 5 percent 

in population and the United States 14 percent. A chronic lack of 

employment opportunities together with significant underemployment of human resource—low median family income—are major factors contributing to population loss.

Construction and operation and maintenance of th e division would 

provide local employment opportunities for unskilled and semi-
19

skilled labor. In addition, there would be a substantial increase in 

demand for hired farm labor. Local employment benefits have been 

computed to be about $318,000 annually.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has estimated that the total 

annual visitation at the proposed reservoirs would average about 

50,000 days annually. Sepcific recreation facilities would include interior roads, park ing areas, picnic areas, sanitary facilities, and boat 

ramps. These facilities would be located at designated day-use areas, 

camping areas, and at other specified areas adjacent to the reservoirs. Lands that would be acquired for other reservoir purposes 

would adequately serve the recreation needs. The recreation benefits 

have been evaluated at $37,500 annually.

The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild life recommends that 

conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources be authorized as a project purpose. Although no specific enhancement 

measures are proposed, it is estimated the fishing and hun ting use 

would increase by 18,900 fishermen and 170 hunter days annually as 

an incidental result of project development. Benefits for this purpose 

would tottal $28,700 annually. Mitigatory measures would include 

establishing 150 acres of replacement habitat, and fencing of H ar tford Grove, a mature cottonwood grove with an unusual understory 

growth which is utilized by a large number of g reat blue herons as a 

nesting rookery.

The Calamus River is not subject to flooding because the sandy 

soils, native grass cover, and the dune-type to pography of the dra inage basin combine to prevent almost all surface runoff from reaching the river. Davis Creek Dam and Reservoir would be located on a 

small trib utary of Davis Creek and would have only six and onehalf square miles of tributary drainage. In its evaluation, the Corps 

of Engineers concluded tha t no significant flood control benefits 

w’ould result from the construction and operation of the division 

and that provision of flood control storage in the reservoirs would 

be neither warranted nor feasible.

The total annual equivalent benefits anticipated from development 

of the North Loup Division are approximately $3.9 million of which 

about $3.2 million are direct benefits.

The estimated construction cost of the division, based on October 

1970 prices, is $73,400,000. In additon, $1,200,000 of the Pick-Sloan 

Missouri Basin program power investment allocated for irrigation 

pumping has been assigned to the division. The project and assigned 

costs total $74,600,000. Annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs are estimated at $324,000.

The economic justification is based on a Federal investment of 

$76,500,000 which consists of $74,600,000 of project and assigned 

costs and $3,500,000 of interest during construction less $1,600,000 of 

preauthorization investigations costs. The computed annual equivalent cost associated with this investment, based on a 100-year period 

of analysis at 31/4 percent interest, plus the estimated annual operation and maintenance costs tota l $2,900,000. The ratio of total evaluated annual benefits to the estimated annual equivalent costs is 1.3 to 

1.0. The ratio of direct benefits to costs is 1.1 to 1.0.

Senator Burdick. Have you tried to analyze what the ratio would 

be if they were based on a 50-year period ?
20

Mr. Armstrong. They wouldn’t be much different.

It is estimated tha t construction costs have increased by 9 percent 

since October 1970—the price level used in our reevaluation statement. Total project cost would be increased to $79,500,000 as of Ja nuary 1972. Using Jan uary 1972 costs, and without any other changes 

in the economic analysis, benefits would exceed costs in the ratio of 

1.2 to 1 and 1.0 to 1 for total and direct benefits, respectively.

The division costs have been allocated as follows: Irrigation, 

$71,900,000; recreation, $362,000; and fish and wildlife, $750,000. •

The irrigation costs would be repaid without interest over a 50-year 

period of which about $13,800,000 would be derived from the local 

beneficiaries and the remainder from Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin 

program power revenues. *

Power revenues are in prospect which will repay the balance of 

the reimbursable irrigation costs within 50 years plus a development 

period.

Senator Burdick. How much have you estimated you need from 

power revenues ?

Mr. Armstrong. Approximately $58 million.

Senator Burdick. Will those funds be available at that time ?

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.

In accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, the 

Twin Loups Reclamation District has indicated by letter dated July 

28, 1969, its intent to administer the land and water areas of the 

division for fish and wildlife, and recreation, and to repay the associated reimbursable costs with interest. The reimbursable costs allocated to recreation amount to $175,000 for construction, $3,000 for 

interest during constructon, and $25,000 for annual operation, maintenance, and replacement. There are no reimbursable costs allocated 

to fish and wildlife because there are no separable lands or facilities.

The remaining costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife 

would be nonreimbursable as provided by law.

Senator Burdick. H ow much does tha t come to; what percentage 

of the project?

Mr. Armstrong. Ninety-nine percent will be repaid, leaving 1 percent non-reimbursable.

Senator Burdick. One percent is nonreimbursable and applies to >

the fish and wildlife ?

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, and recreation.

Repayment of irrigation and recreation costs would total abut 

$72,100,000 or nearly 99 percent of the total project and assigned •

costs.

The impact of construction and operation of the North Loup 

Division upon the human environment has been examined pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. O ur studies show 

tha t the impact would be very favorable on both the social and economic environment of the region. Construction of the two reservoirs 

having a combined surface area of nearly 6,300 acres would create 

water-oriented outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife resources 

and provide facilities for the public’s use and enjoyment. The existing economy of the area would benefit from the stabilizing effect of 

irrigation production and from the impact of increased production
21

on the servicing, marketing, and processing industries in Nebraska 

and the Nation employment opportunities in a nonurban environment would be improved.

The adverse effects on the environment would be limited prin cipally to inundatin g 13 miles of the Calamus River, the loss of nat ural wildlife habitat and agricultural lands, together with the 

dislocation of people and existing farm ing and ranching operations 

in the two proposed reservoir areas. There are presently nine in the 

area where people are living.

As previously mentioned, a unique ecological feature of the area, a 

mature cottonwood grove having an unusual understory growth and 

which also constitutes great blue heron nesting rookery, would be 

protected and preserved.

The Federal Water Quality Administration, now the Office of 

Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, reviewed the 

proposed plan and concluded tha t the applicable dissolved oxygen 

standards for the North Loup and Loup Rivers would be met. The 

return flows from irrig ation would cause some increase in the concentration of dissolved solids; however, the resultant water quality 

would remain well within acceptable State -Federal standards.

The agency also recommended that further revision of the operation plan to make a portion of any excess July flows available in 

September be considered. No excess July flows at Calamus Dam are 

anticipated. However, operational criteria for months other than 

July and August will be studied furthe r during post authorization 

invesigations in an effort to improve the September flow condition, 

if possible.

A more detailed statement of the effects the proposed development 

would have on the human environment has been prepared pursuant 

to Section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 and submitted to the Council on Environmental Quality as 

required by the act. A copy of the statement accompanied the 

Department’s legislative report on S. 2350 and S. 352.

During post authorization the status of the existing irrig ation in 

the project service area would be reassessed to avoid duplication of 

facilities and to assure the optimum development of the land and 

water resources of the area. This would involve further consideration of the ground-water uses by some irrig ators in the project area, 

possible lowering of ground-water levels, the alternative service 

areas identified in the Secretary’s report, and other similar matters.

Analyses would also be made to determine the extent to which 

lining canals and laterals or using an underground pipe distribution 

system would be justified. Refinements in the plan of development 

would also be accomplished. During the postauthorization study 

period, repayment contracts would be negotiated and executed with 

the existing local districts.

Local support for the North Loup Division is strong as is evidenced in the record of the hearings held before the Subcommittee 

on Irrigation and Reclamation, House of Representatives, at Ord, 

Nebr., on Jul y 17, 1970. This support is further evidenced by the 

early organization of the Twin Loups Reclamation and Irriga tion 

Districts, which have indicated their willingness to consummate the
22

required repayment contracts and assume the operation and maintenance responsibilities.

The Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission endorses 

the authorization and construction of the proposed North Loup 

Division as a principal element of its State Water Plan Framework 

Study and an optimum development of the land and water resources 

of the area. On February 22, 1972, in Resolution 42, the Nebraska 

Legislature unanimously adopted the framework study of the 

Nebraska State Water Plan. The Nebraska Legislature also on Feb- *

ruary 22, 1972, unanimously adopted Resolution 44 supporting this 

development.

This proposed development is urgently needed and the local 

people have worked diligently for years to bring th is proposal to its 

present status. No better answer to the Nation’s urban problems can 

be found than by providing the economic opportunities necessary to 

support a favorable population distribution in rural areas such as 

this.

Therefore, we believe tha t the North Loup Division is a highly 

desirable water and related land resources development. It is economically justified and engineeringly and financially feasible. The 

beneficial effects of development would be great and widespread. I 

recommend favorable consideration of S. 2350 and S. 352, if 

amended, to include provisions of theDepartment’s substitute measures as set forth in the legislative repo rt of Febru ary 2,1972.

That, Mr. Chairman, is my statement.

Senator Burdick. Thank you very much. I notice there has been a 

Department substitute bill recommended ?

Mr. Armstrong. Yes.

Senator Burdick. What are the chief differences between the 

Department substitute bill and the present legislation?

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. McCarthy.

Senator Burdick. Would you state your name?

Mr. McCarthy. Daniel V. McCarthy, chief of the Plan ning Division.

The prim ary difference is we deleted a reference to reclamation 

law. When it is authorized under the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin 

program, the law would apply to the division by its own terms. ¥

Second, we suggested the deletion of section 4 of the bill which is 

the section which applies or states t ha t within 10 years after authorization of the project there will be no surplus crop grown on newly 

irrigated land. These are the two primary changes; the others are »

minor drafting changes.

Senator Burdick. Why did you delete section 4?

Mr. Armstrong. This area is p rima rily a corn growing area, Senator, and with a dependable water supply it will become, as has hap ­

pened in the area to the south, a staple crop production area.

Senator Burdick. Do you know what the size of the corn crop 

was last year ?

Mr. Armstrong. In this area ?

Senator Burdick. In the country.

Mr. Armstrong. Pre tty good, because they overplanted because of 

the blight problem.
23

Senator B urdick. I ask this, in all of the projects t ha t come before 

the committee, they have had a surplus crop.

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. In this instance we felt this will develop 

into a livestock producing area as has been done by the areas to the 

south. And thus, the contribution of the corn, for instance, will not 

add to the national surplus.

Senator Burdick. I understand, the elimination of section 4, what 

is the third factor?

Mr. McCarthy. Deletion of a reference to the project being covered by the Federal reclamation law. When it is authorized as a pa rticip ating unit of the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin program, we don’t 

need this reference to reclamation law.

Senator Burdick. I t has no effect or meaning then ?

Mr. McCarthy. No, Sir.

Senator Burdick. Ninety-nine percent of this project is reimbursable because you get $58 million from the Missouri River Basin 

Fund?

Mr. Armstrong. That is true.

Senator Burdick. And the balance of the 99 percent comes from 

power revenues ?

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, power revenues.

Senator Burdick. What crops are raised in this area now ?

Mr. Armstrong. Corn, alfalfa, grain. Sorghum, and small grain. 

About 50 percent of the arable lands are in pasture.

Senator Burdick. In your studies, what do they intend to raise 

afte r the water is there ?

Mr. Armstrong. We anticipate tha t a dependable supply of water 

will enable them then to establish a livestock industry. As of now 

the area is exporting feed grains. With the development of the pro ject we anticipate it will reverse and be an importing area for feed 

grains.

Senator Burdick. The nature of the crops won’t change, will 

they ? The type of crops wouldn’t change very much ?

Mr. Armstrong. I expect some pasture land, will be used for 

cropland.

Senator Burdick. That will be put into corn?

Mr. Mayne. We expect the kind of crops, corn and alfa lfa and 

pasture land to remain as they are now.

Senator Burdick. 'Except you have a more reliable moisture at 

least ?

Mr. Mayne. Yes, Sir.

Senator Burdick. In other words, you are going to intensify the 

growth of what you are growing now, mainly ?

Mr. Armstrong. Intensify and have an assured production.

Senator Burdick. You testified tha t the cost-benefit ratio, based on 

the present costs, is now down to 1 to 1. Pages 7 and 8.

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, based on Jan uary 1972 costs.

Senator Burdick. Just barely under unity.

Mr. Armstrong. Yes barely at unity.

Senator Burdick. This is based on the interest rate of 314 percent, 

isn’t it?
24

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, which is the rate in accordance with the 

regulations th at apply in this instance.

Senator B urdick. What would the cost-benefit ratio be if the proposed interest ra te were applied on this project?

Mr. Armstrong. You mean 5^4 percent?

Senator Burdick. Yes.

Mr. Armstrong. About 0.7 to 1 for direct and 0.8 to 1 for total 

benefits. Of course, there are many factors tha t enter into the project 

tha t are not a pa rt of the benefit-cost ratio. So it becomes a matter 

of t rying to evaluate what these overall effects are and then judging 

their impact on the project.

Senator Burdick. This project can be repaid in 50 years, can’t it?

Mr. Armstrong. Yes.

Senator Burdick. I s tha t after development ?

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, afte r 10 years of development. Up to 10 

years maximum.

Senator Burdick. Have you calculated how many dollars will be 

required to meet the new proposed interest criteria for this project, 

in dollars? How much would it increase the cost?

Mr. Armstrong. There would be no increase in project cost.

Senator Burdick. The total costs are going to increase, with the 

increased interest ?

Mr. Armstrong. I see what you mean, you are talking about the 

annual cost ?

Senator Burdick. Yes.

Mr. Armstrong. I don’t seem to have that.

Senator Burdick. Will you supply me with a figure to indicate 

what the difference would be between the 3% and 514?

Mr. Armstrong. There would be no difference in the payout, Senator. Tha t has no effect on it. This is a way of measuring the benefits and costs. This is based on the procedures by which these evaluations are made. I t has no effect on the amount of payoffs.

Senator Burdick. I see.

Supply me with the differences the interest rates will make.

Mr. Armstrong. All right, fine.

(The information follows:)

Annual benefits: 3*4 percent equals $3,871,000 and 5% percent equals 

$3,740,800.

Senator Burdick. I think tha t completes the questions I have at 

this time, Mr. Armstrong.

Air. Armstrong. Thank you, Air. Chairman.

Senator Burdick. Our next witness is Air. Dan Jones, Jr., director 

of the Department of Water Resources, State of Nebraska.

STATEMENT OF TED JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NEBRASKA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, LINCOLN, NEBR., ON BEHALF OF DAN JONES, JR., DIRECTOR OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. J ohnson. I am Ted Johnson, chairman of the soil and water 

conservation. Dan Jones cannot attend this morning.

Senator Burdick. Very well. Has Dan Jones a statement to file?

Air. J ohnson. Yes, it has been filed.
25

Senator Burdick. Very well, it will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Johnson, do you want vour statement filed, is that it ?

Mr. J ohnson. No, on behalf of the soil and water conservation, I 

would like to read my statement, but I am speaking for Dan Jones 

of the water resources.

Senator Burdick. All righ t, you may proceed.

Mr. J ohnson. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, I am Ted Johnson, chairman

* of the Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission. I welcome this opportunity to state the commission’s position in favor of 

authorization of the North Loup division project in Nebraska.

Among its several authorities the commission has the responsibility to plan, develop, and encourage the implementation of a comprehensive program of resource development, conservation, and utilization for the soil and water resources of Nebraska. This broad 

responsibility assigned by the State legislature is reflected in the 

compositon of commission members and advisors which represent 

municipal and industrial water users; watershed districts; soil and 

water conservation districts; irrig ation districts; business interests; 

health officials: recreation interests; power interests; the Governor’s 

office; and the University of Nebraska.

As part of the broad responsibility for water and related land 

resources planning, the commission is charged with prep aration of 

Nebraska’s State Water Plan. In May, 1971, the commission completed and presented to the Nebraska Legislature a repo rt on the 

framework study which is to act as a broad flexible guide for future 

water resources development in the State. After review of the 

Framework Study Report, the legislature adopted a resolution 

accepting the framework study as a flexible guide for in-basin development of the State’s water resources. The North Loup project is 

included in tha t basic framework for development and is an integral 

part of Nebraska’s State Water Plan.

Just last month the legislature adopted Resolution 44 memorializing the Congress to provide early authorization and funding of the 

North Loup division. A copy of tha t resolution is attached to the 

statement submitted for the record. Legislative Resolution 51 of the 

t

last legislative session requested similar action. A copy of that resolution is also attached.

Residents of the local area tha t would be affected by project construction have for nearly 25 years worked enthusiastically for this

* project. In 1954 the desire for the project was shown by formation 

of the Twin Loup reclamation district. Fou r years later this continuing support resulted in formation of the Twin Loup irrigation 

district. Residents of the area to be benefitted from the project have 

worked long and hard to bring the project proposal from an idea in 

rural Nebraska to where it is before you here today.

At the beginning of Nebraska’s State Water planning activities, 

this project was examined by the Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission. They issued a policy statement which urged the 

Congress of the United States to take early action to authorize the 

North Loup project for construction and operation as part of the 

Missouri River Basin project. That policy statement was unani-
26

mously adopted by the Commission in November 2, 1967. It was re ­

affirmed last month and a copy is attached to the statement submitted for the record.

At field hearings conducted by the House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on irrigation and Reclamation held in Ord, Nebr., on 

July 17, 1970, the commission, along with four other State agencies 

and the Governor of Nebraska, presented statements encouraging authorization of the North Loup project. At those field hearings support for the project was demonstrated all the way from the individ- *

ual farm er to the State level. Nothing has changed, the support is 

still there.

Nearly 53,000 acres in the valleys of the Loup and the North 

Loup Rivers are suitable for irrigation and could be supplied with 

water from this project. Neither ground nor surface water is presently available to supplement the naturally low precipitation in this 

area. Irriga tion water supplied from this project would provide the 

diversification of crops which in turn would help stabilize the rural 

economy. This area of the State has, in the past, experienced outmigration of population and all of the problems which accompany it.

Irrigation and resulting stabilization of the rural economy would 

help hold the youth in the area and lessen the impact of migration 

into urban centers.

Although this is mainly an irrig atio n project, recreation, fish and 

wildlife benefits will be realized. These benefits are estimated to be 

small, about 1 percent, but past experience shows that we generally 

underestimate these activities around water areas. This does, of 

course, result in nearly 99 percent of the estimated project costs 

being reimbursable to the Federal Treasury. In addition, the irrigation district sponsoring the project has provided a le tter of intent to 

costshare the project’s recreation enhancement facilities in accordance with the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act. The commission believes that the environmental improvements to be provided by 

this project are fa r in excess of any environmental detriments.

Old controversies have been resolved. The project has support 

throughout the basin. It is included as an integral part of Nebraska’s State Water Plan , supported by the Governor and by all the 

State resource agencies. It was reevaluated by the Bureau of Recla- *

mation in 1971, and found to meet all Federal requirements for authorization and construction.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I urge your favorable action towards authorization of this worthwhile project. We >

in Nebraska believe that this is a sound investment in the future of 

our State and of our country.

Than k you.

Senator Burdick. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Were you in the hearing room when the Commissioner testified ?

Mr. J ohnson. Yes, sir.

Senator Burdick. In the original bill as filed by the Senator from 

Nebraska, there was a section 4 in the bill. Being from an agricultural area, and having discussed this matter with many of our colleagues, we find there is considerable resistance to having farm 

programs sponsored by the Fede ral Government create more sur-
27

pluses. I was wondering what your feeling was about keeping section 4 in it, because it may be much easier to pass this legislation 

with section 4 in it tha n with section 4 out.

There is quite a development period, you know. I wonder if there 

is an objection to leaving Section 4 in.

Mr. J ohnson. Well, being a farmer myself in the area, I would 

almost have to answer like the Commissioner did, this is a more personal thing than anything else. I thin k surpluses are a temporary 

process and the scare we had when we thought we were going to 

have the corn blight and so forth , why we thought our surpluses 

were going to be wiped out. I don’t know how meaningful this is. 

This is my personal opinion.

Senator Burdick. You say tha t surpluses aren’t going to be there 

very long, this isn’t going to be b uilt tomorrow either, it may come 

together at the same time.

Mr. J ohnson. Frankly , Senator, speaking for the Commission, 

this has not been discussed at all. I wouldn’t be able to make a statement as fa r as the Commission is concerned.

Senator Burdick. Wh at is amazing to me is tha t the Senators had 

it in their bill.

Mr. J ohnson. Yes, I see the problem.

Senator Burdick. Thank you, very much.

(The statement of Dan Jones, and other material referred to by 

Mr. Johnson follows:)

Statement of Dan S. Jones, Jr., Director Department of Water

Resources State of Nebraska

Mr. Chairman : My name is Dan S. Jones, Jr., and I am Director of the Nebraska Department of Water Resources, a position I have held for more than 

twenty years. The Department has jurisidction over all matters pertaining to 

water rights for irrigation, power and other useful purposes. It also has jurisdiction in the formation of irrigation districts, reclamation districts and other 

types of water districts.

I have followed closely the plan of the North Loup Division since its inception. The formation of the Twin Loups Reclamation District, a conservancy 

type district organized within the North Loup Division, was approved by the 

Department in 1954, and the Twin Loups Irriga tion District formation was approved in 1958. With these two districts functioning the necessary local entities are available to enter into repayment contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation for the North Loup Division.

I am in accord with the stipulation entered into on February 19, 1969, by 

the Twin Loups Reclamation District and the Lower Loup Platte Association, 

which provides tha t the Department in approving the district’s water rights 

shall impose the condition tha t no natural flows of the North Loup or Calamus 

Rivers may be diverted for the irrigation of lands in the North Loup Division 

during the months of July and August of any year, and also in September if 

storage water is available at tha t time for such lands. Through this stipulation it is assured that irrigation on the North Loup Division will not deplete 

the water supply of the Calamus and North Loup Rivers during those months.

The North Loup Project is a desirable one, and I urge that your Committee 

support its authorization by acting favorably on S. 2350.
LEGISLATURE OF NEBRASKA 

EIGHTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE 

SECOND SESSION

LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION M

Introduced by the Interim Study Committee on State Water Planning, Maurice A. Kremer, 3^th District; Irving 

F. Wiltse, 1st District; Otho G. Kime, ^3rd 

District; Rudolf C. Kokes, 4lst District; Ellen 

E. Craft, ^5th District; Wayne W. Ziebarth, 37th 

District; E. Thome Johnson, 15th District

WHEREAS, the Bureau of Reclamation and collaborating agencies have investigated in varying degrees of refinement a number of potential multiple-purpose water and related 

land resource development projects in Nebraska; and

WHEREAS, one of these proposed developments, the 

Nebraska Mid-State Division, has been authorized for construction and the advance planning work is underway but it has not 

been funded for construction; and

WHEREAS, five others, the North Loup Division, 

the O'Neill Unit, the Mirage Flats Project (Supplemental Water) 

the Little Blue Unit, and the Cedar Rapids Division have met 

the required tests of engineering and economic feasibility; and
29

WHEREAS, the North Loup Division, the O ’Neill 

Unit, and the Mirage Flats Project are presently before the 

Congress; and

WHEREAS, four others, the Logan Unit, the Highland Unit, the Norfolk Unit, and the Sunbeam Unit have been 

investigated to less than feasibility standards and appear 

to be economically and engineeringly feasible; and

WHEREAS, all of these proposed developments 

appear to be compatible with Nebraska’s long-range planning 

for development of water and related land resources and have

been included in the Basic Framework.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS 

OF THE EIGHTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE OF NEBRASKA, SECOND SESSION:

1. That the Legislature memorializes the Congress of the United States and the respective committees thereof, to support the proposals of the Bureau of Reclamation for 

these developments, and

a. Provide funds to initiate construction of

the authorized Nebraska Mid-State Division as soon as all 

advance planning requirements of the authorizing legislation

are m et .

b. Provide early authorization and funding for 

construction of the North Loup Division, the O'Neill Unit, the

-2-

79 -7 0 4 0 - 7 2 - 3
30

Mirage Flats Project (Supp lemental Water), the Little Blue 

Unit, and the Cedar Rapids Division, all of which have been 

found feasible and have local spons oring districts.

c. Provide necessary funds for continuati on 

of the Bureau of R eclamat ion ’s Nebras ka State Water Plan 

studies and for feasibilit y studies for the Logan Unit, the 

Highland Unit, the Norfolk Unit, and the Sunbeam Unit.

2. That copies of this resolut ion be transmitted 

by the Clerk of the Legislatu re to the United States Senate and 

House of Representat ives, to the Honorable Henry Jackson,

Chairman of the Senate Commi ttee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 

the Honorable Wayne Asplnall, Chairman of the House Committee 

on Interior and Insular Affairs, and to each member from Nebras ka 

in the Senate and the House of Repre sentativ es of the United

St at es .

-3-
I, Vincent D. Brown, hereby certify that the 

foregoing is a true and correct copy of Legi slative Resol ution 44, which was passed by the Legislat ure of Nebraska in 

Eighty-secon d Legislature, Second Session, on the twentysecond day of February, 1972.

CLERK OF THE LEGISLAT URE
32

LEGISLATURE OF NEBRAS KA 

EIGHTY-SEC OND LEGISLATUR E 

FIRST SESSION

LEGISLATI VE RESOLUTI ON 51

Introduced by Rudolf C. Kokes, 4lst District; Herb No re ,

27th District; Maurice A. Kremer, 3^th District

WHEREAS, inve stiga tion by the United States 

Bureau of Reclamation has shown that a multipurpose water 

development project in Loup, Garfield, Valley, Greeley, 

Howard, Merrick and Nance Counties, Nebraska would provide 

large benefits for irrigation, recreatio n and fish and 

wildli fe to the people of the State of Nebraska; and

WHEREAS, studies completed by the Nebra ska 

Soil and Water Conservatio n Commissi on for the Nebraska 

Water Plan show that the project would be desira ble and 

compatible with total State Water Resources Development;

and

WHEREAS, House Bill, H. R. 869 and Senate Bill, 

S. 352, for authorizat ion and construction of this Project 

were introduced by Cong ress man Dave Martin and Senators
33

Roman L. Hruska and Carl T. Curtis and are presently being 

considered by the House of Representatives and the Senate 

of the United States; and

WHEREAS, in 1968 the University of Nebraska 

released a study of the economic impact that irrigation crop 

production has on the economy of the entire State of Nebraska, 

and applying the results of this study to the North Loup 

Division shows the development would add about $36,000,000.00 

annually to business in Nebraska; and

WHEREAS, local support for the North Loup 

Project has always been strong and the owners and operators 

of the irrigable land are highly in favor of the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS 

OF THE EIGHTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE OF NEBRASKA, FIRST SESSION:

1. That the Legislature memorializes the 92nd 

Congress of the United States and the respective Interior 

Committees thereof, to support the proposals of the Bureau 

of Reclamation for the North Loup Division and approve the 

above legislation for its authorization and construction.

2. That funds be provided to the United States 

Bureau of Reclamation in Fiscal Year 1971-72 for preconstruction planning of the North Loup Division.

3. That copies of this resolution, suitably

-2-
34

engrossed, be transmitted by the Clerk of the Legislature, 

to the United States Senate and House of Representatives of 

the 92nd Congress, to Honorable Henry Jackson, Chairman of 

the Senate Interior Committee, and Honorable Wayne Aspinall, 

Chairman of the House Interior Committee, and to each member 

from Nebraska in the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States.

ATURE

I, Vincent D. Brown, hereby certify that the 

foregoing is a true and correct copy of Legislative Resolution 51, which was passed by the Legislature of Nebraska in 

Eighty-second Legislature, First Session, on the twenty-fourth

-3-
d ay o f A p r i l , 1 9 7 1 .

35

CLERK OF- THE LEGISLATURE

- 4 -
36

Soil & Water Cons er va tio n

Wat er sh ed Pro te ction

Flo od Con tr ol

River Bas in I nve st ig ati ons

Flo od Plain Stu dies

POLICY STATEMENT

S ta te o f N e bra ska

S o il and W a te r C o n s e rv a tio n C o m m is s io n

P O. BOX B47 2B

STATE CAPITOL

LIN COLN. NEBRAS KA CBBOB

IV (PROJECTS)

NORTH LOUP DIVISION, NEBRASKA 

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJECT

R esponsib ility fo r comprehensive land and water res ources pla nn ing 

in Nebraska has been assigned by the Legis la tu re to th e Nebraska Soil 

and Water Conservation Commission. The Commission, as a part of th is 

re s p o n s ib ilit y , is de veloping a State Water Plan to achie ve fu ll development 

and maximum use of Nebra ska 's water resources. A fe a s ib ility re port on the 

North Loup D iv is io n has been completed and printe d as House Document 491.

The plan includ es development o f Calamus Dam and Res ervo ir near Bur well,

Nebraska and Davis Creek Dam and Re servoir near North Loup, Nebraska as we ll 

as the pro vis io n o f pro je ct ir rig a ti o n water to 52,570 acres o f land. The 

Commission endorses the curr ent plan fo r the North Loup D iv is io n as a p rin cip a l

elem ent of the State Water Pla n.

The North Loup D iv is io n w il l s ta b il iz e and enhance the a g ri cu lt u ra l 

economy of a s ig n if ic a n t portio n of Nebraska. The e ff e c t o f such a pro je ct 

in s ta b il iz in g and in stim u la ting additio nal economic development in the 

surro un din g area has been demonstrate d both in Nebraska and elsewhere. To 

th is end, the 52,570 acres of the North Loup and Loup River Valley lands 

to be ir ri g a te d in th is D iv is io n are capable of susta ine d hig h yie ld s of a 

wide varie ty of cro ps to be used in part in s ta b il iz in g and augmenting feed 

su pplies fo r livesto ck.

CO MM ISS ION MEMBERS

JOHN ADAMS • BOB BELL • MILTON M. FRICKE • E. F. FROLIK - WESLEY HERBOLOSHEIMER - DAN S JONES. JR. - ELMER JURACEK - WENOELL LAUBE

EMMETT LEE • EARL LUFF - DEMPSEY McNIEL - J. R. PRINGLE - E. C. REED ADVISORS CHARLIE COCKS ■ T A. FILIPI - PAUL HARLEY - JOHN HOSSAC

IYERS • MEL STEEN ■ THOMPSON.
This p ro je c t lie s e n t ir e ly w it h in a te n co unty area o f c e n tr a l Nebraska 

which u n t il re c e n tl y was desig nate d as a "R ura l Redevelop ment A re a ." The 

im petus given to th e lo cal economy by th e use o f lo ca l la bor and se rv ic e s 

fo r c o n s tru c ti o n , o p e ra ti o n and maintenance o f th is p ro je c t would be an 

im portant b e n e fi t in a d d it io n to th ose used in th e c u rre n t eco nomic a n a ly s is .

C entral Nebra ska has o n ly li m it e d re c re a ti o n a l f a c i li t i e s . T his p ro je c t 

wo uld pro vid e n ot o n ly an o p p o rtu n it y fo r lo cal re s id e n ts to enjo y w ate r 

based a c t iv it ie s b u t, in a d d it io n , would pro vid e a base fo r th e deve lopm en t 

o f a lo cal to u ri s m in d u s tr y .

Economic f e a s ib ilit y fo r th is p ro je c t has been w ell e s ta b lis h e d and, 

even in vie w o f in cre a sin g c o s ts , w ell j u s t if ie s de ve lopm en t. Based on 1964 

c o n d it io n s , th e p ro je c t is estim ate d to prod uc e ove r $2 .40 o f b e n e fi ts fo r 

each $1 in veste d and 96 perc ent o f th e p ro je c t cost is re im burs able .

Of th e costs a ll o c a te d to ir r ig a tio n , ove r 30 perc ent w ill be re paid 

by th e lo cal d is t r ic t s .

T his pro posed de ve lop ment has broad su pport in Nebraska. The lo cal 

re s id e n ts in 1954 vo ted by a tw o-t o-o ne m a jo rit y to perm it th e Twin Loups 

Rec lamation D is t r ic t to levy an ad va lore m ta x on a ll ta n g ib le p ro p e rt y in 

th e d is t r ic t . In 1958, ag ain by a tw o-t o-o ne m a jo rit y , re sid e n ts over th e 

ge ne ra l area vo ted and formed th e Twin Loups Ir r ig a tio n D is t r ic t w ith 

ta x in g a u th o rit y over th e a ff e c te d d is t r ic t la nds. These d is t r ic t s have 

made a p p li c a tio n fo r th e re qu ir e d wat er rig h ts and have s ta le d th e ir 

w il li n g n e s s to do a ll o th e r th in g s ne ce ss ary to o b ta in de ve lopm en t. The 

Nebraska Rec lamation A sso cia tio n and th e Nebraska Ir r ig a tio n A s s o c ia ti o n , as 

w ell as many grou ps in th e are a, have s tr o n g ly su pp orted th is p ro je c t.

The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission has agreed to meet th e n on-f edera l 

o b li g a tio n s associa te d w it h fis h and w ild lif e enha ncement and re c re a ti o n 

de ve lop ment in ac co rdan ce w ith th e "F ede ra l Wa ter P ro je c t R ecr eation A c t."
38

The Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission recognizes the 

need fo r early development on the North Loup D iv is io n as part of the S+ax e 

Water Pla n. In view o f the ex te ns ive and continuous support of the loc al 

re sidents over the past 23 years, to geth er w ith stat e- wide expressio ns of 

su ppo rt, the sound economic ju s tific a tio n , and the en gine er ing fe a s ib ility 

o f th is D iv is io n , the Commission strongly endorses development and urges 

the Congress o f the Un ited State s to take early ac tio n to auth oriz e it s 

construction and op er at ion as a part of the Missouri River Basin P ro je ct.

Appgovad by Unanimous Ac tio n o f the Commission Members 

. >967

Ex ecutive Secre tary

Nebraska So il and Water Conserv ation

Commi ssion
39

Senator Burdick. We have some travel problems here. If I don’t 

get any strenuous objections from the witnesses in the order they are 

listed, I would like to hear from Mr. George Svoboda, from the city 

of Fremont, and Mr. Easton from the Upp er Loup.

Just a minute, we have another witness just arrived.

Senator Curtis. Go ahead.

STA TEM ENT OF GEORGE E. SVOBODA, ATTORNEY FOR BOARD

OF PUB LIC WOR KS OF TH E CIT Y OF FREMONT, NEBR., COUNTY

OF DODGE, NEBR., AND LOW ER LOUP PL AT TE WAT ER ASSOCIATION , INC.

Mr. Svoboda. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement and I 

have some exhibit copies.

I am George E. Svoboda, attorney of Fremont, Nebr., who pr imarily represents the Board of Public Works of the city of Fremont, Nebr., which controls and handles the water functions of the 

city. It operates 23 city wells now and projects 30 more for use in 

the next 20 years. It also is generally in charge of the flood protection for the city.

I am also attorney for the Lower Loup Pla tte Water Association, 

Inc., an organization of various counties and cities on the Lower 

Loup Pla tte River system from Monroe, Nebr., to the mouth of the 

Platte. These cities through the Lower Loup Pla tte Water Association have been instrum ental in providing a constant objection to 

piecemeal installation of irrigation projects in the Upp er Loup Rivers, which failed to recognize the downstream interests. The cities 

along the Pla tte have a direct interest in a controlled wet flowing 

Platte, because of the relationship between first: surface stream to 

the underground stream in the Pla tte Valley and second, flooding 

situation as regards their water wells, and third, for those cities like 

Fremont who are right next to Platte, the Flooding potential of the 

Platte.

I have been asked to present the urban interest in Lower Pla tte 

River waters and to emphasize tha t aspect. These urban water inte rests include the water needs and problems of Schuyler, North Bend, 

Fremont, Valley, Lincoln and Omaha, constituting little less than a 

majority of the population of the State of Nebraska.

The Loup River System in Nebraska is the principal source of 

water for the Lower Platte. The Lower Pla tte is a sandbottomed 

river and the whole Platte valley is underlined with sand and gravel 

stra ta through which surface waters of the Pla tte permeate down to 

well leven aquifers. We consider the Upper Loup System a pa rt of 

our stream.

Fremont, Schuyler, North Bend and probably Lincoln were using 

the waters of the Pla tte long before a single irrig ation project was 

ever installed on the Upp er Loup. Omaha’s interest through the 

metropolitan utilities district of Omaha has within the last 4 years 

developed a well field on an island in the middle of the Platte. Fr emont has also filed all of our city wells with the Nebraska De partment of Water Resources to stake out the ir claim to underground
40

water rights, which we believe are related to surface flow in the 

Platte.

It is no secret that almost every summer, west of Columbus, the 

Platte River is virtually dry. There is attached to my statement a 

photocopy of a story from the Fremont Tribune as exhibit No. 1, 

covering general effect of the dryness of the Pla tte near Fremont in 

1963, indicating by picture it would not even float a Boy Scout’s 

canoe that summer. We city people were first told by Upper Loup 

River interests, when we voiced objection as to the effect of their 

projects, tha t it was no concern of ours and tha t there was no dan ­

ger in the Loup irrigation dams cutting off all the water.

We are pleased to advise tha t for the first time in Nebraska, at 

least, an agreement has been reached with Upper Loup River interests, so th at this project has a scope broad enough to cover all lower 

stream interests because the Loup River system is, as stated above, 

the principal source of water both above and below ground for the 

Lower Platte. We are not here merely to testify tha t we agree to 

reauthorization, but to also establish a record tha t as to this and any 

and all other projects in the Loup or even Up per Platte, that we citizens of Nebraska cities on the Lower Pla tte have a vital and direct 

interest in upstream projects which must be protected when upper 

stream projects are designed.

One principal problem a t Fremont is floods. We did have a problem in 1960, a t which time I was mayor and did become very deeply 

involved in a major flood by directing the disposition of personnel 

and sandbags to heighten our flood dike. Attached is exhibit No. 2 

which is the Fremont newspaper study of that 1960 flood. We had to 

sandbag the top of dike to keep the waters from inundating the 

major portions of the city of Fremont.

Fortunately, about 1910, before Federal aid, this dike was built to 

keep the Pla tte from covering lower portions of Fremont every 

spring flood. This dike is a considerable distance from the river edge 

and is purely a flood dike designed to allow spring flood waters to 

pass on the wet side of the dike. Of course, on the wet side of the 

dike there are now many homes, lakes, and recreation areas.

This dike in the Fremont area has been raised, as a result of the 

1960 flood so it may handle Fremont flood problems, so long as there 

is a reasonably decent channel in the Pla tte River, which will accommodate not only the usual flows but the floodflows.

But if the P latte River is to be dry due to irrigation projects, then 

it becomes nothing but a forest of willows and trees as is the Platte 

in areas west of Columbus. This, of course, enhances flood risk. The 

usual flow of floodwaters is forced upon the dikes in the manner 

tha t we have not provided for. We do not believe the Pla tte River 

should become a forest of willow trees through the lack of a scouring flow of water.

It is our basic contention that the piecemeal dam projects on the 

Upper Loup which are designed only for irrigation purposes are 

and will be a source of problem to the Lower Loup-Platte water interests. We admit in Fremont and lower areas tha t wTe have been 

johnny-come-latelies in this matter of protecting our water rights. 

This comes about because we were not aware of the effect of the
41

piecemeal irrigation projects cutting off the flow of the Loup River. 

We didn’t know tha t “our” interests in the underground streams 

were being subtly taken by others. It was pointed out to us in Fremont about 10 years ago tha t one more major project on the North 

Loup and Calumus was going to cut off the water so the Pla tte 

River would be dry in the summertime. This, of couse, alarmed the 

officials of Fremont and other Platte interests and as a result of 

that, the Lower L oup-Platte Wate r Association, Inc. was formed, its 

purpose being not solely to stop projects but to bring about comprehensive utilization of the Loup and Lower Pla tte waters so that all 

share equitably and not just those in the Up per Loup.

The net effect of these various upper projects is to dry the Lower 

Platte and make the domestic wells and irrigation wells already existing in the Platte River, worse than they were before.

The Bureau of Reclamation came to recognize the need of providing for lower stream interests which resulted in the inclusion in Senate bill 2350 of the following pa ragrap h:

Sec. 5. The North Loup Division shall be so constructed and 

operated tha t no water shall be diverted from either the Calamus or 

the North Loup Rivers for any use by the Division during the 

months of Jul y and August each year; and no water shall be diverted from said rivers durin g the month of September each year 

whenever during said month there is; sufficient water available in 

the Division storage reservoirs to deliver the design capacity of the 

canals receiving water from said reservoirs.”

I am not skilled enough to know what the direct effect of this 

Jul y and August release of waters will be. We have been assured by 

the Bureau engineers tha t it will be sufficient to keep a flowing 

Platte, scour the Pla tte so tha t there is a perculation of waters from 

the sandy bed of the Pla tte to the undergrown aquifers below, and 

thus prevent a forest of willows down the middle of the Lower 

Platte. We want the flow to permeate as it does now, throu gh the 

Pla tte River sands in sufficient amount to recharge city wells tha t 

are along the Platte and put there to obtain underground waters for 

urban use.

We attach exhibit No. 3, a study by Air. Adolph Meyer, a noted hydraulogist now deceased, as to the effects of a dry Loup-Platte. To 

justify our claim of the cities with water wells on or near the Platte, 

we submit as exhibit No. 4, a photocopy of E. Bruce Meier’s paper 

presented to a meeting of engineers in 1953 relative to the determ ination of the percentage of induced infiltration from the Pla tte 

River to water wells at Ashland operated by the city of Lincoln. His 

conclusion at page 25 is tha t 80 percent of the water in Lincoln’s 

wells comes by induced flow from the Pla tte River surface flow. 

This study was done when he was a professor at the university and 

long before most of the projects on the Loup were constructed, and 

thus can provide you with an independent basis for “our” interest in 

underground waters of the Platte.

I wish to reemphasize the interests of Frem ont and the Lower 

Loup Platte Water Association are tha t we approve irrig ation dams 

if they take into consideration in their construction, design and their 

operation the lower river interests. We say this boils down to a sim-
42

pie matt er of allowing and perm ittin g a controlled ample flow of 

water in the Lower Loupe-Platte. Our experts tell us tha t a dry 

Platte means dry wells or deeper wells to be dug. Deeper wells in the 

Fremont area will require us to dig wells through shale into another 

stra ta which, in effect, becomes a mining of water. A study of mining of water has been done by Black & Veatch, consulting engineers 

of Kansas City fot the city of Grand Island. The chemical content 

of the water at sub-shale levels changed so much in Grand Island 

tha t certain industries cannot rely or use the Grand Island well 

sources for industrial purposes.

We don’t believe tha t the uppe r river interests have the legal or 

equitable righ t to force Frem ont into mining water, or increasing 

our costs of obtaining water in the lower river areas. We can in 

court prove, if necessary, tha t we in Fremont were using these underground waters first and thus appropriated them to our use for 

domestic purposes, which under the Nebraska law is the highest use 

preference. We are not interested in lawsuits. We are interested in 

practical solutions to utilization of water and have repeatedly stated 

we want improvements on the Loup Rivers to be designed with 

interests of lower stream protected.

We are here to make another record of the reasons for our long 

objection and indicate we are now in agreement with North Loup 

project, because the Bureau of Reclamation and other engineers have 

assured us tha t the above para graph in the above bill will give us 

reasonable protection. Obviously, this paragra ph has increased the 

size and cost of the project, but we think this is necessary if the 

Senate and House are to have broad scope concern in all interests 

along the Loup and Lower Platte.

Small, virtually single purpose damages, i.e., irrigation that store 

only enough water for the limited purpose, do not protect lower 

river interests. They store insufficient waters to be of flood protective 

device at high water time, i.e., spring, and do not have enough water 

for keeping a channel open in lower water time, i.e., July, August, 

and September.

We insist tha t any reservoirs built in the future upon any of the 

Loup Rivers be designed with downstream interest considered. The 

Bureau of Reclamation had indicated there was not a g reat risk of a 

dry Pla tte by completion of all the Upper Loup River system dams. 

The Bureau of Reclamation, of couse, would not give us a guarantee 

to open the gates on these projects to provide flow in the Lower 

Pla tte River, so tha t we will have the same kind of flow th at historically the average rainfall has granted us in the past; thus, we have 

to insist on higher and bigger dams and paragraphs such as the 

above to assure flow’s.

The difference in approach to the utilization of Loup-Platte waters is generally well presented in the Lincoln Journal by Ellis Rail, 

which is attached as exhibit No. 5, and by Woodson Howe in the 

Omaha World Herald, also attached as exhibit No. 6. These series 

indicate there is a real problem of diverse interests in the water resources of the Loup-Platte system. We hope the agreement with the 

North Loup people and the w’ording in the above para graph is a 

fair solution to all river interests.
43

It is interesting to note tha t one of the basic reasons for the midState project—multipurposed—sponsored by the Bureau of Reclamation is to help recharge underground flows along the Pla tte River 

near Grand Island. Mid-State advertising shown by exhibit No. 7 

attached, shows how mid-State will add depth to the groundwater. 

We believe this same approach should be taken as to the Lower 

Loup—Platte.

There is also the effect of a dry Pla tte on subsoil moisture for existing cropland in the Pla tte River Valley. Tom Eason, a North 

Bend, Nebr., farmer, who is to testify, may expand on this. The 

Platte Valley in n atural state has good subsoil moisture, which is recharged by the surface flows over the sandy bottom of the Plate. We 

are hopeful tha t “our” agreement, based on the above paragraph in 

the law, will protect the water of farms in the valley also, because 

our cities in Nebraska are directly connected to the economy of the 

farms.

Thus, Fremont wanted to make a separate urban presentation and 

thus support Senate bill 2350 with the paragraph quoted above.

Thank you.

Senator Burdick. Thank you for your statement.

It is my understanding you support this legislation based upon 

the testimony of Mr. Armstrong, if it would interrupt the flows 

during the summer months ?

Mr. Svoboda. Yes.

Senator Burdick. Thank you.

(The exhibits referred to by Mr. Svoboda were retained in the 

committee file.)

Senator Burdick. Next is Senator Carl T. Curtis, the sponsor of 

this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL T. CURTIS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF NEBRASKA

Senator Curtis. T hank you, Senator. I am sorry I am late. I just 

arrived on the plane.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to have the opportunity to appear 

before th is committee today in furtherance of the North Loup reclamation project. I am especially honored to be able to appe ar here 

with the Nebraska contingent of witnesses in support of this project.

I wish to stress at the outset that the N orth Loup project has broad 

public support among the people living in the area to be served. I 

have with me petitions signed by 335 persons supporting the Twin 

Loups irrig ation and reclamation project, of which this project is a 

part. I understand tha t the names on these petitions include 14 of 

the 16 people living in the proposed basin or reservoir area. I also 

have copies of resolutions passed by the Valley County Board of 

Supervisors and the Ord Rotary Club. There will be more petitions 

at a later date, but I am satisified tha t I can speak for the vast 

majority of people who cannot be here today when I say tha t this is 

a sound and beneficial project which will serve the people of the 

immediate area, the State of Nebraska and the Nation at large in 

very commendable fashion for all the years ahead.
44

This project has been researched, planned, evaluated, revised and 

reevaluated over a period of many years until today we can be as 

certain as possible th at it will stand the test of time. I t is not merely 

an irrig ation and reclamation project, it is an environmental 

improvement and conservation project. It will serve not only to 

boost agricultural income and thus the economy of the immediate 

area, b ut also will bolster ground water supplies for existing municipal and irrig ation uses downstream. This unusual characteristic is 

reported in the February 2, 1971, letter from Assistant Secretary of 

the Interior Jim Smith to the Honorable Henry M. Jackson, chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insu lar Affairs, on page 2, 

where it sta tes :

Under the plan now recommended, no na tural flows of the North Loup and 

Calamus Rivers would be diverted for irriga tion purposes during the critical 

wa ter supply months of Jul y and August and some years in September. This 

would permit maintainin g downstream flows in the Loup and Pl atte Rive rs for 

rech arge of ground wa ter for existing municipal and irriga tion uses and minimizing the adverse impact of project water withdrawals on wa ter quality and 

the exis ting ecology.

Assistant Secretary Smith points out tha t this operational change 

will result from adding the Kent Diversion Dam and the Kent 

Canal to obtain water from the North Loup River and enlarging 

Calamus and Davis Creek reservoirs, by building slightly higher 

dams in both cases, to increase their conservation storage capacity by 

32,000 acre-feet.

Under the revised plan, the Calamus Dam and Reservoir on the 

Calamus River near the town of Burwell will have a storage capacity of 128,200 acre-feet while the off-channel Davis Creek Dam and 

Reservoir will provide storage of 32,500 acre-feet.

Irriga tion water from those two facilities will provide full irriga ­

tion service to 52,570 acres of farmland through six principal 

canals, nine pumping plants, and laterals as required to afford delivery to individual operators.

Agricultu ral benefits will result from stabilized moisture availability to take the place of uncertain conditions which have caused the 

economy of the area to suffer periodically in the past. With a more 

dependable farm income situation, towns in the area will better be 

equipped to offer job opportunities and thus hold young people in 

the area who heretofore have left to find more favorable opportunities in larger urban centers, some in Nebraska and many outside our 

State. This fact alone is important not only to the economy but also 

to the environment, I submit, Mr. Chairman, because our big metropolitan centers are becoming so choked with masses of people, cars, 

trucks, factories, and the concentrations of pollution they create t hat 

they cannot long endure if people from the rural areas continue 

migratin g to the metropolitan areas.

The environment of the immediate area will be improved through 

recreation and fish and wildlife benefits which will accrue from creation of the Calamus and Davis Creek reservoirs.

The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated from its detailed studies tha t the measurable benefits from this project will add up to 

$3,871,000 annually. Of tha t amount, the benefits in added farm 

income stemming from irrig ation are estimated at $3,127,000 directly
45

and $677,800 indirectly, the latter including public benefits. There 

will be an estimated $37,500 annually in outdoor recreation benefits 

created by the two bodies of water tha t will be created, plus $28,700 

annually in hunting and fishing benefits.

Our people, our water and our soil are our most precious 

resources, Mr. Chairman. This project will make life materially and 

environmentally better for our people, and it will enable them to 

make better use of the water and soil, thereby serving the cause of 

conservation. It will strengthen not only the economy and water 

supply of the immediate area, but will improve the downstream 

municipal and irrig atio n water supplies. It will ease life in the faroff big cities a little by providing increased opportunities and attrac ­

tions for people to live in the rur al area.

It is an all-around good project, Mr. Chairman, and should be 

approved by this committee. Tha nk You.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, at this point, insert a statement of 

Congressman of Nebraska, in whose district this project is located, 

and also the petitions that I referred to, the resolution of the R otary 

Club, the resolution of the Valley County Board of Supervisors, 

plus a petition signed by a large number of residents of th at area.

Senator Burdick. I t will be received without objection.

I have just one question. Senator.

Section 4 of your bill is the ordin ary and customary section we 

put in all of these irrigation bills, and the committee has done this 

for some time. Being from an agricultural area, I am sure you are 

aware of the criticism we get for using Federal money when there is 

surplus crop production. I would urge that you keep that section in.

The Commissioner this morning suggested taking it out.

Senator Curtis. You are referring to the section which prohibits 

new irrigated lands growing any additional commodities which are 

supplemental to th e Government program ?

Senator Burdick. Yes. You understand you have quite a lengthy 

construction period. I thin k it is hard to justify expenditure of 

funds when you have surplus crops.

Senator Curtis. It is my understanding the North Loup is agreeable to this. I think an argument can be made in reference to it 

because of the change tha t comes to agriculture, the increased 

amount of livestock production. Another thing, there is an argument 

tha t can be presented, but I am anxious to see this legislation being 

advanced, and this does avoid an obstacle th at has often been raised.

Senator Burdick. I am sure the Senator has understood the at titude that I have expressed.

Senator Curtis. Yes.

Senator Burdick. Thank you very much.

Senator Curtis. Thank you.

(The material submitted by Senator Curtis follows:)

Statement of Hon. Dave Martin, a U.S . Representative in Congress

F rom th e State of Nebraska

Mr. Chairman and members of the Reclama tion Subcom mittee: I want to 

thank the Chairman for the courtesy extended in tak ing time to hold hearing s 

on the Twin Loups Reclama tion and Irriga tion Project. This Pro jec t was originally authorized as an integr al pa rt of the Missouri River Pro jec t by the 

79 -7 04 0 — 72------ 4
46

Flood Control Acts of 1944 and 1946, but reauthorization is required by provisions of the 1964 Act.

The Project would be a multi-purpose water resources development in the 

basins of the Calamus, North Loup and Loup Rivers in central Nebraska to 

provide benefits from irrigation, outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife 

enhancement.

The citizens in this district have been working for the past 30 years to make 

this Project a reality. The support, as witnessed in the field hearings a year 

and a half ago, is testimony to this.

The Project consists of the Calamus Reservoir, which would store 128,200 

acre-feet of water, and the off-channel Davis Creek Dam and Reservoir, which 

would store 32,500 acre-feet. Irrigation water provided by these facilities 

would be distributed to 52,570 acres. The total estimated project cost based on 

October, 1970 price levels is $73,007,000. Total evaluated benefits on the basis 

of a 100-year period is 1.33 to 1. Using only direct benefits, the ratio would be 

1.10 to 1. Of the total estimated project cost, $71,895,000 is allocated to irrigation ; $750,000 to fish and wildlife and $362,000 to recreation. Water users 

would repay an estimated $13,850,000 or 19% of the irrigation costs plus the 

annual operation, maintenance and replacement expenses allocated to irrigation 

($298,000). $58,045,000 allocated to the irrigation function would be repaid 

from Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Power revenues available for tha t purpose 

during the 50-year repayment period.

Local support for the project is strong. The Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission supports the authorization of the plan of development.

The University of Nebraska Bureau of Business Research under a contract 

with the Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. Department of Interior conducted 

a thorough study of economic impact of irrigated agriculture on the economy 

of Nebraska. This study indicates $6.68 of economic activity occurs within the 

State for every dollar of increased flow attributable to irrigated crop production. Applying the results of this study to the Twin Loups Project shows that 

irrigation development would result in economic activity totaling $36 million 

annually within Nebraska. This important economic impact, both to the farm 

and business sectors, would provide increased employment and business opportunity for residents of the State.

You will recall that this Project was held up for some time because of a difference of opinion between the downriver people and those within the district 

in regard to the natural flow of water in the North Loup during the summer 

months. A solution has been reached, and the bill now states tha t no natural 

flow in the North Loup and Calamus Rivers would be diverted for irrigation 

purposes during the critical dry months of July and August and in some years 

in September.

You will hear testimony later this morning from Mr. Max Kiburz, General 

Manager of the Loup River Public Power District of Columbus, Nebraska, on 

this aspect of the Project.

As the Representative from the District which includes the Twin Loups 

Project, I completely and wholeheartedly recommend the Committee’s approval 

of H.R. 869. It is a good project—a sound project—and a project which has 

the approval of the taxpayers in the District.

Weems & Mankin, P.C.,

Ord, Nebr., March 7, 1972. Senator Cabl T. Curtis,

Senate Office Building,

Washington D.C.

Representative Dave Martin,

House Office Building,

Washington D.C.

Gentlemen : Enclosed please find photocopies of thirty-five petitions containing three hundred thirty-five names supporting the Twin Loups Irrigation and 

Reclamation Project. We will send more petitions at a late r date and trust 

tha t these signatures will help convince the Congressional subcommittees of 

the area interest in this project.

We understand fourteen of the sixteen people living in the proposed basin 

area have signed the petition.
47

We also enclose photocopies of resolutions passed by the Valley County 

Board and the Ord Rotary Club this week.

You have our best wishes for the success of this project and we tru st you 

will let us know if there is anything else we may do.

Yours very truly,

J. Marvin Weem s,

Natural Resources Committee, Ord Chamber of Commerce.

Resolution—Ord Rotary Club, Ord, Nebr.

By the Ord Rotary Club encouraging the Congress of the United States to 

enact, fund and implement the Twin Loups irrigation and reclamation project 

at the earliest possible opportunity.

Whereas Rotary is a world Fellowship of business and professional men who 

accept the ideal of service, individually and collectively, as the basis for success and happiness in business and community life, and

Whereas the Ord Rotary Club, upon hearing the facts incident to and particularly the need for and costs of the Twin Loups, Irrigation and Reclamation 

Project, finds that said Project will be of service to mankind generally in tha t 

said Project wi ll:

1. Preserve and improve area water levels essential for human consumption, 

agriculture and industry, and

2. Increase and stabilize farm income to enable Nebraska farmers to conduct 

economically feasible operations and maintain their basic philosophy tha t they 

can and should be self supporting, and

3. Provide new jobs in an economically depressed area, and

4. Lessen outmigration from Nebraska and consequent overcrowding of metropolitan areas already beset with problems of mass crime, housing, education 

and sanitation, and

5. Conserve and utilize our ecology and natural resources efficiently and 

wisely, and

6. Relieve the energy crisis by reducing the cost of making general and irrigation water available, and

7. Provide recreation to thousands of Americans.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the general members of the Ord Rotary 

Club, meeting in regular session this 6th day of March, 1972, tha t the Congress 

of the United States be urged to enact, fund and implement the Twin Loups 

Irrigation and Reclamation Project at the earliest possible opportunity, and be 

it further resolved tha t said Ord Rotary Club wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse said project without qualification and deliver a copy hereof to 

the House and Senate subcommittees on Insu lar Affairs and all other inte rested and appropriate bodies as evidence of said endorsement.

Passed and approved at Ord, Nebraska, this 6th day of March, 1972.

Wayne Miller, 

President, Ord Rotary Club.

Attes t:

Duane E. Armstrong,

Secretary, Ord Rotary Club.

Resolution—Valley County Board of Supervisors

By the Valley County Board of Supervisors encouraging the Congress of the 

United States to enact, fund and implement the Twin Loups irrigation and 

reclamation project at the earliest possible opportunity.

Whereas the Twin Loups Irrigation and Reclamation Project will preserve 

and improve area w’ate r levels essential for human consumption, agriculture 

and industry, and

Whereas said Project will increase and stabilize farm income to enable 

Nebraska farmers to conduct economically feasible operations and maintain 

their basic philosophy that they can and should be self supporting, and

Whereas said Project will provide new jobs in an economically depressed 

area, and
48

Whereas said Project will lessen outmigration from Nebraska and consequent overcrowding of metropolitan areas already beset with problems of mass 

crime, housing, education and sanitation, and

Whereas said Project will improve and stabilize area taxpayers’ ability to 

pay existing, substantial and increasing costs of providing essential roads, 

improvements and other public services, and

Whereas said Project will conserve and utilize our ecology and natural 

resources efficiently and wisely, and

Whereas said Project will relieve the energy crisis by reducing the cost of 

making general and irrigation w’ater available, and

Whereas said Project will provide recreation to thousands of Americans.

Now7

, therefore, be it resolved by the Valley County Board of Supervisors, 

meeting in regular session this 7th day of March, 1972, that the Congress of 

the United States be urged to enact, fund and implement the Twin Loups Irrigation and Reclamation Project at the earliest possible opportunity, and be it 

further resolved t hat said Board of Supervisors wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse said project without qualification and deliver a copy hereof to 

the House and Senate Subcommittees on Insular Affairs and all other inte rested and appropriate bodies as evidence of said endorsement.

Passed and approved at Ord, Nebraska this 7th day of March, 1972.

Vall ey County Board of Superv iso rs.

P et ition to th e Congr ess of th e United Stat es

We, the undersigned, as citizens of the United States who live in the area to 

be benefited by the Twin Loups Reclamation Project, hereby, enthusiastically 

request tha t the House and Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee 

on irrigation recommend immediate authorization and and funding of said 

project, within the year, because it wi ll:

1. Preserve, improve and protect area w'ater levels essential for human consumption, agriculture and ind ustry ;

2. Increase and stabilize farm income to enable Nebraska farmers to conduct 

economically feasible operations and maintain their basic philosophy tha t they 

can and should be self supporting;

3. Lessen outmigration from Nebraska and consequent overcrowding of metropolitan areas already beset with problems of mass crime, housing, education 

and san itat ion ;

4. Conserve and utilize our ecology and natural resources efficiently and 

wisely;

5. Relieve the energy crises by reducing the cost of making general and irrigation water available; and

6. Provide recreation to thousands of Americans.

(The above petition was signed by many concerned citizens of Nebraska)

P etition

We, the undersigned, land owners and farmers living in the North Loup 

Project area, believe this project is urgently needed to sustain our way of life. 

We respectfully request the United States Senate’s Committee on Interior and 

Insular Affairs to act favorably on our North Loup Project.

(The above petition was signed by many concerned citizens of Nebraska.)

Sta te of N eb ra sk a

County of Valley, ss.

Donald Wagner, being first duly sworn, deposes and says tha t he is the circulator of the foregoing petition ; that the following persons, to-wit:

Emil L. Dlugosh, Ruth Mae Dlugosh, Bud L. Brickner. Ella E. Brickner, 

Don Petska, Norma Petska. Anna S. Visek. Glen T. Buckbee, Rosie E. Buckbee, 

Wilma Johnson, Edmund H. Huffman. Vesta Huffman, Kent Homickel, Eldon 

Lange, Bernadine, Lange, Mary Ann Lange, David Lange, Richard Burrows, 

Phyllis Burrows. Archie H. Mason, Virginia Mason, Willard W. Harkness, 

Thelma Harkness, Viola M. Hackel, Russell W. Hackel, Charles Hackel, Lois 

C. Hackel, George Krajnik, Clarole Krajnik, Mrs. Rose Cahill,
49

whose names appear on said petition personally signed said petition in the 

presence of affiant; tha t he believes that each of said signers are fanners and 

landowners living in the North Loup Project area, and that the affiant stated 

to every petitioner before he affixed his signature the legal effect and nature 

of said petition.

D onald C. W agner .

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

Mic h a e l J. S h a u g h n e s s y ,

Notary Public.

Senator Burdick. We have a problem here today, not only with 

committee personnel, but we have a problem with some of the witnesses who have planes to make and travel connections to make.

Anyone here who has a crisis? All right. We will go in order 

then. Mr. Lange, director of the Twin Loups Reclamation District, 

Ord, Nebr.

STATEMENT OF HENRY LANGE, DIRECTOR OF THE TW IN LOUPS

RECLAMATION DISTRICT, ORD, NE BR .; ACCOMPANIED BY CYRIL

P. SHAUGHNESSY, ST. PAUL, NEBR.

Mr. Lange. Mr. Chairman, I am Henry Lange, president of the 

Twin Loups Reclamation District. I have with me Mr. Cyril 

Shaughnessy, who has a prepared statement.

Mr. Shaughnessy. Air. Chairman, I am Cyril P. Shaughnessy, 

representing the Twin Loups Reclamation District. With your permission, Air. Chairman, I would like to have Air. Lange introduce 

at this time our directors here this morning.

Air. Lange. Air. Doug Alaiker of Ord, Mr. John Putsriber of 

Orleans, Dick Spelnick, Don Kildare of Palmer, A. L. Russell of 

Fullerton, and then, of course, Air. Schute, who is a former member. 

These gentlemen. Mr. Senator, eight of our board, were on this 

board since 1952. They were all farmers in their own right, some of 

us are reaching retirem ent age by now. But they have been consistently reelected to this board to get a job done and we are here today 

to accomplish it.

Senator Burdick. You introduced these gentlemen and as I hear 

these speakers, it reminds me of the fight we have for 25 or 30 years 

to get on the board of the Garrison unit, which is an irrigation 

project, using this same river, so I am very familiar with the type 

of dedication and the work these people have done through the 

years.

Air. Shaughnessy. Air. Chairman, much of the testimony you 

heard this morning is incorporated in my statement, so I am going 

to be brief.

In Nebraska we have a reclamation law and we also have an irrigation law. So the Twin Loups Reclamation District was organized 

back in 1954 and in 1958 the irrigation district was organized pr imarily for the reason, as you know, under the Federal law, our 

lands must be obligated to repayment contract. Under the Nebraska 

reclamation law, the lands are not necessarily obligated to the repa yment contract, so we organized the irrigation district to accomplish 

tha t end. So we anticipate that actually the Twin Loups District 

will operate the supply works, and the distribution of the drainage
50

works, using the funds of the two districts, we are able to make our 

repayments to the Federal Government. I know whereof I speak, 

because I also represent the Loup Basin Reclamation District, which 

was constructed back in 1960 and has been in operation since then.

I would like to tell you that over in our district, the points you 

were discussing—were discussed by previous witnesses, has been a 

remarkable success in that, in our town of St. Paul, Nebr., just last 

week I visited one of the local elevators and none of the corn tha t 

was raised was delivered by tha t elevator. It was used in the local 

area.

We have a situation in our area, in the immediate area of St. 

Paul, where we had something like 56,000 head of cattle, now we 

have more than 153,000. In other words, while corn may be in surplus, certainly red meat is in demand, and we are seeking a new era 

of livestock raising in our community which is just across the road 

from our North Loup project.

Senator Burdick. Does this area im port feed?

Mr. Shaughnessy. We are just holding our own. We are not creating a surplus, using what we raise on the farms, where the average 

farmer, who maybe had 100 head of steers going to feed, is now 

going to do it in an extensive manner.

My father was a banker. I can remember my dad saying to farm ­

ers, “do you have sufficient feed this winter to see these cattle 

thro ugh?” That was the problem. Today with adequate supplies of 

feed, that farmer is going to be able to get the loan from the bank 

and, in tu rn, produce livestock and meat for the market.

Senator Burdick. Where do you get those fine feeders from North 

Dakota and Montana ?

Mr. Shaughnessy. We like to use those, and we raise some up in 

Sand Hills, Nebr.

In 1965 the evaluation of our Loup Reclamation District was in 

excess of $6 million, in our town of St. Paul, which is a town of 

2,000 people, the evaluation of St. Paul was a little over $2 million, 

and in a matter of 6 years it increased to $3 million, maybe $4 million. Th at just didn’t happen. The average man on the street in St. 

Pau l says it is because of the project. This can do the same thing in 

the counties of Valley, Greeley, and Howard. I could go on quite at 

length, but I am not going to take any more of your time.

Thank you. Senator, for your time.

Senator Burdick. Thank you very much, and your full statement 

will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Shaughnessy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement 

from Judge William C. Smith, if I could submit tha t for the 

record ?

Senator Burdick. It will be received and made a part of the 

record.

Mr. Shaughnessy. I have a resolution from the Ord City Council.

Senator Burdick. Without objection that will be received also.

Mr. Shaughnessy. I have a letter from the city of St. Paul and 

another letter from one of our local banks, also a resolution from 

the board of Howard County, Nebr., commissioners, and also a reso-
51

lution from the board of directors of the St. Pau l Chamber of Commerce, and I also have a statement as attorney for the Twin Loup 

Irrigation District.

Senator Burdick. They will all be received without objection.

Mr. Shaughnessy. Thank you very much.

(The prepared statements of Mr. Shaughnessy follow. The material submitted is in the appendix.)

• Statement by Cyril P. Shaughnessy, St. Paul, Nebr., Attorney for

the Twin Loups Irrigation District

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of your Committee. My name is 

Cyril P. Shaughnessy. I am from St. Paul, Nebraska. I represent two districts, 

« the Twin Loups Reclamation District and the Twin Loups Irrigation District,

who are the local sponsors of the multipurpose North Loup Division of the 

Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program.

This statement is made in behalf of the Twin Loups Irrig ation District. I 

have already presented a statement for the Twin Loups Reclamation District. 

This statement will explain to you gentlemen the reasons for the existence of 

the Twin Loups Irrigation District.

Since the Federal Reclamation Law requires that all irrigable lands of a 

Federal Reclamation Project be obligated to the repayment contract and 

because the Nebraska Reclamation law has no provisions for such obligation, 

it became necessary to form an irrigation district. Accordingly, in 1958 many 

of the gentlemen appearing before your Committee and others formed The 

Twin Loups Irrig ation District. This district includes only the lands tha t will 

receive project service. At an election that year, the proposition to form the 

irrigation district carried by a two to one majority.

As we have done in the case of the Loup Basin Reclamation District, The 

Sargent Irrigation District, and The Farwell Irrigation District, the Twin 

Loups Reclamation and The Twin Loups Irrigation District will contract with 

the Federal Government for the repayment of our portion of the irrigation, 

and recreational enhancement of the development. During the late 1950’s and 

early 1960’s preliminary negotiations in form of repayment contracts were 

intered into with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Field Solicitor’s Office. 

Since that time, the repayment expected from the irrig ators has increased and 

we are quite willing to reopen repayment contract negotiations with the estimates presented in the Department of Interio r’s Reevaluation Statement for 

the North Loup Division.

Jus t to the west of our North Loup Division is the Farwell Unit, a par t of 

the Loup Basin Reclamation District. The Farwell Unit has been in operation 

since 1964 and serves approximately 52,500 acres of irrigable land. The Sargent Unit is also a part of the Loup Basin Reclamation District. This unit 

serves in excess of 13,500 acres of irrigable land. We have gained valuable

* experience operating these two units. This experience includes the actual operation of the physical works and working with the Bureau of Reclamation 

during the transitional period. It is the intention of the Board of Directors of 

the Twin Loups Reclamation District and the Board of Directors of the Twin

e Loups Irrigation District to operate the North Loup Project in the same

manner tha t the Loup Basin Reclamation District, the Farwell Irrig ation District, and The Sargent Irrigation District are presently being operated.

At the time the Sargent Unit was being constructed, there were 17 farms 

with irrigation wells. As soon as project water became available, the well irrigators indicated their desire to use the facilities of The Sargent Irrig ation 

District. We believe this speaks well of the quality and service we are capable 

of offering.

As the attorney for these projects. I am convinced that we are most fortunate to have in the State of Nebraska both the Reclamation District and the 

Irrigation District. The funds that become available to us through taxes 

enables the reclamation district to reduce the actual cost of the water service 

to the farmers receiving such service. Then with the provisions of the irriga ­

tion law that makes it possible to levy not only an assessment but a toll 

charge, the irrigation district can adju st such assessments and toll charges to 

receive only sufficient monies to pay the actual operation maintenance charges
52

and whatever charg es th at may be made in its repa yment obligations to the 

United State s.

In closing, let me again reite rate our willingness and desire to enter into the 

necessary repayment contracts. We strongly believe we have the financial capa ­

bilities to make the necessary repa yments to the Federal Government for the 

costs alloc ated to the Twin Loups Reclamation District and the Twin Loups 

Irr iga tio n District.

Finally, permit me to express to you my sincere appreciation for the opportun ity given to me to present this statement to you today. I am grateful. 

Should you have any questions regarding this stateme nt, please do not hesitate 

to call upon me.

Statement of Cyril P. Shaughnessy, St. P aul, Nebr., Attorney

for the Twin Loups Reclamation District

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of your Committee. My name is 

Cyril P. Shaughnessy. I am from St. Paul, Nebraska. I represent the Distric ts 

sponsoring the North Loup Division, namely, the Twin Loups Reclamation District and the Twin Loups Irriga tion District.

With me here at the table today are Mr. Henry G. Lange, President of the 

Twin Loups Reclamation District, and Mr. William Sclnidel, Pre sident of the 

Twin Loups Irrigation District.

In add ition to these gentlemen we have other members of the Board of 

Directors, as well as representativ es from the Lower Lou p-Platte Association. 

Mr. Max Kiburz. General Manager of the Loup Pow er Dis tric t, and Mr. 

George Svoboda, Attorney for the City of Fremont, Nebraska, wish to make 

sho rt stateme nts.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask these gentlemen to stand up and permit Mr. 

Henry G. Lange to introduce them to the members of your Committee?

Your Committee had a Field Hearin g on our development at Ord, Nebraska, 

July 17, 1970. We believe that hearing was a good one. We wish to take the 

opportunity at this hearing, only to add add itional evidence of the need and 

support for the development and construction of the North Loup Project. One 

of the major needs of our area is to better utilize the three na tural resources 

we h ave available to us—water, land, and people.

The Department of Interio r’s rep ort to you and testim ony before this Committee sub stantiate s the ava ilab ility of wa ter to accomplish development of 

almost 53,000 acres of our land. As those of you who are at the F ield Hearing 

saw, the quality of our land in the North Loup and Loup Valleys is excellent 

and takes well to the application of water.

In fact, the application of wa ter still continues from ground water sources. 

When members of this Committee saw our are a in 1970, we had 47,000 acres 

of irriga ted land producing crops in Valley County, Nebraska. Since th at time, 

records of the Sta te of Nebraska show th at an additional 40 wells have been 

drilled. Thus, the farmers in the area are well aware of the increased production and income they can expect from irriga tion agriculture.

The need for feed grain in our are a is furth er sub stantiated by the fact that 

in 1900 in the five county are a of Greeley, Howard, Merrick, Nance and Valley 

Counties. Nebraska which are within the boundaries of the Twin Loups Reclamation District, there were approximate ly 50,000 head of cattle. Production of 

feed grain caused an increase in 1970 to 143,200 head of cattle. From a recent 

visit with the manager of one of our local elevators in St. Paul, Nebraska, I 

learned th at in 1971 and to this date , no corn had been shipped from that Elevator by rail nor has any corn been delivered from th at Ele vator by Truck. In 

short, the entire volume of corn delivered to th at Elev ator was sold to the 

local feeders. This in itse lf emphasises the need of increased production of 

feed gra in to supply the ever growing demand of those people engaged in feeding cattle to be sold on the market. We who have seen the irriga tion development come into the Loup Valley realize the impact th at this has had on the 

economy in our area. Howard County, Nebraska was one of only three Counties in the entire Loup Basin to gain population in the decad e of the sixties. It 

is my belief that this is directly correlated with development of the Farwell 

Unit which irriga tes over forty thousand acres of land in How ard County. In 

most of Howard County, it is impossible to get an irriga tio n well, and so, 

much of the irriga tion development in our County can be att rib ute d to the
53

Farwell Project. We, in the rural are a of America, definitely know from experience that the findings of the 1968 impact study made by the Bureau of Bus iness Research, University of Nebraska are valid. The increase in prod uction by 

irrigation obviously increases the income to the farme rs as well as to the local 

businessman. It is intere stin g to note that the valuation of the Loup Basin 

Reclamation District in Howard County, Nebraska has increase d from 

$8,805,820.00 in 1965 to $14,628,000.00 in 1971. a gain of nearly $6,000,000.00 in 

valuation . The valuation for the City of St. Paul, Nebraska in 1965 was 

$2,680,845.00. In 1971, it was $3,787,405.00. It can be noted th at there has been 

an increase in valuation in excess of $1,000,000.00 in six years, and th at St.

« Pau l has a population of only two thousand people. Many new homes have

been built in the St. Pau l are a in this period. In the pa st five yea rs many 

other improvements have been made, such as paved streets, storm sewers, and 

electric system improvements. I am convinced that these improvements would 

not have been made had it not been for the trem endo us irriga tion development

• und ertaken by the Loup Basin Reclamation District and The Farwell Irriga ­

tion District.

Our most precious resource in ru ral Nebraska is our people. Irr iga tio n development has proven time and again, that it provides the opportunity to increase 

the family income for those who are underemployed. Yes, we have some unemployed people too. whom we can help. So, we are particularly inte rested in 

fuller employment for the people of our area . With full employment our people 

will stay and work in thi s wonderful part of rural America and not leave to 

compete for work in the crowded metropolitan areas. The increased production 

from irrigation development will ass ure an opportu nity for these people to be 

gainfully employed.

In the Farwell Unit, which is almost adjace nt to the North Loup Project, 

those farmers with an assured wa ter supply had the best crop year in the 

memory of the local farm ers. Here cattle were in the feed lots, and silos were 

being filled. New buildings have been and are being erected, land is being leveled, and new equipment is replacing the old machinery. Here is where the 

real values of irriga tion to the Nation is exemplified.

The needs of the irrigator are purchased from all over the Nation. Silos and 

grain bins are manufactured in Illinois and Missouri; tra cto rs and trucks 

come from Wisconsin, Illinois, and Mic higan; farm equipment is supplied from 

a half dozen oth er st ate s; seed from Io w a; fer tilizer from Kansas, Louisiana 

and Georgia. All of these items are shipped by rail or truck. It is evident that 

these purchase s provide employment and income to thousand s of workers far 

removed from the Farwell Unit. I have every reason to believe the same good 

results will come abo ut when the North Loup Pro ject becomes a reality.

Another need of our are a is the increased opportu nity for enjoyment of recreation and the fish and wildlife resources. Calam us and Davis Creek Reservoirs would provide the facilities for enhancem ent of these activities. Providing and servicing these activities will result in additional employment 

opportunities.

• The Calamus River is sometimes called the “steadiest-flowing’ ’stre am in the 

world. Right now. all of the river and land adjoining it above Burwell, Nebrasks is in private ownership. So. unless the private citizen has perm ission to 

use a ran cher’s land, this water-based recreation is not available to him. With 

the construction and development of Calam us Reservoir, public access will be

• provided to all.

The Twin Loups Reclamation Distric t has provided the Bureau of Reclamation with a let ter of intent to cost-share and operate the recreation and fish 

and wildlife activities of Calam us and Davis Creek Rese rvoirs in accordance 

with the Federal Wa ter Pro ject Recreatio n Act. We consider the oppo rtun ity 

to operate and mainta in recreation and fish and wildlife activities of the 

North Loup development, a gre at step forward in local partici pation. We believe that our farm er-city relatio nship can only improve with such facilities .

Several community-service clubs and municipal and county Government 

officials have asked us if they can partic ipa te in the operation and ma intenance of these fish and wildlife and recreational activities. The intere st for the 

development in the are a is extrem ely high.

At the July 1970 Field Hearings, Mr. Lange repo rted to you th at we had signatures of about 65 perc ent of the water users of our Twin Loups Irr iga tio n 

Dis trict who were then, and still are, inte rested in receiving project wa ter supply. In addition to tha t, the Directo rs have circ ulated petitio ns in the las t
54

month tha t indicate the interest of the signers in the development. This covers 

the area from Fullerton, Nebraska up to and beyond Burwell, Nebraska. We 

would like to present these petitions to you for the record. You will observe 

from the number of persons signing the petitions the high interest in the early 

development and construction of the North Loup Project.

As early as 1954, we formed our Reclamation District, the third in Nebraska. Before such a district can finance its operations, it must have the permission of the voters of the District to make the mill levy. This vote carried 

750 to 300, two and one-half to one.

Recently a petition was circulated among the land owners and residents of 

the area of the proposed Calamus Dam and Reservoir. This petition indicates 

that the nineteen signers enthusiastically request the authorization and funding of the Twin Loups Project. We feel it is significant tha t those most directly affected by the construction of the dam and reservoir are in favor of 

our project. Few of these people will receive direct benefits of project water, 

but they are acutely aware of the need of a good water suppply for this part of 

Nebraska.

We fully recognize tha t farmers of our district have made progress in the 

last 14 years. We realize that some of the owners who signed our petition for 

district formation no longer are active and others have moved. We also know 

that proper resource development should include as little duplication of facilities and services as possible. For these reasons, we will ask the Bureau of Reclamation to review their land classification crite ria during the pre-construction period.

Letters you received as a result of your Field Hearing in 1970 appear in the 

printed hearing record. In addition to that, we understand tha t you have 

received letters indicating additional local support. We request tha t these he 

made a part of the Committee files.

We have strong and solid support from our Governor, Legislature and independent State agencies for the North Loup Division. In June of 1971, the Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission adopted and published the 

Framework Study of the Nebraska State Water Plan. That plan includes as one of its recommendations, construction and development of the North Loup 

Division. On February 22, 1972, the Nebraska Legislature adopted Resolutions 

No. 42 adopting and endorsing the Framework Study of the Nebraska State

Water Plan, thus making it an official document of the State of Nebraska.

The Nebraska Unicameral has also adopted two resolutions, specifically recommending construction and development of the North Loup Division. These 

were Resolution No. 51 of April 1971 and Resolution No. 44 of February 1972.

We, of the Twin Loups Reclamation District, and supporters for the North 

Loup development are in agreement with the criteria for operation of our project as outlined in the Department of Interior’s Reevaluation Statement. We 

also are agreeable with the conditions as set forth in Section 5 of the proposed 

bill submitted by the Department of the Interior for authorization of the 

North Loup Division. We feel this is an equitable arrangement with our 

friends downriver. We are quite willing to have the necessary language placed 

in the Nebraska Department of Water Resources approval of our water rights.

We, and several other groups in our area, have reviewed the Department’s 

draft of the environmental statement for the North Loup Division. Although 

some people have indicated a concern with the potential for increase in the 

total dissolved solids in the North Loup, Loup, and Platte Rivers, the water 

quality will remain well within the crite ria established by the State and Federal standards. As indicated by several of the county commissioners in our 

area who commented on the dra ft environmental statement, we believe that 

the beneficial effects to human environment far outweigh any adverse effects.

This concludes my statement. Mr. Henry Lange, Mr. William Schudel and I 

are available to answer questions to the best of our abilities.

STATEMENT OF LARRY C. HOLCOMB, CHAIRMAN, QUALITY 

ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, OMAHA, NEBR.

Senator Burdick. Larry C. Holcomb.

Mr. Holcomb. Mr. Chairman, my name is Larry Holcomb, chairman of the Quality Environment Council of Nebraska. I have sub-
55

mitted 15 pages of testimony, single spaced, and I would like tha t 

inserted in the record.

Senator Burdick. It will be received.

Mr. Holcomb. The Quality Environment Council is made up of 

400 people directly as dues-paying members, and in addition to tha t 

we have some 5,000 people in affiliated organizations interested in 

the quality of the environment of the State, such as the DouglasWashington County Da iry H erd Improvement Association.

We are not all urban dealers, there are formers involved. On the 

board of directors we have farmers, farm managers, chemists, biologists, housewives, teachers, and students, and together we have put 

this statement together which we feel represents a little more some 

of the objections of the citizens of Nebraska.

We feel many costs were not put in the cost-benefit ratio. For 

instance, 18 different ranches will lose their windbreaks and we calculate they are worth at least a minimum of $77,000 per annum. It 

will take 100 years to replace the kind of windbreaks associated w ith 

cattle in tha t area, tha t comes to $1,350,000 just for one item.

These people have a free flowing Calamus River there that flows 

all winter and all summer long and which is ice-free, as well as 

Grassy Creek. We feel that the cattle production is more valuable 

there because of this free flowing water. Over this 100-year period— 

we are going to calculate our economic costs and benefits the same 

way the DOR does—over a 100-year period we feel they are losing 

$5 million worth in a 100-year period of ice-free water source for 

those cattle throug hout the winter.

Another important thin g these people are losing, is the alfalfa 

and hay meadows adjacent to the river. These cow-calf units are 

dependent on the subirrigation units down the meadows, without 

those we calculated $130 million is lost to the ranchers directly 

involved. We couldn’t help agree very vociferously about their glu tting the corn market, we know if you glut it today, 1,500,000 bushels 

in surplus, 5,500,000 bushels, we feel at a minimum over 100 years, 

the average figure cost to the United States, not just to the State of 

Nebraska, but to the entire Nation, at least $200 million at a minimum.

When you start putting these kinds of costs into the cost-benefit 

ratio, we feel that the cost-benefit ratio becomes completely unsubstantiated.

For example, people below the reservoir, down the Calamus, the 

North Loup, the Loup River, and the Pla tte River, do stand to lose 

benefits of some of the water going down the Calamus, especially 

during the summer months. I realize that the DOR claims they are 

going to release water. If they do release the amount of inflow that 

comes under that, it is going to decrease the amount of recreation of 

the reservoir. If they do release the water on down to the city of 

Omaha, and the city of Freemont and the city of Lincoln, can get 

adequate water supplies from these wells, there will be no recreational benefits left in that reservoir.

Senator Burdick. The concept of the reservoir is th at it holds the 

excess water.

Mr. Holcomb. I know, that is true, but there will be no excess 

during the summer months. If you use the inflow into the reservoir
56

and bypass it, there is going to be a drop in the reservoir. The level 

may drop as much as 10 or 15 feet in one summer season depending 

upon the precipitation and the inflow and the amount of the evaporato r grade from the surplus area. In addition, feeder cattle areas 

are going to be depleted and we calculate a total loss there of over 

$34 million in the ability of feeder cattle. There will be little if any 

negative effects on wildlife benefit. When you inundate an area, you 

remove the deer, the pheasants, the quail, the sharptail grouse, or 

prairie chickens tha t might be there too. They will lose deer in the 

irrigation canals to the tune of probably 100 a year, and displace at 

least an additonal 150 deer from the inundated reservoir. If you lose 

250 deer a year as far as hunting benefits, you are losing, if you 

again put all of the indirect cost in, you are losing 500 a year per 

deer, I think this should be in the benefit ratio. You are losing 13 

miles of some of the finest canoeable rivers in the State.

I asked some people the other day how much value do they place 

on the free flowing canoeable stream, my cost benefit built into this 

is $1 million a mile, and tha t was the lowert tha t anybody gave me.

One man says $3 million, another man says you couldn’t touch it. 

We will put $1 million of loss of some of the finest recreational 

canoeable streams in the State.

Drought years, I would like to see the records documented. Certainly there are drought years, there are years where there is a 

shortage of water supply, but there is no area within the State of 

Nebraska that has a better water supply, underground reservoir 

water supply, than the area we are talking about, fed from all of 

this huge ground reservoir draining southerly toward the Platte 

River and is currently tapped by people using irrig ation in the area 

to be demolished by the canals and lateral systems of this North 

Loup Project.

The interest rates tha t the Commission says does not affect the 

project, do instead affect the project. The Office of Management and 

Budget did use the 314 percent, and they used it for feasible pu rposes, I visited with them. They did it as an administration decision 

alone, We feel tha t the 5% should be used, but the citizens of this 

country are expected to pay the major cost of this project, some 50 

or 60 percent of the project, through cost of power. Then they 

should have something to say about the interest rates tha t are 

charged to the project for feasibility purposes.

There are claims of a 12-foot drop in a well. We would like to see 

how many wells drop tha t much in this area to be affected for irr igation purposes. We feel there feel there is very little if any drop 

because of the magnificent water supply in the area.

We feel there is not underemployment of the civilian population. 

The reason why people have moved away from this area is simply a 

result of technological improvement in farming methods. When people can use fine tractors, farm machinery to farm with, they can do 

a lot more farming per unit, and you are going to have a loss in 

need for numbers of people for that need.

The Commissioner said there would not be a loss of the heron 

rookery, great blue heron rookeries are very uncommon. This one
57

will be lost. I f you inundate the area, you are going to irrigate those 

cottonwood trees there so much that the trees will die.

There will be drops in water levels during the summer months, and 

the people using the reservoir there will affect the heron rookery 

with their motorboat activities. We feel there was indeed better local 

support drummed up for the 1970 hearings held in Oregon. Since 

then the citizenry of the United States has become better informed, 

and I think our testimony here does represent a lot of people, not 

just a handful of kookie ecologists.

As I told you before there are people th at are farmers, people th at 

are directly affected in this, biologists, schoolteachers, that want a 

quality environment and we don’t want to pay this type of cost for 

a project that is really not feasible.

Senator Burdick. Could you list the organizations affiliated with 

you?

Mr. Holcomb. Yes, the Jewish Women’s Federation, for instance, 

they have 1,200 people in it. The Young Matrons of Omaha, the 

Junior League of Omaha, the several young high school groups, 

three or four groups of 40 or 50 each, and then there is a young 

businessmen’s organization in Kearney, Nebr., the J.C.

Senator Burdick. Are the J.C’s against this ?

Mr. Holcomb. Yes, they would be against this as I have demonstrated the cost-benefit ratios involved. When I come up with a 

total cost-benefit ratio here. I come out with a figure of only 65 cents 

worth of benefits from $1 spent. I feel there are many questionable 

things that we have not been able to put into it, because the Bureau 

of Reclamation did not produce the figures. For instance, there are 

many gravesites tha t are going to have to be moved, they are not 

calculated in the cost of this project, several of the early settlers and 

ranchers in this area are buried in this site. There may be Indian 

burial sites in the area, too. We know that there are some endangered snecies also in tha t area, I think tha t in summary, then, if you 

take all of the economic considerations, if you take all of the environmental considerations and put a dollar value on them, as they 

should be, tha t this project does not hold water And as taxpayers in 

the United States and the State of Nebraska, we feel that the pro ject has been pushed by special interest groups or those misinformed, 

not necessarily ignorant, but at least misinformed about what the 

benefits really are.

I thank you very much for being able to testify.

Senator Burdick. You probably heard the testimony given earlier 

this morning, and I think I made it quite clear about what the committee has done about surplus crops, and we in all cases put in the 

10-year limitation because of the surpluses and, perhaps 40 years 

hence the population will catch up to the supply and at least we will 

know more about it by that time.

Now, you talk about these trees, these windbreaks, and the attitude of the farmers, and so forth. The farmers tha t own these windbreaks, are they raising objections?

Mr. Holcomb. They sure have. Senator Curtis said that 14 to 18 

people have agreed to that project. Those figures are not correct.
58

For one thing, there are not eight families living there right now, and 

there would be a majo rity of them definitely opposed to the project.

Senator Burdick. According to the report here we find tha t the 

Calamus Dam and Reservoir takes 8,240 acres of land. I don’t suppose that is all in crop?

Mr. Holcomb. No, it is going to take much more than that. There 

will be many more acres inundated because there will be about tha t 

much under water, and in addition to that there will be considerable 

easements.

One thing that will happen with this canal and laterals easements, 

tha t will take up another few thousand acres. I went out and looked 

at this about 3 weeks ago. They are rectangular fields, 40, 50 acres a *

field, that have a canal going across them in diagonal fashion; you 

can imagine what tha t is going to do with a farming operation set 

up with central pivot irrigation.

Senator Burdick. I drove mules in an irrigation farm in Sydney,

Mont., years and years ago, and it is easy to cross a ditch going 

diagonally as it is crosswise.

Mr. Holcomb. I have the actual numbers in my statement.

Senator Burdick. Where would I get the exact acreage officially, 

if that is not right ?

Mr. Holcomb. The reevaluation statement of February 1971 gives 

a total of just about 10,000 acres. They have 9,735 acres in the Calamus Reservoir, another 200 acres in easement fee for 9,735, and the 

easement of 200.

Senator Burdick. That is just about 10,000 acres?

Mr. Holcomb. Yes. About 10,000 acres now and the canals and l aterals, I feel will take out 4,142 acres. For the water disposal units 

another 920 acres. Fo r the subsurface drainage, another 464. So with 

the total fee and easements, you have just about 19,500 acres.

Senator Burdick. But you are upgrading three times as much 

ground. 

Mr. H x

olcomb. Except, sir, there are probably at least one-third, 

and perhaps as much as one-half of this area already either being i rrigated by central pivot irrigation or ready to pu t it in this year.

Senator Burdick. Are you r eferring to central pivot irrigation as 

irrigation from wells? «

Mr. Holcomb. Yes.

Senator Burdick. I thought you disputed the fact a while ago 

that the water level w’ould drop?

Mr. Holcomb. I did. •

Senator Burdick. The water level has not dropped ?

Mr. Holcomb. The water level hasn’t dropped and these people 

are using central pivotal irrigation. In the Sand Hill areas we get a 

complete recharge from fall and through the winter months. If you 

took the level of the wells directly afte r the pumping season, it 

would definitely be lower. This recharges throu gh the Sand Hills, 

one of the greatest reservoirs in the world.

Senator Burdick. You mean the areas in this so-called project 

area now are engaged in irrigation ?

Mr. Holcomb. Yes, many of them. I think many will testify to it 

tha t they are irrigating right now. I f you took those acreages out of 

this project I doubt if there would be more than 30,000 acres left.
59

Senator Burdick. How do these farmers feel irrigating with wells? 

Mr. Holcomb. They are against it. There are documented remarks 

and situations provided by these people.

Senator Burdick. T ou mean there is a division of opinion in this 

area?

Mr. Holcomb. Absolutely.

Senator Budick. Is it a minority opinion or how is it divided ?

Mr. Holcomb. I don’t know, I thin k the gentlemen who follow me 

will give you the exact numbers. I t represents many acres of land.

Senator Burdick. I understood when we opened this testimony, it 

had very much unified support.

Mr. Holcomb. T hat is not true.

Senator Budick. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Holcomb. Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Holcomb follows:)
60

STA TEM EN T O F LA RRY C. HOLC OM B 

CH AI RM AN , Q U A LIT Y EN VIR ONM EN T 

CO U N CIL , OM AH A, NE BR AS KA

INTRODUCTION

The North Loup Division Project con si st s of storage of water and di ve rs ion of

water for Ir ri gation on the Calamus and North Loup Rivers In Central Nebraska. The

Calamus Is a spr ing fed ri ve r flowing In to the North Loup. The North Loup, Middle y

Loup and South Loup Riv ers un ite to form the Loup River which flow s Into the P la tt e

River near Columbus, Nebraska. Ulti mately, any re se rv oir con structed on the Calamus

or Davis Creek (with the conn ected 274 m ile s of canals and la te ra ls for ir ri gati on)

w il l reduce the quantity and qual ity of water flow ing In the North Loup, Lo up ,Plat te,

Missouri and M is siss ip pi Riv ers and the Qulf of Mexico.

This document w il l ser ve to show cause why the North Loup Division Pr oject Is

environme nta lly, econom ically and so cio lo gic all y unsound. As a resu lt , according to

law es ta blish ed by the National Environmental Po lic y Act of 1969» the pr ojec t should

not be au tho riz ed.

The follo wing conten tio ns are given herewith:

Environmental Impact Statement In su ff ic ie nt

1. F ir st and foremost, the Environmental Impact and co st -b en ef it rati os have not

been shown In the Environmental Impact Statements and thus , under re gu latio n Imposed

by the 1969 Na tio nal Environmental Pol ic y Act, the project has not been su ff ic ie n tl y

evalua ted. Under Sec tion 102 (C) of the Act , the follo wi ng appear:

"(C) Inc lud e in every recommendation or rep ort on proposa ls for le g is la ti o n

and othe r major Fede ral ac tio ns si g n if ic a n tl y aff ec ti ng the qual ity of the

human environment, a det ai le d stat eme nt by the resp on sible o ffic ia l on----

(1) the environmental impact of the proposed ac tion ,

(11 ) any adverse environmental eff e cts which cannot be avoided Should

the proposal be Implemented.

( I l l ) alt er native s to the proposed ac tion .

(i v ) the re la tion sh ip between lo ca l sho rt-term us es of man’s environment

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term pr od uct iv ity, and

(v) any Ir re ve rs ib le and Ir re tr ie vab le committments of res ou rces which

would be inv olved In the proposed ac tio n should I t be Implemented.

Pr ior to making any det ai le d sta tem ent, the resp on sible Fede ral o ffic ia l sh all

co ns ult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has Ju risd iction by law

or sp ec ia l ex per tise with re sp ec t to any environmental Impact Involve d. Copies of such

stateme nt and the comments and views of the app ropriate Fed era l, Sta te , and lo ca l

ag en cies , which are authorized to dev elop and enf ore e environmental stan dards sh all be

made av ai la ble to the Pre sid en t, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the pub lic

as prov ided by se ct io n 552 of t i t l e 5« United Sta te s Code, and sh all accompany the

proposal through the ex is ti ng agency review pr ocess es; "

When follo wing these c rit eria by law , the dtl zen B of th e United Sta te s are

pr otec ted. However, approval by the O ffice of Management and Budget and Department of

the In te ri or have in fa ct, v io la te d th es e pr ov isi on s of the Na tio nal Environmental Po lic y

Act sinc e an adequate Impact Statement has not been provided to the Council on

Environmental Qu ality. Furthermore, the Congress or i t s Subcommittees would be vio la ting

the In te nt of NEPA in considering au thor ization o f the pr ojec t before the complete •

Statement Is provided, and the complete co st s and ben ef its of the pr ojec t have been

tabu lated.
61

2

2 . F in a l NEPA Sta te m en t In co m ple te

The d r a ft Env iron m en ta l Im pact Sta te m en t p ro vid ed to th e Q u a li ty En vir on men t

C ounci l and o th er a g e n c ie s was pro vi ded to th e C ou nci l on E n v ir o n m en ta l' Q u a li ty (CEQ)

on March 2 5 , 1971, but was n o t een t to th e Q u ali ty En vir on men t C ounci l u n t il

Fe br ua ry 14, 19 72 . A sta te m en t from QEC has be en req u este d In th e o f f i c e o f th e

Burea u o f R ec la m at io n by March 1 5 , 19 72.

Much o f th e en vir onm enta l In fo rm ati on req u ir ed to p rop erly ev a lu a te th e Nor th Loup

D iv is io n P r o ject I s not a v a ila b le , and th u s we r e se r v e th e r ig h t to fu rth er e v a lu a tio n

o f th e c o s t - b e n e f it r a t io u n t i l su ch tim e as th e BOR m ik es a v a il a b le th e n ece ssa ry

in fo rm a ti o n . As an ex am ple , th e uniq ue p la n ts and anim als to be d is p la c e d by th e

r e s e r v o ir ha ve not be en en um er at ed . Thu s, a co m p le te ly a cc u r a te c o s t ca nnot be a ssig n e d

u n t i l su ch v a lu e s are g iv e n .

3 . Log? o f Fa mily Ranch O p er ati on s

T h ir te en fa m il y ra nc h o p e r a tio n s and 47 c i t i z e n s w i l l be d is ru p te d by th e Calamus

R eserv o ir . In a d d itio n , th ere are f iv e s e t s o f b u il d in g s and win db re ak s u n occu pie d .

The home s, machine sh e d s, liv e s t o c k barn s and o th er b u il d in g s a s so c ia te d w it h th e s e

ra nc h o p er a tio n s w i l l be d estr o y ed . Th er e I s no way fo r th e s e in d iv id u a ls to r e p la c e

what th ey c u r r e n tl y ha ve on th e ra nch es wh ich In clu d e a t o t a l o f 5 0 ,1 7 2 a c r e s.

The se ra nch es c u r r e n tl y hav e 2 ,0 2 2 b e e f co w s, 2 ,1 6 3 y e a r li n g s and ab ou t 10 0 h o r s e s ,

fo r a t o t a l o f 4 ,2 8 5 he ad on th e 50 ,1 7 2 a c r e s . T h is d em on st rate s a v a lu e o f J u st un de r

12 a cr es fo r ea ch anim al.

I f th ey are fo rced up onto th e S a n d h il ls , th ere w i l l be lo s t :

a . ra nc h b u il d in g s

b . w in db re ak s

c . I c e - f r e e w ate r so u r ces

d. hay meadows and a l f a l f a fo r gr ow in g w in te r fe ed fo r th e liv e s t o c k

e . th e home th a t many o f th e se p eo p le or t h e ir c h il d r e n ha ve known fo r a l l

o f t h e ir l i v e s

f . lo w er v a lu e o f t h e ir re m ai nin g pro p er ty i f th ey s e l l to a d ja cen t ra n ch es

The ec on om ic Im pa ct o f th e p r o je c t sh ou ld in c lu d e a d o ll a r v a lu e l o s s in term s

o f th e s e s p e c ia l c a t e g o r ie s .

Wind breaks— $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 per ra nch — 18 ra nch es

I c e - f r e e w ate r so u r ces— S lO /h ea d /y ea r— ab ou t 5 ,3 0 0 he ad ; fo r

10 0 y ea rs

2 ,0 0 0 a cr es o f hay meadow or a l f a l f a . An added v a lu e o f

S20 0- S25 0 per a c r e , d ir e c t ly . Ho we ver, th e lo s s o f th e s e

hay meadows i s fa r more Im po rt an t th an t h i s . I t means th a t

in s te a d o f a ra nch er b ein g a b le to ha ve 1 2-1 5 a c r e s per

cow, he w i l l ne ed 2 0 -2 3 a c r e s . T h is means th a t I f th ere are

5 0 ,0 0 0 a c r e s o f ra nc h la n d , in s te a d o f b ein g a b le to run

4 ,1 6 7 c a t t l e (a t 12 a c r e s pe r he ad ) th e ra nch er wo uld o n ly

be a b le to run 2 ,5 0 0 c a t t l e ( a t 20 a c r e s p er h ea d ). T h is

r e p r e se n ts a lo s s o f ap proxim ate ly 1 ,6 5 0 c a lv e s ea ch y ea r or

ab ou t $ 2 9 7 ,0 0 0 per y ea r , ev en i f th e ra n ch ers remain In

o p era ti o n (fig u r e d fo r 1 ,6 5 0 c a lv e s a t 40 0 lb s . ea ch and

45.0 ty h un d re d l b s . ) . Even a t to d a y s p r ic e s th a t i s a lo s s

o f a t le a s t

1 ,3 5 0 ,0 0 0

5 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 2 9 7 ,0 0 0 x 10 0 y ea r s or

•Som e o f th e se ra n ch es ha ve y e a r li n g s ra th er th an c o w -c a lf

o p e r a tio n s . The fig u r e s p resen te d are s t i l l in d ic a t iv e o f

th e l o s s e s In v o lv ed .

The s o c io lo g ic a l and p s y c h o lo g ic a l e f f e c t o f mov ing from a

home and v ie w in g th e d e s tr u c tio n o f th a t home and p r o p e r t y -

13 hom es w it h 47 p eo p le a t $20 0, 00 0/h om e

2 9 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0

2 ,6 0 0 ,0 0 0

7 9 -7 0 4 0 - 72 - 5
62

3

The lo ver pr op er ty va lu e of th e scree rem ain ing a ft er

b u il d in gs and hay producing acre s ar e gone

S2 0/ ac re and 50 ,000 acr es

T ota l ad d it io n al lo s s e s — no t re pre se nte d In th e cu rren t

c o st— b e n e fi t r a tio s In th e Inu ndated ra nc he s. These

lo s s e s are to th e pr op er ty owners.

1, 00 0,0 00

» 39 ,9 50 ,0 00

4. Lo ss o f Scho olh ou se

A sm all sc ho olho us e w ill be cover ed with wat er . We assume th at th e BOR In tend s to

re p la ce th is sc h ool. However, th e child re n att en din g th is sc hoo l from th e ranches nea rby w ill have to tr a v e l fu rt he r to reac h sc hoo l or w il l need to be tr an sp or te d to

Bu rw ell or an other town. These c o sts w ill be In ad ditio n to const ru ct io n and w ill be

c o sts supp or ted by th e ra nc he rs fo r each ye ar .

5. SX£«t.a.,.2fl ttia Hunan Pa pu latio n

The Environm ental Impact State me nt deve lope d by th e Bureau o f Reclam ation , s ta te s

th er e ha s been a re duc tion o f po pu latio n in th e ar ea from 36 ,3 00 in 1940 to 24 ,5 00 In

19 70 . We would sta te ve ry em ph at ic al ly th at th is I s not what th e BOR r e fe r s to as

"underemployment o f th e c iv il ia n la bo r fo rc e" . The BOR ha s no t def in ed th e ar ea from

which th ey ar e ta kin g th e ir po pu la tio n fi g u res.

The b asic reas on why po pu la tio n In th is re gi on has decl in ed somewhat, i s because

o f an In cre asi n g a b il it y thro ugh te ch n olo gic al adv ances fo r few er pe op le to farm or

ranch more acre s. Tr an sp or ta tio n Is fa s te r and a g ric u lt u ra l mac hinery I s more e ffic ie n t

In 1972 than In 1940. Thus, a family can <arm 300 - 600 acr es tod ay, w her eas, In 1940

few far me rs u til iz e d more than 200 acres.

By sim ply pr ov id in g another so ur ce o f wat er , th e po pul at io n I s no t go ing to

in c r e a se . As we w il l d is cu ss more th or ou gh ly la te r in th is document, per hap s as

many as one-t hir d o f th e farmer s in th e re clam at ion d is t r ic t have al re ad y provide d

th e ir own so ur ce o f wa ter through cen tr a l - p iv ot I r r ig a ti o n . The b e n e fit s to th e

economy w ill be fo r th os e who make pi pe fo r I r r ig a ti o n . However, in d u str ie s are alre ad y

ma nu fac turin g c en tr a l- p iv o t Irr ig a ti o n sy stem s. Others to b e n e fi t w ill be th e la rg e

farm equipm ent ma nu fac tur ers with th e ir ba se o f oper ations ou ts id e o f Nebra ska. In stea d

o f drawing human po pu latio n back to th is re gi on o f Nebra ska, i t w ill be more li k e ly to

draw some o f th e young pe op le to th e in d u str ie s ou ts id e o f Neb raska.

6. E ff e c ts o f th e North Lqu.b .D iv isio n Threat on Cur ren t Development

The ra nc he rs to be d ir e c tl y removed from th e ir ba se op er ation s and homes would have

made fu rt her Improvements and In ves te d more in th e ir oper ation s had th ey no t been fac ed

with th e p o s s ib il it y o f lo sin g th e ir ra nc he s. No one can measure th e e n ti r e true c o st o f

th e ha rd sh ip th is has pl ac ed on th e r esid e n ts o f th e ar ea s pro pos ed fo r In un da tio n. I t

I s tim e to r e a li z e what such p roje cts do to pe op le and to remove t h is th re at perm anently .

7. The Current Irr ig a ti o n In North U>up D iv is io n

The Mira V al le y and S coti a ar ea s o f th e Reclama tion D is tr ic t ar e ar ea s th at have th e

g r ea test amounts o f land cu rre ntl y und er ir r ig a tio n by c en tr a l- p iv o t sy stem s. Many new

c e n tr a l- p iv o t ir r ig a ti o n sy ste ms are planned fo r th is ar ea In th e ne xt two ye ars . These

ar e pr ef er re d by th e m aj or ity o f farmers as th ey do no t re quir e th e expense o f le v e li n g

land or th e ha rd sh ip s o f working around Irr ig a ti o n ca na ls and la te r a ls wi th modern farm

equip me nt.

8. Farmers Opposed to P ro je ct

In th e Mira V alley and S coti a regio n s o f th e Reclama tion d is t r ic t , th e farmers are

be in g cens us ed as to whether th ey want th e p ro je ct. As o f February 27 , 1972, 12 o f each

13 far me rs co nt ac te d were again st the flo rth Loup Pr oj ec t. This 12 :1 r a ti o o f farmer s

op po sin g th e proje ct re pre se nte d a r a tio o f 32 q u arte r-s ecti on s ver su s one qu ar ter

se c ti o n o f la nd . Thi s ce nsu s I s be in g co nt in ue d and th e r e s u lt s w ill be pr es en ted to th e

Se na te and House Su bc on mltt ees.

9 . Farmers Opp o sit io n Based on Good Management

One major rea son th e far me rs oppose th e p roje ct I s th at th ey al re ad y have a more
63

4

e ff ic ie n t means o f pro vid in g th e ir w at er fo r i r r ig a tio n th ro ug h th e us e o f c e n tr a lp iv o t sy st em s. They r e a liz e th ro ugh re p o rts from th e s tu d ie s made on grou nd w ate r 

s u p p li e s, th a t th e m a jo ri ty o f la n d s w it h in th e co n fi n es o f th e Nor th Loup p ro je c t have 

ab un da nt ground w ate r to su pply th e ir ne ed s i f th ey use I t w is ely .

10. Fa rm ers Land D is ru pte d

Many fa rm er s oppo se th e Nor th Loup p ro je c t be ca use th ey ha ve In v e ste d In t h e i r own 

i r r ig a tio n sy stem . Some o f th e se In d iv id u a ls w ill ha ve t h e ir la nds d is ru p te d by th e 

• c a n a ls and l a t e r a l s pl an ne d fo r th e p ro je c t. Many acre ag es w ill be e s s e n tia lly

w o rt h le ss a f te r th e p r o je c t. Fo r an ex am ple, an i r r ig a tio n c an al I s pl an ne d th a t w il l 

ru n d ia g o n a ll y a cro ss a re c ta n g u la r-s h a p e d 56 a cre f ie ld . This w ill make tw ic e as many 

row s to c u ltiv a te . Th ere w ill be many a c re s lo s t to tu rn -a ro und sp ac e. More ti m e, e f f o r t 

and fu e ls w ill be ne ed ed to farm th e se ty p es o f f ie ld s .

11 . Con tin ue S Fr ee S n te rp ris e — Do Not Su pp re ss Corn P ric e s

Most fa rm er s In th e re g io n s to be e ff e c te d by th e Nor th Loup p r o je c t, wish to 

de vel op t h e ir own fre e e n te rp ris e sy ste m o f ra is in g cro ps and fe edin g c a t t l e . They se e 

no J u s tif ic a tio n In sp en di ng m il li o n s o f d o lla rs o f go vernm ent fu nd s to pro vid e w ate r f t r 

th e few re m ai ni ng a c re s th a t a re n o t a lr e a d y un de r I r r ig a tio n .

We su pport th e fa rm er s who a re p ro v id in g t h e ir own sy stem s and ma nagin g t h e i r own 

fa rm s. I f th ro ugh ra is in g a s u rp lu s o f corn , th ey ca use co rn p ric e s to dro p, th ey w ill 

be li v in g w it h in a s itu a tio n th e y ha ve c re a te d and th ey w ill ha ve th e o p p o rt u n it y to change 

fa rm in g p ra c ti c e s and to a d ju st managem ent p r i o r i t i e s . How ever, i t i s very o b je c ti o n a b le 

to pro vid e th e o p p o rtu n iti e s fo r g lu ttin g a mar ke t th ro ugh go vernm ent s u b s id iz a ti o n . As 

an ex am ple, th ro ug h Bu reau o f Rec la m at io n p ro je c ts , th e re may alr ead y be a t l e a s t 50 0,00 0 

a c re s more in co rn acre age bec au se o f ir r ig a tio n o r st re am c h a n n e li z a ti o n p r o je c ts . I f 

on th e se a c r e s , th e re were pr od uc ed an aver ag e o f 100 b u sh els per a c re , th e re wo uld be 

perh aps an a d d it io n a l 50 m il li o n b u sh els o f co m pr od uc ed by a g r ic u ltu r e . I f t h i s 

dr op pe d th e t o t a l valu e o f some It b illio n bu sh els o f com by only 1.0 5 p er b u sh el, th e re 

would be a d is tin c t lo s s of d o lla r s to a g ric u ltu re . The d if fe re n c e coul d bes

1», 000, 000,0 00 b u sh els a t 81.0 5 8 h ,2 00, 00 0, 00 0

>t,050, 000,0 00 bu eh els a t 81.0 0 It ,05 0, 00 0, 00 0

8 15 0, 00 0, 00 0

T his 150 m il li o n d o lla r d if fe re n c e I s a lo s s n o t Ju st to th e fa rm ers o f N eb ra sk a, 

but to th e e n tir e n a ti o n . As pork b a r r e l p ro je c ts p r o li f e r a te , th e fa rm ers w ill be th e 

c itiz e n s In th e 0 . S. to s u ffe r f i r s t . The Bu rea u o f R ec la m at io n i s one o f th e g re a te s t 

o ffe n d e rs in pr om ot in g th e se ty p e s o f p ro je c ts th a t ap pea r a t f i r s t gla nce to be 

p r o f ita b le , a t l e a s t to a few fa rm ers . However, N ati o n a l o b je c ti v e s to r a is e th e income 

an d li v in g sta n d a rd s o f r u r a l Am erica w ill only be hin dere d by such p ro je c ts as th e No rth 

Loup D iv is io n .

T h ere fo re , as an econom ic co st to each p ro je c t th e re sh ou ld be ad de d th e c o st to th e 

e n tir e n a ti o n s a g r ic u ltu r a l economy as a r e s u lt o f u sin g fe d e ra l fu nd s to g lu t th e co rn 

m ark et. We assume th e re are n o t more th an 25 ,0 00 a c re s o f la nd in th e N or th Loup 

D iv is io n th a t remain to be i r r ig a te d o r In de ed a re ir r ig a b le a c re s . I f th ese 25 ,0 00 a c re s 

were to pr od uc e an a d d it io n a l 100 b u sh els per a c re , th e re wo uld be 2,5 00,0 00 a d d it io n a l 

b u s h e ls . I f th e se b u sh e ls hel ped to dr op th e co m p ric e by only 8.0 5 p er b u sh el, t h is

would be a lo s s o f 81 25 ,0 00 p er y ear a sse ssed ba ck a g a in st th e se la nd ow ne rs . On an

a d d it io n a l 25 ,0 00 a c re s re m ain in g In th e Nor th Loup D iv is io n th e re would be a n o th er 31 25 ,000 

p er y ear lo s s ; a t o t a l lo s s J u s t In th e Nor th Loup D iv is io n o f 82 50 ,000 per y e a r. Thi s

i s as su ming onl y a 8.0 5 dr op In co m . In th e f a l l o f 19 71 , th e re we re fa rm er s s e llin g co m

fo r 8.8 0 to 8.8 5 p er bush el r a th e r th an th e minimum o f a 81 .0 0 to 81.1 0 th ey wo uld ha ve 

be en g e ttin g , ha d th e marke t n o t be en so overl oaded.

In summary on t h is p o in t, th e re sh ou ld be ad de d a c o st o f a t le a s t 81,0 00,0 00 p er 

y e ar fo r th e e f f e c t on th e Neb ra sk a mar ke t and a t l e a s t 81 ,0 00,0 00 p er y ear as an e ffe c t 

on th e N ati o n a l m ar ket .

T o ta l c o st— S2, 00 0, 00 0 p er y e ar
64

5

12. lasrgftsti Espinals AstlUto s^gtaaUat?l

The Environmental Impact Statem ent provided by the Bureau of Reclamation claims :

" Sta biliz ed and Inc rea sed ag ri cu ltur al production from the Ir riga tion

of 52,600 acres of cropland would prov ide the lnp etu s for Important so cia l

and economic op po rtun iti es . A study developed by the University of Nebraska In di ca te s 86.68 of economic a cti v it y occurs within the st ate of

Nebraska for each do lla r of Increased value at tr ib uta bl e to ir ri ga te d

crop prod uc tio n............an annual Impact of 836 m ill io n to Nebraska

busi nes s. "

These va lues of 86.68 do not take Into account the po ints ralBed thus fa r, nor do

the y con sid er the lo ss es in terms o f environmental degradation of water and ai r or some of

the so cio lo gic al Impacts of the dol la r exchange they report In th ei r study. Unt il these

va lu es can be updated, using a ll c r it e r ia , they should be disal low ed in the co st -b en ef it

ev alua tio n of the North Loup Div isio n. One good example of the bad side eff e cts not

con sidere d by the Unive rs ity of Nebraska Is the over-prod uction of co m , re su ltin g In a

red uction In pr ice as shown under Item 9.

1 3 . R ff sr ta U gfl fl i B a a g tlt g m

Re creat ion al ben ef it s are claimed to be Incr eased by 50,000 v is it o r days of pub lic

outdoor recr ea tio n annually. These figu re s are at le ast double what the ac tual fig ur e

would be. I f the re se rv oi r were within 30-40 mile s of Omaha or Lincoln , the figu re s would

probably be Just if ie d. However, one needs only to v is it Sherman Reser voi r, Plbe l Lake,

Milburn Dam, Mer ritt Reservoir or Box Butte Reservoir to understand the lack of v is it o r s

to re se rv oi rs or lake s th at are loc ated In ex cess of one hundred mile s from major population cent er s or away from routes of tran sp or tatio n. Unless guarantees can be made about

no withdraw als of water from the re se rv oi rs during the summer months, the valu e of the

re cr ea tion al grounds cannot be defended. As water Is withdrawn, I t makes bo ating, swimming

and oth er re cr ea tio na l a c tiv it ie s more d if fic u lt and leav es small pools of water in which

occur alg al blooms or mosquito breedin g ponds.

On the oth er hand, i f water Is not withdrawn from the rese rvoir s, ^ h e flow of water

downstream In the Calamus, North Loup, Loup and P la tt e Rivers w il l be reduced, thus

eff ecti n g environmental qu al ity and economic sta b il it y of ag ricu ltu re dependent on sublr rl gat ed hay meadows.

14.

Public hunting and fish in g ben ef it s are claimed at an ad di tio na l 19,0 70 days ann ually.

These figu re s are en ti re ly fa ls e for the follo wing reasons:

A. Waterfowl hunting Is cu rren tly bet te r than It w il l be aft er the re se rv oi rs are

co nstruc ted. Waterfowl prefe r sm aller , more pro tected water as re st in g or fee din g stop s.

The Calamus provldejopen water a ll year lon g. There are se ve ra l sma ll sp rin g-fed ponds

occ urr ing near the edge of the Calamus. Furthermore, Gr ade Creek provi des ad ditio na l

open water near the Calamus. On February 22, 1972, even though most waterfowl were

migrating, the re were Canada Geese, Mallard s, Lesser Scaup and Buffle heads In the River

and ponds adjacent to I t . This se ct io n of the Riv er, the ponds and 'a por tion of Grade

Creek would be Inundated by the Reser voir.

B. Mule Deer prefe r mixed ha bi tat co nsist in g of gra zing lands and sh el te r in small

clumps of scattere d tr ees. This type of ha bitat ex is ts now in the valley to be Inundated.

However, It does not ex is t In ne arly as favora ble a circumstance In the Sa nd hills , nor w il l

i t ex is t I f the North Loup Pr oje ct Is autho riz ed. There w il l be reduced numbers of deer

av ai la ble for hunting because of the Inundation of thousands of acres of hab itat . There

w il l be a lo ss of at le a st 8,3 00 ac re s of land sur fac e I f the re se rv oi rs and canals are

comp leted . There i s at le ast one deer occupying every 50 ac res In th is type of hab itat .

There w il l be a lo ss Ofl66 deer per year by simply removing th ei r ex ce llen t ha bi tat. The

economic lo ss annually w il l be approximately 166 times 1500 per deer or 883.000 lo st

annually.

C. In addition to the deer displaced by water, the re w il l be approximately 100

ad di tio na l deer tha t w il l die In the 274 mile s of ir ri ga ti on cana ls and la te ra ls . This

repr es en ts an ad di tio na l lo ss of 850 ,000 annually to the St at e of Nebraska.
65

D. Oth er game b ir d s su ch a s p h ea sa n ts and gr ou se o r mammals su ch a s r a b b it s and

s q u ir r e ls p r e fe r mixe d h a b ita t su ch a s th a t e x i s t i n g now. By Inu n d ati n g th e v a ll e y s ,

th ere w i l l be a lo s s o f hu nd re ds o f p h ea sa n ts , s q u ir r e ls and r a b b it s and many g ro u se.

T h ei r v a lu e wo uld re p r ese n t a t le a s t S I .00 per a cre fo r 8 ,3 0 0 a cr es fo r a fu rth er lo s s

o f 8 8 .3 0 0 a n n u a ll y to th e St a t e o f N eb ra sk a.

I t la o b v io u s th a t th e Bureau o f R ec la m at io n or t h e ir c o n s u lt a n ts do not u nder st and

w i l d l i f e ec onom ic s. T h eir cl aim o f h u n ti n g b e n e f it s are not o n ly wr on g, but q u ite th e

• o p p o sit e I s t r u e . Th ere w i l l be o v e r a ll lo s s o f h un ti ng b e n e f it s and an ec on om ic and

r e c r e a tio n a l lo s s to th e c i t i z e n s o f N eb ra sk a.

£ . Good st re am f is h in g w i l l be d estr o y ed In th e Cala mus and in G r a d e Cr eek by

d ir e c t In u n d a ti o n . Throu gh r e le a s e o f r e s e r v o ir w at er fo r ir r ig a t io n In th e summer

mo nths and th en r e f i l l i n g th ro ugh th e w in te r and sp r in g m on ths, f is h num ber s and f is h

re p ro d u cti o n w i l l be e f f e c t e d . The se d i f f i c u l t i e s ha ve a lr ea d y be en en co u n te re d in many

* la r g e r e s e r v o ir s .

In a d d it io n to th e d ir e c t e f f e c t s o f th e im poundm ent, a s th ere i s w it h draw al from

th e r iv e r s to r e f i l l r e s e r v o ir s and a s th e r e i s h ig h lo s s o f w ate r th ro ugh ev a p o ra ti o n

from th e s u r fa c e o f th e r e s e r v o ir s and from th e ir r ig a t i o n c a n a ls and d it c h e s , th e

Cala mus, Nor th Loup, Loup, P la t t e and M is so u ri R iv ers w i l l be e f f e c t e d . R iv er tem pe ra ­

tu r e s and fl ow r a t e s are very im port ant to m ai nte nance o f f is h l i f e th ro ughout th e e n t ir e

y ea r .

The Bu rea u o f R ec la m at io n has not s u f f i c i e n t l y d is c u sse d th e e f f e c t s o f drawdown o f

th e r e s e r v o ir , no r ha ve th ey d ecid ed wh at am ounts o f w ate r r e le a s e s th ey w i l l gu ara n te e

bel ow th e r e s e r v o ir . U n til su ch ti m e a s th e s e q u e stio n s a re s u f f i c i e n t l y an sw er ed , th ere

sh ould be a b s o lu te ly no d o ll a r v a lu e all ow ed fo r In crea sed f is h in g b e n e f it s a s a r e s u lt

o f th e Nor th Loup D iv is io n .

1 5 . N atu ral and Human R es ource s C urr en tly Us ed w is e ly

An " I n e f f i c ie n t u se o f n a tu r a l and human re so u rce s" I s cl aim ed by th e BOR I f th e

w ate r and r e la t e d la nd r e so u r c e s are l e f t In t h e ir p resen t s t a t e . The se so un d l i k e th e

same ar gu m en ts use d by th e pro ponen ts o f th e Aswan Dam on th e N il e R iv er . The Aswan Dam

h eld ba ck n u t r ie n t s and e s s e n t ia l m in era ls th a t had be en fl o w in g to th e M ed it er ra nea n Se a

As a r e s u lt , th e S a rd in es p eris h ed bec au se n u tr ie n ts w er e n ot a v a il a b le to p ro v id e fo od

fo r th e sm a ll p la n ts and an im als which th e S a rd in es fe d up on .

An an nual m u lli- m lllio n d o lla r S ard in e f is h e r y was l o s t and th ousa nds o f p eo p le a re

w it h o u t wo rk .

We ha ve a lr ea d y p o in te d out many o f th e f a u lt s o f th e N or th Loup P r o je c t and w i l l

show a d d itio n a l se v e r e c o s t s . Ho we ver, th e r e may be many c o s t s to th e p eo p le o f Neb ra sk a

and to ou r n a tio n th a t a re n o t r e a d ily o b v io u s.

1 6 . Taj; ga gg klfiS fta t.°. .Co.Ufl.a-M.

Tax B as e lo s s e s w i l l o cc ur p r im a r il y to Loup and V a ll e y C oun ti es w it h a sm a ll e r

10 66 to G reele y Cou nt y. T h is la n d , p ro p er ty and b u ild in g ta x lo s s w i l l add a g r e a te r

bu rd en to th o se p erso n s ow ning a cr ea g es ou tB id e o f th e p r o je c t a rea .

For Loup Co un ty th e r e w i l l be a l o s s o f a s s e s s e d v a lu a tio n a s fo ll o w s :

8 4 0 ,7 6 5 B ld g s.

4 1 8 ,8 8 3 Land

2 9 4 ,7 6 5 P e rso n a l P ropert y

• T o ta l 8 7 5 4 ,4 1 3

At an a sse ss m en t o f ab ou t 87 0 per th ousa n d , Loup Co. w i l l lo s e ab ou t 8 5 2 .8 0 0 in ta x e

per yea r th a t o th e r la ndow ner s w i l l nee d to make up.

For V a ll e y Co unty, th e r e w i l l be a lo s s o f a t le a s t 8 1 7 1,7 85 o f a s s e s s e d la n d v a lu e .

At an a sse ss m en t o f ab ou t 87 0 per th ou sa nd th e r e wou ld be a lo s s o f a t le a s t 8 1 2 .0 4 0 pe r

year in t a x e s t o be made up by th e re m ai nde r o f th e co unty r e s id e n t s .

* T o ta l L oss o f Tax es - 8 7 0 ,8 4 0 per y ea r (minimum)
66

?

17. Lang lara tana vqlugs Not Con side re d

Land v alu es a re c u rre n tl y ru nnin g be tw ee n 355 - 8200 per acre in th e a re as to be 

In undat ed by th e re s e r v o irs . Areas to be a ffe c te d by many o f th e i r r ig a tio n c an als and 

l a t e r a l s w ill be more c o s tly , as th ey a re in fa rm in g countr y. The v a lu e s are go in g to be 

fa r g re a te r in y e ars to come as ou r pop u la ti o n grows and as th e r e la tiv e valu e beco mes 

g re a te r fo r la n d .

18 . Bea ve r Economic E f fe c ts Hot Con side re d

Bea ve r a re nume rou s in th e r iv e r s an d st re am s in th e Nor th Loup p ro je c t a re a . They 

w ill move in to i r r ig a tio n c a n a ls an d l a t e r a l s and w ill pl ug up such waterway s w ith 

dig gin gs and sm al l dams. The BON has n o t in clu d ed th e co st o f upkeep th a t M i l be 

n ecessa ry as a r e s u lt o f th e Be av er a c t iv ity . The a d d it io n a l c o st w ill amount to a t le a s t 

310 per m il e per year fo r th e 274 m il e s. T o ta l c o st - 82 ,7 40 ann u all y .

19. Econom ic Loma I n C a ttl e P ro duct io n

The R ese rv o ir s would ta ke ou t o f c a t t l e p ro d u c ti o n , a t le a s t 12 ,5 55 a cre s o f la nd 

a lto g e th e r . Thi s In c lu d e s th e 6,5 00 a c re s of w at er su rf ace and th e re c re a tio n a l and 

o th e r ea se m en ts a ss o c ia te d w ith th e R ese rv o ir s. These 12 ,555 a c re s o f la nd c u rre n tl y 

pro vid e ra nge and w in te r fe ed fo r a t l e a s t 1,04 6 c a t t l e each y e ar. Th es e c a t t l e w il l 

pr od uc e some 1, 02 5 or more c a lv es th a t w ill be so ld fo r fe eder sto ck a t ar ou nd 400 lb s . 

ea ch . Th es e c alv es are c u rre n tl y s e ll in g fo r ab ou t 45.0 0/h un dre d lb s . o r S l8 0 .0 0 /e ach .

Ten hu nd re d and tw e n ty -f iv e calv es would th en be s e llin g fo r ab ou t 81 84 ,5 00 ea ch y ear. A 

lo s s ov er 100 y e ars of a t le a s t - Sl 8.4 5Q .0 00.

The la n d to be in undate d by th e r e s e r v o irs i s p ri m a ril y u sab le only fo r gra zin g o r 

hay p ro d u c ti o n . Neb rask a ne ed s a re as in th e s ta te to pr od uc e fe ed er c a t t l e fo r th ose 

w is hin g to r a is e co rn and fe ed ou t th e se c a t t l e . F u rth e r, th e se ra n c h e rs re c e iv e no 

s u b sid ie s from th e fe d e ra l governm ent fo r cr op pro ducti on o r fo r keep in g th e ir a c re s ou t 

o f p ro d u c ti o n .

In a d d it io n to th e c a t t l e th a t can be ra is e d d ir e c tly on th e In undate d p o rt io n of 

Cal amu s V all ey and Oav ls Cre ek , th e re a re a t le a s t an a d d it io n a l 8 00 c a lv e s de pe nd en t on th e 

ra nc h o p e ra ti o n s th a t a re headquart ere d on th e Calam us. These h e a d q u a rt ers are in p ro te c te d 

tr e e s fo r o v e r- w in te ri n g c a t t l e and pro vid e w ate r th a t i s n o t fr oze n a l l w in te r lo ng.

Below th e dam on th e Calamus and N orth Loup, th e re are many th ousa nds o f a c re s o f wet 

hay meadow o r a l f a l f a th a t a re de pe nd en t on th e w ate r so urc es from th e r iv e r s th ro ug h 

s u b ir r ig a tio n . Alth ou gh , we muBt depend on th e Bu reau o f R ec la m at io n fo r a f in a l a s s e s s ­

men t o f th e s e a c re s , we b e li e v e th a t th e re du ce d flo w w il l a d v ers ely a f f e c t a t le a s t 

20 ,0 00 a c re s do wn stream. The lo s s e s to be ex pec te d w il l pro bab ly ra nge upw ard from 

81,0 00,0 00 p er year as th e se acre ages a ls o e f f e c t o v er- w in te ri n g fe ed fo r c a t t l e ra is e d 

on a d ja c e n t upla nds.

R an ch er s de pe nd en t upon hay fo r o v e r- w in te ri n g w il l ne ed to pu rc has e hay from o u tsid e so u rc es as th e re i s alway s a c r i t i c a l bala nce between summer p a stu re and hay meadow 

o r a l f a l f a in ra nchin g o p e ra ti o n s.

20 . O th er Lan ds Out o f Pro duct io n

Th ere w ill be a t o t a l of 274 m il es o f i r r ig a tio n c a n a ls , th e ir l a t e r a l s and 10 

pumping s ta tio n s . Th ere w il l be a lo s s to a g ric u lt u re o f an aver ag e o f 25 a c re s o f cr op ­

la nd o r c a t t l e g ra zin g la nd p er m ile o f can al on th e aver ag e. Tha t g iv e s a t o t a l of 

(25 x 27 4) or an a d d it io n a l lo s s o f 6,8 50 a c re s to a g r ic u ltu r a l p ro d u c ti o n . Assuming 

th a t one —h a lf o f t h is la nd i s unde r row cr op pro duction and th e o th e r un de r g ra z in g , th e 

lo s s wo uld be ab out (3425 x 850/a cre fo r cro p) and (3425 x 812/a cre fo r gra zin g ) 81 43 .850 

l o s t per y e ar to a g r ic u ltu r e . In a d d it io n , ho wev er, many o f th e se l a t e r a l s w ill cro ss 

c u rre n tl y ir r ig a te d f ie ld s d ia g o n a ll y wh ich means th a t tw ic e as many tu rn s w ill ha ve to 

be made w ith eq uip me nt p u tt in g in row c ro p s. This w ill be an added c o st to th e fa rm er .

Our e sti m a ti o n i s th a t th e in conveai enee w ill c o st a t le a s t an o th er 82 00 ,0 00 ea ch year 

to th e fa rm er. The t o t a l econom ic lo s s from th e se e f f e c ts a re th en 83 43 .8 50 per year or 

334 ,3 85,0 00 ov er th e 100 year p eri o d .
67

s

21 . Calam us River Pn lgue

The Calamu s R iv er i s uni qu e among Neb rask a r iv e r s In th a t I t ha s a c o n sta n t flo w o f 

w at er th ro ughout th e y e a r. Th ere i s ve ry l i t t l e observ able e ro sio n e f ba nk s and th e re 

i s no fl o o d in g . This r iv e r l a fe d by sp ri n g s and se eps com ing from th e Neb rask a 

S a n d h il ls . As a r e s u lt o f I t s co n sta n t flo w, th e r iv e r re m ai ns ope n and re m ai ns warm er 

th an most o th e r r iv e r s . This makes th e Calamus an im port ant so urc e o f w in te r w ate r fo r 

ra nches and fo r w ild lif e .

The P la tte R iv er bec om es n e a rly dry in th e summer mon ths. I t I s only th ro ug h 

flo w from a r iv e r lik e th e Calamus th a t th e P la tte d e ri v e s w at er fo r th e se minim al fl ow s.

I f w at er i s d iv e rt e d ,f ro m th e Calam us, th e P la tte R iv er may become n e a rly d ry , th u s lo s in g 

a so urc e o f re c re a tio n and lo s in g th e w at er e s s e n tia l to fis h and w ild lif e de pe nd en t upon 

th e P la tte .

22 . gfl-StT-UCtlon of Uncommon Heror. Roo kery

Th ere 1s a G re at Blue Heron n e sti n g ro okery p re s e n tl y In a sta nd o f Co ttonw oods n ear 

th e Calamu s R iv er. Heron R oo ker ie s are no t common. They a re u t iliz e d y e ar a f t e r year 

and se rv e as n e sti n g and ro o s ti n g s i t e s and as a s i t e from wh ich y e ar-o ld hero ns 

a s s o c ia te w it h th e ro okery .

The BOR cla im s th e ro okery w ill be p ro te c te d . However, th e r e s e r v o ir w ill come so 

c lo se to th e co tto nw oo d gro ve, th a t tr e e ro o ts w ill become w at er so aked th ro ugh a r i s e In 

grou nd w at er and a m a jo ri ty o f th e tr e e s w ill d ie . Even tho ug h i t may ta k e s e v e ra l y e ars 

fo r tr e e s to d ie , th e hero ns w ill be u p set by an In c re a se in human a c t i v i t i e s near th e 

ro okery and th e n o is e from motor b o a ts . Due to th e in c re a se In human a c t i v i t i e s , th e 

hero ns w ill aband on th e ro okery . This ty pe o f en vir onm enta l damage sh ou ld not be al lo w ed 

to go unchall enged. This ty pe o f un iq ue w il d lif e a re a sh oul d ha ve a p ric e — Lo ss 

Shm-KOd to. th e N or th Loup D iv is io n o f Si,OOP.OOP.

23 . Destruc tio n, .of K in gf is her N es ting S it e s

Ano ther w ild lif e fa c to r to be d est ro yed by th e Calamu s re s e r v o ir i s th e n e sti n g s i t e s 

fo r B el te d Kin g fis h e rs In th e hig h ba nk s ra ngin g above th e Calam us. Th ese b ir d s re q u ir e 

ste e p ba nk s in to wh ich th ey can d ig a n e st tu n n e l overl ookin g w ate r. This lo s s o f w ild lif e 

h a b it a t would be worth a t le a s t 85 00 ,000 .

24 . W aterfo wl W in te r H a b it a t Lo st

Los e o f w in te r h a b ita t fo r w at er fo w l w ill occu r In th e Calamus R eserv o ir a re a . The 

Ca lam us, G ra d e Cr eek and th e sm al l sp ri n g -f ed ponds to be In undate d by th e Calamu s 

R eserv o ir a re ope n a l l y ear lo ng be ca us e o f th e warmer te m p era tu re s o f th e se w a te rs . Th us, 

many w at er fo w l ha ve a pla c e to s ta y th ro ughout th e w in te r. With th e c re a ti o n o f a 

r e s e r v o ir , w a te rs w ill be su b je c te d to more su rf a c e a re a and th u s al lo w ed to cool and 

fr ee z e in th e w in te r mon ths, remov ing an o v e r- w in te ri n g a re a .

The BOR st ate m en t cla im s th a t th e r e s e r v o ir s w ill becom e m aj or n e sti n g a re a s fo r 

m ig ra ti n g w ate rf ow l. We do ub t th a t th ey w ill becom e very im port ant in th a t re g a rd . In 

fa c t, we a re r e lu c ta n t to se e w at er fo w l become de pe nd en t upon tr a n s ito r y r e s e r v o ir s , perha ps ch ange m ig ra ti n g ro u te s somewhat and th en hav e th e r e s e r v o ir becom e n o n -e x is te n t 

many y e ars from now. Such a r t i f i c i a l ch an ge s In th e en vi ro nm en t may le ad to e x ti n c ti o n 

o f p o rti o n s o f a p o p u la ti o n . The valu e o f t h is p o rt io n o f th e po p u la ti o n g e n eti c po ol 

coul d be c o n sid e ra b le .

25 . Displ ac em en t o f Non-Oaae B ir ds

Most b ir d s a re t e r r i t o r i a l , a t l e a s t th ro ughout th e re p ro d u c ti v e se aso n. T his i s 

one mechanism o f li m it in g th e pop u la ti o n by n a tu ra l means sin ce a p a ir o f b ir d s re q u ir e 

a c e r ta in amount o f sp ac e as c o u rt in g and n e s ti n g t e r r i t o r y . The In un d ati o n o f th ous an ds 

o f a c re s w ill d e str o y bre edin g h a b it a t fo r a t le a s t 40 sp e c ie s o f b ir d s . Th er e w ill th en 

simply be a re d u c ti o n In t o t a l numb ers In th e s t a t e and n a ti o n o f s p e c ie s,s u c h as 

C a tb ir d s, R ob in s, Brown T h ra sh ers and our s ta t e b ir d , th e W estern Meadow lark.

Th ere w ill be a t le a s t 8,3 00 a c re s lo s t to h a b ita t fo r th e m a jo ri ty o f non -ga me b ir d s . 

Fo r N eb ra sk a's s ta t e b ir d , th e re w ill be an ex pec te d lo s s o f one p a ir fo r a t l e a s t ev er y 

fiv e a c re s , o r a t o t a l num ber o f 1,6 60 p a ir s o r 3,3 20 me ad ow larks.
68

9

We do no t know ex a ctl y how many sp e cie s o f non-game bir ds w ill be e ff e c te d nor th e

numbers th at w ill be red uce d In eac h o f th e ir popula tions. However, fo r each anim al

dis pla ce d th er e should be a va lu e charged between S i . 00 and $500 depending upon the

sp e cie s, age and se x. Thi s valu e w ill amount to at le a s t $5 00 ,000 an nu al ly to be

cha rged again st th e p ro je c t. We would res erv e th e rig h t to ad ju st th is fi gu re upward

as th e BOR makes th e numbers a v a il a b le .

26 . Ufliam S a ta n /w id s p g slw A s •

the Calamus River m ai nt ai ns I t s co ns ta nt water flo w and does no t fr e e z e , th er e proba bly

occur some o f th e we ste rnmo st or ea sternm ost ge ograph ic range ex te n si on s o f anim als

depend ent upon open water . Furtherm ore, th er e may be ra re or end angered sp e cie s of

an im als in t h is re gi on th at have no t been Id e n ti fie d . We can not giv e a to t a l c o st fa cto r

fo r th is Ite m be cause o f la ck o f in fo rm at ion pr es en ted by th e BOR. However, fo r each

un iq ue , end angered or ra re sp e cie s th at would be dis p la ced , we would add a c o st o f *

51,0 00,0 00 to th e proje ct c o sts.

27 . H yb rids <?r q ? b ri 4 Syzynq o£ A ^ m a ^

Hybrids between two sp e cie s are rarely found In na tu re . Even more rare , are the

ge og ra ph ic re gio ns where swarms o f such hy br id s oc cu r. These ty pes o f b io lo g ic a l

a sso c ia ti o n s ar e som etim es ex trem ely impo rta nt to th e su cc es s o f th e sp e c ie s In vo lv ed .

Si nc e th e Calamus i s a uniqu e r iv e r , th er e may be hy br id s or hy br id swarms e x is tin g In or

ne ar i t s w at er s. We would re se rv e th e r ig h t to add a to ta l c o st fa cto r to th e c o stb e n e fi t r a tio s at such tim e as th e BOR ha s com ple ted an adequate st udy. For eac h hybrid

or hy br id swarm disco ve re d we would add a c o st o f S i . 00 0. 00 0 fo r each th at was de stro ye d

or dis p la ced .

28 . Onl oue P la n ts or Enda ngered Pl an t S p ec ie s

One ve ry uniqu e pla nt sp ecie s on th e banks o f th e Calamus was I d e n tif ie d by Rac hel

Snyder (e d it o r -in -c h ie f o f Flower and QArden Mag azine). I t was (G er ar dia Pu rp ur ea), a

sm al l pi nk flow er . Miss Snyder had d if f ic u lt y Id en ti fy in g I t be ca us e most a u th o r it ie s

do no t eve n l i s t i t fo r Nebra ska . Could th is be th e on ly pla ce I t e x is t s in Nebrask a or

i s i t only ve ry ra re her e? I f so , i t sh ou ld be prote cte d.

Si nce th e Calamus I s un iq ue , i t may have ot he r uniqu e or endang ered pla nt sp e cie s

in or ne ar I t s wat er s. We would re se rv e th e r ig h t to add a to t a l c o st fa cto r to the

c o st-b e n e fit r a tio s at such tim e as th e BOR has comp leted an adequate st udy. For each

uniqu e or endangered sp e cie s to be de stro ye d we would add a c o st o f $1 ,0 00,0 00 fo r each.

29 . Habitat. R.aR jatW fat 19 lfi9U i l l e g a l

The BOR s ta te s they w ill pla nt 150 acre s o f tr e e s nea r th e comp leted reserv o ir s

to rep la ce th e w il d lif e h ab it at des tr oy ed . The se tr e e s w ill no t even be gi n to re pla ce the

co ve r lo s t fo r w ild lif e . Furthermore, I t w ill be at le a s t 100 ye ar s befo re th es e tr e es

pr ov id e th e e c o lo g ic a l nic hes pr es en t in th e w ild life hab it at removed.

50 . P e s ti c id e E ff e c ts on Water Q ua lit y — E ff e c ts on Pe op le and W il d li fe

The flow in g wat er s o f th e Calamus do no t aff ord mos qu ito es with good br ee di ng h a b it a t.

However, th e cre ati on o f a la rge r eserv o ir with a sh al lo w wa ter sh oreli n e and th e cr ea ti on

o f 274 m il es o f canals and la te r a ls w ill pr ov ide fo r many ad d it io n al s i t e s fo r m os qu ito es.

M osqu ito es ar e contr olled by a v a rie ty o f p e s tic id e s. P e sti c id e s w ill have some e ffe c t

on th e re pr od uc tio n in an im als and w ill k i l l oth er s. Dependin g on th e ty pe o f p e sti c id e •

us ed , th er e w ill be d ir e c t or In d ir ect e f f e c t s upon th e human po pula tion. For each

vert eb ra te sp e cie s k il le d or rep ro d uctl vely in h ib it ed by us e of p e s tic id e s or h erb ic id es

in th e Irr ig a ti o n ca na l a cost should be cha rged o f between $1 .0 0 and $5 00 .0 0 dep end ing

on th e sp e c ie s , age and se x.

51 . S il tin g In of th e R es er vo ir s

The Calamus River be ar s a heavy natu ra l s l i t lo ad. Thi s do es no t n e c essa ril y mean

th at th er e i s heavy s o il erosi on . River sy ste ms have alw ays ca rr ie d s i l t th at was

dep osi te d In ot her lo c a ti o n s; th us a ve ry slow nat ura l change In th e r iv e r v a ll e y .
69

10

We b e li e v e th a t th e e f f e c tiv e l i f e span o f th e Calamus re s e r v o ir w ill be fo r le s s 

th an th e 100 y e ars us ed to J u s tif y I t s e x is te n c e . As ev id en ce fo r ra p id f i l l i n g , th e 

sm all re s e r v o ir a t B urw el l I s a good ex am ple. This a re a was c o n str u c te d In th e 1 9 3 0 's 

and a lr e a d y ha s a re m ar kab le ch an ge . I f t h i s re s e r v o ir I s to se rv e as w ate r s to ra g e 

o r fo r an y re c re a tio n i t i s go in g to ne ed to be exca vate d.

B ef or e th e f in a l envir onm enta l Im pa ct sta te m ent can be co m pl et ed o r th e f in a l 

c o s t- b e n e fit r a t i o s can be fin a liz e d , th e re sh ou ld be an ad eq uat e as se ss m en t o f th e 

number o f y e a rs th e re s e r v o ir would l a s t . O bvio usl y, th e r e s e r v o ir w ill be fu n c ti o n a l

• fo r le e s th an 100 y e a rs. Th us , th e b e n e f its , i r an y, w ill be le s s th an th e BOR has 

a n ti c ip a te d .

32. Ppsglbla A rc heo lo gic al and Pale onto lo gi c a l Los se s

Th ere ha ve be en no s tu d ie s by th e BOR to adeq u ate ly d is co v e r w he th er th e re a re p a st 

In dia n c u ltu r a l m a te ria ls or v a lu a b le f o s s i l s In th e pr op os ed a re a to be in undate d by th e 

r e s e r v o ir s , c a n a ls o r l a t e r a l s .

Th ere i s a F ed e ra l A n ti q u it ie s Ac t p ro te c ti n g c itiz e n s o f our countr y from lo s s of 

a rc h e o lo g ic a l s i t e s by p ro h ib it io n o f p ro je c ts th a t would d e str o y su ch s i t e s . The 

En vironm en t P ro te c ti o n Agency a ls o a ffo rd s t h i s ty pe o f p ro te c ti o n .

As th e a rc h e o lo g ic a l an d p a le o n to lo g ic a l v a lu e s o f t h is s i t e ha ve n o t be en a ss e ss e d , 

no a u th o riz a ti o n sh ou ld pro ceed . F u rth e r, we re s e rv e th e r ig h t to add o th e r c o s ts to th e 

p ro je c t u n t i l such tim e as th e se s tu d ie s ha ve be en adequate ly co m pl et ed by th e BOR.

33 . IfO.ee o f E x c e ll e n t Ca noein g Riv er

As th e Calamus r e ta in s I t s c o n sta n t flo w o f w ate r from sp ri n g s an d se eps a l l y ear 

lo ng, and as i t i s in sem i- w il dern ess s e tt in g , i t p ro v id es an e x c e ll e n t r iv e r to ca no e 

o r fo r f lo a t t r i p s . Th ere a re few r iv e r s th a t o f f e r t h i s ty pe o f o p p o rt u n it y .

Most humans ne ed th e o p p o rt u n it y to re tu rn to su ch a re a s , fre e from motor b o a ts and 

th e crowded at m os ph er e o f many p u b li c re c re a tio n a re a s . Th us, t h is r iv e r w ill be o f 

in c re a s in g valu e as a so urc e o f - q u ie t, p e a c e fu l re c re a tio n .

Th ere has been no c o st a sse ssed a g a in st th e N or th Loup p ro je c t fo r lo s s o f t h i s 

v a lu a b le fr e e -f lo w in g ca noea ble r iv e r . We would a ss e ss 81 ,0 00,0 00 p er m il e fo r t h i s 

lo s s . As th e re w ill be some 13 m il es o f r i v e r e ffe c te d , th e c o st w ill be S15. 00 0. 000 .

34 . Lo-fls o f T re es an d Sh rubs

The Bureau o f R ec la m at io n has n o t p la ced in th e Env iron m en ta l Im pa ct Sta te m ent o r in 

th e C o st- B e n e fi t r a t i o o f th e p ro je c t th e numb ers o f tr e e s and sh ru bs to be l o s t by 

in u n d a ti n g th e Calam us R iv er V a ll e y . Th er e a re s e v e ra l sp e c ie s o f tr e e s re p re s e n ti n g 

h a rv e s ta b le ti m ber su ch as Ced ar , Chi ne se Elm and Co ttonw ood. We would e sti m a te a t le a s t 

an av er ag e o f 48 0, 00 0 boar d fe e t fo r ea ch o f th e se sp e c ie s fo r a t o t a l o f 1,4 40,0 00 

bo ar d f e e t. At an aver ag e p ric e o f ab out 8 .2 5 /b o ard fo o t th e valu e o f th e lum be r wo uld be 

ab ou t 83 60, 000 . Th es e v a lu e s ho wev er, n e g le c t th e sm all er tr e e s and a ls o n e g le c t th e 

pe rm an en t v alu e as w in dbre ak s fo r c a t t l e and a s co ver fo r w ild lif e . We would re s e rv e 

th e r ig h t to pla c e a valu e in d iv id u a ll y upo n ea ch tr e e and sh ru b a t su ch tim e a s th e 

Bureau o f R ec la m at io n makes th e se fig u r e s a v a ila b le . We a re c e r ta in th a t th e se v alu es 

w ill be ln._ gxc»S 3 9f. il.W Q.Q QO l a lo s s e s as a r e s u lt o f th e N or th Loup P r o je c t.

33 . E ffe c ts o f N or th Loup D iv is io n P ro je c t on Calamu s and Downstream R iv er Flow s

The Envi ro nm en ta l Im pa ct Sta te m en t pro vid ed by th e Bu reau of Rec la m at io n ap p ears to 

w

o f f e r two a lte r n a tiv e s :

A. The 1962 f e a s i b i l i t y re p o rt p la n , d id not lim it w ithdra w als o f w ate r fo r 

i r r ig a tio n duri ng th e c r i t i c a l summer mo nth s and would decre ase th e esti m ate d c o n str u c ti o n 

c o s ts by 5.6 m il li o n .

B. A 1971 R ee valu ation Sta te m en t by BOR "to pro vid e th a t th e n a tu ra l flow s o f th e 

Nor th Loup and Cal amu s R iv ers w ill not be d iv e rt e d fo r D iv is io n purp ose s duri ng Ju ly and

• August and d u ri ng Se ptem be r when sto ra g e w at er i s a v a ila b le to meet D iv is io n n e e d s." The 

sta te m ent go es on "Th e co st o f th e a d d it io n a l f a c i l i t i e s re q u ir e d fo r th e m odi fi ed pla n 

ad v ers e ly a f f e c ts th e eco nom ic J u s tif ic a tio n o f th e pr op os ed de vel opm en t."

As t h i s doc ument showed e a r l i e r , th e re w ill be c o n sid e ra b le eco nomic lo s s e s down-
70

i i

stream I f the flows are di verte d during the summer months. Fur the r, the BOR statement

about not di ve rt in g water when sto rag e water i s ava ilab le , Is not at a l l ac cept ab le.

E it h er , the BOR Is goin g to guaran tee a ce rt ai n amount of flow or I t I s not goin g to .

There Is no way to giv e a proper environmental Impact statement evalu ati on u n ti l the

cub ic fe et per second (c fs ) are shown fo r the ave rage, maximum and minimum flow s for each

month of the year. This Info rma tion has not been provided by the BOR.

I f water I s not div ert ed from the ri ve r during the summer, the Calamus re se rv oir water

le vels may drop as much as 10-15 fe et In one summer depending on the evap oration ra te from

re se rv oi r surfa ce and amount o f na tu ra l p re ci p it at io n . This type of flu ct ua ti on In re se rv oir

water le v e ls w il l dest roy tbe re cr ea tion al ben ef it s.

36. Court Rul ing in Nebra ska E ffecting the Legal ity of the North,Lq u p Div isi on

In a cou rt case o f Osterman vs. Ce ntr al Nebraska Pu bli c Power and Ir ri g ati o n D is tr ic t,

(29780), Fi le d June 29, 1936 in Nebra ska, the cour t rule d In part th at :

"B ut , am ad di tio na l reason for awarding these rip ar ia ns the ri gh t to appear In th is

present proceeding Is to be found in th ei r si tu at io n . A pe cu liar ly val ua ble portion

of th eir lands Is the su bi rr ig at io n which, as we have seen , natur e co ns tit ut ed a part

th er eo f. While subterramean chan nels may not exi st or be com plet ely Id e n ti fi e d , these

subterraneam waters come to and flow under th ei r lands from d efi n it e sour ces amd en

rou te to d efi nit e ter m in i. The la te ra l boundaries o f th is body o f water may not be

ce rt ain ly lo ca te d, but I t s ex ist en ce as a body of water fin di ng I t s way through the

s o li of the rip ar ian la nd , is comp letely es ta bl ishe d. We are committed to the ru le :

"The owner o f land Is enti tl ed to appropriat e subterrameam waters found under hi s

land , but his use th er eo f, must be rea son abl e, amd not in ju ri ou s to oth ers who have

su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts in such w at er s." Olson vs . C it y of Wahoo, 134 Nebraska 802, 248

N.W. 30 4."

Sever al othe r se cti on s o f th is ru ling deal with the same su bje ct . In oth er words,

water may be used for ir r ig a ti o n , but may not be div ert ed to the watershed of another

stream. There w il l be some div ers ion In the North Loup pr oj ec t to the watershed of the

Middle Loup. Furthermore, the re i s no guaramtee of am adequate flow o f water down the

Calamus amd North Loup to re plen ish the su bi rrigated wet meadows amd a lf a lf a so Important

to ag ri cu ltu re for produ ction of hay fo r am economy dependent on ramchlng and feedin g

op erati on s.

• Thue, I f th is pr oj ec t were aut hor ized by the United St at es Con gre ss, I t would be

superimposing au thor ity over Nebraska Law.

37. Loss of Acres to Ag ric ulture

In to t a l, the North Loup Divisio n w il l take out o f produ ction at le a st 19,405 acres

of row cro p, a lf a lf a , amd other hay and gra zin g land s.

They are as fol lo ws :

Calamus Res ervo ir 5»15O

Ad di tio na l easements around Calamus Res ervoir 3»75O

Davis Creek Res ervoir 1,145

Ad di tio na l easements around Dav is Creek Res ervoir 2,510

Los s o f acr es from the 274 mil es o f Ir ri gat io n

ca na ls and la te ra ls 6,850

To ta l acr es lo st to ag ri cu ltu re (at le a st ) 19»4O5

(These fig ur es from the Environ mental Impact Statement)

* There may be as much as 5,000 ad di tio na l acr es out o f pro duction around the two

Reser voi rs by the time a l l o f the easements are purcha sed. At best , there w il l be 25,000

acr es remaining In the d is t r ic t th at cou ld be Ir ri gate d . Thi s I s because many farmers

have alr ead y In st all ed ce nt ra l-piv ot ir rig a ti o n or are planning to In s t a ll them In the

near fu tu re . Furthermore, there are many sma ll acre ages such as fi v e or ten acr es plo ts

th at appear on the Ir ri gat io n d is tr ic t map that would notbe Ir ri gat ed or farmed with

curr ent typ es of ag ri cu ltu re p ra ct ic es. I t would simply be a very In e ff ic ie n t opera tio n.

In terms of farmer b e n efi ts ,c en tr al pi vo t Ir ri g ato rs are capa ble o f pro vidi ng water

to lands with a great er slop e and over rougher te rr ai n than the gr av ity feed systems from

la te ra l ca na ls . Farmers are forced to In ve st more money In land le veli n g a c tiv it ie s which
71

12

dec re ase s th e ir margin o f inc om e.

In conclu si on, i t appears ve ry in ap pro pri at e to lo se 19 ,4 05 acr es fo r any a g r ic u lt u ra l

pr od uc tio n w hile producing wa ter fo r le s s than 25, 00 0 acr es o f su it a b le ir r ig a b le la nd s.

38 . In te rest Rate Hakes Pro je c t In fe a sib le

One o f th e most im po rta nt c o sts to ta xp ay er s i s a r e s u lt o f In te r e s t r a te s. We have

no t been provide d with th e In te r est rate charg ed to th e proje ct in th e d raft en viro nm en tal

imp act st at em en t. However, we have le ar ne d th at th e pro je ct ha s been J u s tif ie d by BOR at

th e pe rc en t ra te . The ra te shou ld be s e t at cu rr en t valu es. We r e a liz e , ho we ver, th at

th es e ty pes o f p ro je cts have so few , i f any b e n e fit s , th at in t e r e s t c o sts th at oth er c itiz e n s

pay would make th e proje ct c o sts fa r ou tw eig h th e b e n e fit s.

The pe rc en t r a te s used in th e f e a s ib ilit y rep ort s by th e O ff ic e o f Management and

Budg et ar e th e r e s u lt o f an adm in is tr ati ve d e c is io n . We b e li e v e th at t h is ad m in is tr ati ve

d ecis io n was a major er ro r and th at th e CMB sh ou ld re co nsi der th is asp ect o f th e p roje ct

f e a s ib ilit y .
72

13

Summary o f Some Cost* Hot Con sidered

In th e F e a s ib il it y Report or the

En vlr on ne nt al Impa ct Sta tem ent

Category D ir ec t Loss-Lump Sum One Tear Loan

Damages

Windbreaks 8 1,3 50,0 00

Lose o f A lf a lf a

or Hay MeadowsUnder R es er vo ir 3 29 7,00 0

I c e -fr e e wat er -

so ur ce s fo r liv e ­

st ock 53 ,000

Damages fo r

S o c io lo g ic a l and

P sy cholo gic al

Va lues 2,6 00, 000

Lowered pr op er ty

valu es o f rem ain ing

acre s in ra nches

a ff ec te d 1, 000,0 00

Lower Corn P ric es 2,0 00,0 00

Lo ss o f Deer 13 6,00 0 *

•TOO Year Loss

8 29 .7 00 ,0 00

5, 30 0,0 00

20 0, 00 0, 00 0

13 ,6 00 ,0 00

Lobs o f em ail

game an im als 8, 30 0*

Tax Base Lo ss to

Co un tie s 70 ,8 40

Upkeep on Canals

and L ate ra ls -

Beave r Damage 27 ,400

Lo ss o f C att le

Producing Acres -

Inu ndated Area s 184,50 0

De cre ase d Value

o f Hay Produ cing

Ac res Downstream

from R es er vo irs 1, 000,0 00

Lo ss o f C att le

Pr oducing Acres

and crop Producing

Ac res from - e ffe c ts

o f Irr ig a ti o n Canals

and la te r a ls 34 3,85 0

•1 00 ye ars used by th e BOR In th e f e a s ib ilit y rep ort s.

83 0,00 0

7,0 84,0 00

27 4,00 0

18 ,4 50 ,0 00

10 0, 00 0, 00 0

34 ,3 85 ,0 00
Summary of Costa (c on t.)

Cfttg/wrc ftlrast teaa-Luac ?m

J2BMK1&

Qns Year Loss *100 Tear Loss

Loss of Great

Blue Heron

Rookery 1,00 0,000+

Loss of Kingfisher

Nes ting S it es 500,000

Displacement of

Non-Game Birds

Loss of Endangered

Animals 7

Loss of Endangered

Plants 7

Loss of Hybrid

Swarms 7

Loss of Ar cheological

or Pal eo nt olog ical

Sit es 7

Loss of 13 mi les

of Free-flowli^J

Canoeable River 13,0 00,0 00+

Loss of Trees and

Shrubs 1,000,000 +

Loss of Animals or

Plan ts or Health

Eff ec ts on Humans

P es ti ci des on

Mosquito control}

herbicide on aquatic

weed co nt rol 7

Costs to environment

of Loup River , P la tt e

Riv er, Missouri Riv er,

M ississ ip pi River and

the Gulf 7

To tals _ _ _ _ _ _ _

820 ,45 0,0 00

500,000 50,00 0,0 00

145 9,6 23,00 0

Direc t plus 100 yea rs lo ss es 8480 ,073 ,000 +
74

15

Fin al Coa t-B en ef it Katlo

The re evalu ati on stat em en t fo r th e North Loup D iv la io n by th e BOR in Table 5,

page 40, shows to t a l annual cost a t 82,9 15 ,0 00 and to ta l d ir e c t b e n e fi ts o f 83 ,1 27 ,0 00

ea ch ye ar and d ir e c t plu s In d ir ect b e n e fi ts of 83 *8 71 ,000 .

These show a 1.1 0 : 1.0 0 b en efi t cost r a ti o

(d ir e c t b e n e fit s on ly )

and a 1. 33 : 1.0 0 r a ti o usi ng to t a l b e n e fi ts

However, I f we add th e ad d it io n a l ann ual cost shown in our evalu ati on , th e cost to

b e n e fi t r a ti o would be as fo ll ow s:

T ota l ad d it io n al cost th at we show In th is statem en t:

84 80 ,0 73 ,0 00 ov er 100 ye ar s

or

84,8 00,7 30 per ye ar

I f we add th is c o st of:

84 ,8 00 ,7 30

and th e

BOR calc u la te d cost o f: 2.9 15. 000

T ot al ann ual cost 87,7 15,7 30

T ot al b e n e fi ts ---- d ir e c t plu s In d ir e ct ----

83,8 71,0 00

Thi s giv es a r a ti o o f b e n e fi ts to c o st of:

0.5 0 : 1.0 0

On th e b a sis of b e n e fi ts th at ar e le sB than h a lf o f th e c o s t, th e Nor th Loup

P roje ct should no t be au th or iz ed .
75

Senator Burdick. Our next witness is Mr. Max Kilburz, general 

manager of the Loup Power District.

STATEMENT OE MAX KILBURZ, GENERAL MANAGER, LOUP 

POWER DISTRICT

Mr. Kilburz. My name is Max Kilburz. I want to be brief, Mr. 

Chairman.

The Loup River has operated a hydroplant in the lower reaches of 

the Loup River for 35 years to a capacity of 40,000 kilowatts.

First, we have followed very closely and are interested in the development of these waters of the Loup River and we feel that this 

project would be a proper utilization of these waters for the development of this area.

Second, we serve the electricity in the four-county area, and supply both retail and wholesale consumers. Our economic development 

of this area is closely tied to the development of these water resources. Pa rt of this land which will be irrigated by this project lies 

within our four-county area.

Columbus and other towns in our area manufacture a lot of agricultural related goods. It would be a good economic boost to our 

particular area, and for these reasons we hope the Senate will authorize this project.

Senator Burdick. Where do you get your power supply ?

Mr. Kilburz. We generate our power, some from the Bureau of Reclamation as well as from the other generating plants in Nebraska.

Senator Burdick. How much do you get from basin power?

Mr. Kilburz. Right now, 25 to 30 percent of our power is Bureau 

power.

Senator Burdick. And the generation is coal-fuel generation?

Mr. Kilburz. There are some hydroelectric plants in Nebraska, 

and the rest is coal fire generating plants in Nebraska.

Senator Burdick. In other words, you think this will help the 

area?

Air. Kilburz. Yes.

Senator Burdick. T hank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. Thomas W. Tye, attorney at law, representing Save the North Loup and Calamus River, accompanied by 

A. Blessing, Gaylord Wallace, Lloyd Geweke, Clifford Goff, Robert 

Schrup, and Larry Holcomb. As you testify just introduce yourself.

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS W. TYE, REPRESENTING “SAVE THE

NORTH LOUP AND CALAMUS RIVE R” ; ACCOMPANIED BY ALFRED

BLESSING, GAYLORD WALLACE, LLOYD GEWEKE, CLIFFORD

GOFF, AND ROBERT SCHRUP

Mr Tye. Mr. Chairman, I will have these gentlement introduce 

themselves. I would like to have them briefly make a short statement 

to you as these gentlemen are all active in this area. These are the 

farmers, these are the ranchers.

I would, Mr. Chairman, like, however, to offer for the record a 

great deal of material which has been supplied here. These are by
76

way of letters and statements from other people in the area as well 

as our prepared written statements which we would like offered for 

the record at this time. I have a copy of them here.

Senator Burdick. I will receive them, but I want to make sure 

tha t the statements now being put into the record are from people 

who live in the project area?

Mr. Tye. Yes, or in the area to be affected by the dams or canal 

system.

Senator Burdick. They will be received without objection.

We will recess for a bout 15 minutes.

(Recess.)

Senator Burdick. All righ t, proceed, Mr. Tye.

Mr. Tye. Air. Chairman, if I may, I would like to merely state 

that the letters and statements which I have offered are from approximately 29 different people or individuals, they represent such 

people as farmers in and operators in the area. They also represent 

such people as Mr. James M. Wolf, who is president of the Albion 

National Bank in Albion, Nebr., they also represent some people, in 

answer to your earlier question, I believe three approximately, from 

other areas who have canoed or been interested in the area from a 

recreational standpoint. One of those, for example, is Raphael Sneider, editor in chief of the Mid-America Corp.

Air. Chairman, you have asked th is morning a couple of questions 

which had reference to underground water supply in this particular 

area and because this particular publication which was published by 

the State of Nebraska, Division of Nebraska Resources is presently 

not being republished, I have only a few copies. But I should like to 

offer it for information of the chairman and for the file, if I may. I t 

shows the groundwater reserve and supply in this particular area of 

Nebraska, it shows the Sand Hill area as having a very large capacity and supply of underground water. In fact, if the underground 

water supply in the state of Nebraska were put on the surface, it 

would cover the State to a depth of 34 feet.

Senator Burdick. While you are on the subject, my recollection is 

tha t we approved the Alid-States project in Nebraska, and there was 

some evidence in the record indicating that the ground table lowered 

in tha t area.

Air. T ye. Alay I comment on that, Air. Chairman ?

Senator Burdick. Yes.

Air. Tye. There has been and there was and I am sure, Air. Alaine 

can testify and tell you what their intentions were at that time with 

reference to the lowering of the ground water in the mid-State area. 

I believe tha t there has been some slight lowering of ground water. 

However, it has been very, very slight, because of the fact, and I 

don’t remember the exact number, but there are 6,000 or 8,000 

wells in this particular area which have been developed in recent years. The local mid-State board, and I am sure Air. Alaine can 

tell you about this, has put a map out recently, showing some areas 

in the Mid-State area dropping over 5 feet in depth. But the way 

this is derived is the fact that this is a map showing water table in 

the fall of 1969 to the fall of 1971. This is very easy, because in 1969 

we had a very wet year in Nebraska, and in fact many of our irriga-
77

tors in the Mid-State area where I come from, didn’t tur n their 

pumps on, there was no need to. As a result the ground water was 

recharged through the river flow, because of rain fall and was not 

drawn down, and we had a very high level groundwater at tha t 

time. In the summer of 1971 and 1970, it has been terribly dry. 

There has been no rainfall. As a result, there has been a drawdown. 

We have had no precipitation recharge. How’ever, the Mid-State 

group, which I am representing, is prep aring and is in the process 

of doing so now, a map which will show over a much longer period 

of time, from approximately 1958 or probably 1948 to the present 

time, the groundwater levels and I believe that will show there is 

very slight difference now th an there was in 1948, and I believe this 

to be the case in the area in which we are talking of now.

I have with me some irrig ators who have been pumping in tha t 

area, and they will tell you their wells they have measured are approximately the same today as they were when they began irrigation 

process.

I also have, Mr. Chairman, and you have been asking this morn ­

ing, to some extent about the Calamus area itself and what areas 

will be inundated, and we have prepared a drawing here which may 

be of some assistance to you in following the testimony of particu ­

larly Mr. Wallace and Mr. Schrup who own land in th at area.

Mr. Chairman, there are also some photographs there which give 

you an idea of the area we are talking about, particularly when the 

area will be inundated by the Calamus Reservoir and what will be 

taken, and the looks of the Sand Hills next to it.

I would like these gentlemen to make a brief statement and I have 

one additional thin g I would like to offer in conclusion. Mr. Wallace, would you care to start?

Mr. Wallace. Air. Chairman, my name is Gaylord Wallace, from 

Burwell, Nebr. I submit my written statement for the record 

and because of the limited time I should like to call your attention 

to two or three major points.

Aly ranch home is located on the Calamus River and we operate 

11,000 acres of land on which we raise cows. The dam will practically take us out of business because of loss of our homes, buildings, 

corrals, hay meadows, and alfa lfa grown on the river bottoms. The 

dam will take all of the hay meadows and farmland up and down 

the river and completely ruin 18 ranchers and their operations of 

over 50,000 acres.

These 18 homes, there are 13 families and the population would be 

around 50 people in the 13 families.

Senator Curtis said there were 12 to 14 tha t signed a petition fa ­

voring this dam. If that is the case, there are probably 35 of us th at 

signed a petition opposing it, but we have all presented letters to 

you for tha t purpose. I can name the names of these families, such 

as Mr. Schrup, Air. Larson, Lehand Shersberg and his mother, Russell Alall, Rupert Bistry , Cy Wright, and there is the Vale View 

Club, which has been in the area for 50 years.

We ask the project not be authorized, Than k you, and I will be 

happy to answer any questions which you have.

Senator Burdick. How many acres are there in your farm?

79 -7 04 0 — 72 6
78

Air. Wallace. Eleven thousand acres.

Senator Burdick. H ow many cattle do you have?

Mr. Wallace. I have calving 300 cows, and I will have 70,000

heifers to calve next spring, and my long-range intent was to operate a 500-cow operation. I am losing the two shelter belts—I am losing one 2,640 feet long, over 200 feet deep. These have cedars, pines, 

cottonwoods, in fact, it is so thick you don’t ride a horse into it.

There is another shelter belt behind it, 1,540 feet long and 40 feet 

wide.

I don’t see how a man can operate a ranch and go out and replace 

an operation such as this.

Senator B urdick. There are 18 of you?

Air. W allace. Yes. And every one has a shelter belt comparable to 

what I am talking about.

Senator Burdick. Are all of the families opposed to this project?

Air. Wallace. No, sir.

Senator Burdick. How many are ?

Air. AVallace. The ones opposed are people in their 60’s, one 

family I know is on social security. I mean these are for. They hope 

to sell th eir lands for $400 an acre and retire in town. If they can get 

the job done, I will go along with them. I don’t think they are going 

to get tha t kind of job done, but there is about four families of the 

13 tha t are actually for this project. The other nine are definitely 

against it.

Senator Burdick. Do any of the nine families or any of the 18 

families say, have any of the land tha t might be in the new development area?

Air. Wallace. No, sir.

Senator Burdick. None have land over there?

Air. Wallace. No, sir.

Senator Burdick. Do you know what the attitude of those farm ­

ers in tha t area is?

Air. Wallace. That are going to receive the water ?

Senator Burdick. Th at’s right.

Air. Wallace. Yes, sir. I was one of the three or four men that 

went down into the Scotia area, and down in the Elba area, asking a 

man to sign his name, how many acres he owned, how many acres 

were irrigable, how many acres were under the reclamation district, 

what type of pump system he used, and in the Scotia area I contacted three men who were in favor, one of the men was one of the 

original members started this district in 1942. He signed a card he 

was definitely against, because he didn’t want any pa rt of it. This is 

the same way all up and down the valley.

Senator Burdick. You mean to say they are against this project and 

the area will be benefited ?

Air. W allace. Yes. AVhy should they have a ditch and all of this, 

when they will be on sprinkler svstems? Aluch of this land cannot be 

irrig ated under no conditions. They have their circular systems and 

circular systems doing the job for them.

Air. Tye. Air. Chairman, if I may, Air. Geweke, the second gentleman on my left, lives in what we call the Alira Valley area, which 

you will notice there is just to the left of Ord, Nebr., he lives in the
79

area supposedly to be benefited. He made a rath er extensive survey 

of his particula r area and I think he can tell you more about what 

he found.

Air. Geweke. My name is Lloyd Geweke. I am from Ord, Nebr. I 

live in this area proposed to be irrigated by this Reclamation Bureau. 

I submitted a written statement which you have copies of.

I will talk primarily about the Valley County area, which I live in, 

and of which I am very well acquainted and the benefits from this 

project is to be about 20,090 acres in this particular area and that is 

what 1 would like to speak primarily about.

I am a farmer, rancher and cattle feeder. I operate a 2,080-acre 

spread in Enterprise Township, and plus 20,040 acres in AlmeriaNoble Township. We have 400 acres lie in the boundaries of the pro ­

posed district. Aly irrigation experience goes back to 1949, from 

along the North Loup River from Ord up to Burwell. Thirty years 

of experience irrigating in this project of which my dad and I own 

320 class 1 acres. It shows after irrigating for 30 years that this 

kind of project is not satisfactory or feasible. Both of these quarters 

that I have talked about, are supplemented by pump irrigation to supplement the open ditch project.

Now, down on the homeplace, which is in this area, in this district 

tha t is to be irrigated, we drilled out first well in 1954. For a number of years when my children were young and I was full of pep, 

we carried pipe and irrigated 300 acres of this land by three 8-tee 

road sprinkle r lines. In 1954—in the early 1960’s we have leveled 95 

acres of this land at a cost of $110 an acre. The 1954 well handles 

this 95 acres of gravity irrigation with ease. T his well tha t I drilled 

in 1954 pumps every bit as much water a day as we do. We drilled 

in 1966 another well on the southwest one-third of 15, and leveled 45 

acres and bench-leveled 60 acres, costing over $60,000. This land is 

all class 2 land as far as records show for the Bureau of Reclamation and from this or these two wells, we irrigated over 200 acres.

With the wells we can irrig ate this but from a ditch system it 

would be practically impossible because we use low-pressure gated 

pipe systems so we can run our water both wavs from the well 

uphill. The estimated cost of running these wells in the last year is 

as follows: Well No. 1, $11.15 per acre to deliver 3 acre-feet of 

water to 95 acres. Well No. 2, $11.64 per acre, to operate while delivering 3.6 acre-feet of water to 105 acres. The estimated cost of $10.60 

per one-half acre-feet as proposed by their plans of this North Loup 

Irrigation Division of this project is about twice as high as my present system and we feel as irrig ators in this county, in a normal year 

you can’t raise a corn crop with an acre and a half of water.

Last year I used three on both my wells. Alore modern type irrigation systems in our area, is the new pivot system. The AFC map 

which I have attached on here, section 33, shows how the pivots and 

sprinkler systems are doing the job. The south half of 33 is owned 

by one man and he irrigates from one well. He irrigates 145 acres by 

sprinkler and 135 by pivot, costing, and T got these costs from Air. 

Arolk, the cost of $5.15 per acres, while applying l 4

/

10 acre-feet of 

water per acre, and the northeast one-fourth of section 33, shows 64 

acres irrigable on the bureau maps, is irrigating 147 acres by two toe
80

lines. The northwest 133 shows 83 acres irrigable by the Bureau map.

All right, we are talking about this 20,000 acres, all ready 140 

wells irrigating over 18,000 acres. I feel, Mr. Chairman, certainly, 

tha t a ditch system would be disastrous in this area because of the 

terrain, the 105 miles of proposed laterals and 65 miles of canals in 

this county, will cut the land capacity. A three-quarter-mile lateral 

is proposed crossing my irrig ated ground, building site, and feedlots, 

to irrig ate 17 acres of proposed land on my neighbor’s place. It does 

not seem feasible to spend $74,000 for 19,000 acres to irrig ate an estimated 52,000 acres of which a vast amount is already being irr igated.

It is estimated the benefit summary total of irrigation is a little 

over $3,800,000. Three-fourths of our benefit is to come from growing corn. If we raise corn to sell on the open market in the last 10 

years we wouldn’t be able to survive. The only way we can make a 

dollar in corn payoff is bv feeding it to cattle and hogs. That is our 

major industry. Seventy-five percent of the corn in our area is fed to 

livestock.

I have a paper showing what has been collected in taxes in this 

area, we feel tha t the $52,265 has been a wasteful expense for a 

needless and unnecessary project.

I have signed cards from landowners, representing over 27,000 

acres of land, tha t lay within the area of this district of Valley 

County only, that show they do not wish to receive water from this 

system.

Senator Burdick. Wh at percentage is this again?

Mr. Geweke. 27,000 acres of landowners tha t live within the distric t of Calley County.

Senator Burdick. The project area?

Mr. Geweke. Yes, sir. Not a one of them is out of the project 

area. This is all landowners.

Senator Burdick. How many would tha t leave in the project 

area?

Mr. Geweke. I haven’t contacted near all of the people in this 

project, sir. If we had unlimited time. The first go, when we were 

showing our context, I think we had 12 to 1 against it.

By the way, this survay has been made in the last 3 weeks.

Senator Burdick. Twelve to one in the project area against it?

Mr. Geweke. At one time we started our project, we have 12 to 1 

against the project in my area, sir.

Senator Burdick. H ow many acres are there in your area?

Mr. Geweke. There is to be 50.000-some irrigated and around 

60,000 acres all together. Land within the district, tha t pay taxes to 

help finance this.

Senator Burdick. Wh at percentage of your area is the percentage 

of the total project area?

Mr. Geweke. It will be a little over half. You see there is a 

52,000, we are over 20,500, so it would be right about half.

Senator Burdick. There are 12 to 1 against in your part of the district ?

Mr. Geweke. I can say there would be 12 to 1 against. This was 

when we stopped and counted our cards.
81

Senator Burdick. What is it now ?

Mr. Geweke. I don’t know, except the total I have is 27,000 acres 

and this represents about 70 landowners in this area. We didn’t have 

time to canvass the whole area. We were short on time when this 

came up.

Senator Burdick. I t seems to be a substantial number.

Mr. Geweke. This is the bad part. I feel tha t $10.60 for one-half 

acre-foot of water is so high that most of the landowners won’t want

* to contract. They cannot raise the corn crop in a normal year on an 

acre and a half of water, on a gravity system. My land went 3 acrefeet of water last year. I am sure tha t the 54 well would be pumping 

more water today than it was at tha t time.

We are in a sandstone water area and we receive our water from 

approximately 200 feet of sandstone and as this water flows through 

this area there is something about this tha t the more that goes 

through it the more will go through it, and we have a little better 

well as our wells progress as we have before.

Senator Burdick. Do you have any information as to how much 

water is lost in the open ditches ?

Mr. Geweke. I think around 60 percent of the water is lost due to 

evaporation and seepage.

Mr. Tye. Tha t 30-percent estimate, Mr. Chairman, was given with 

reference to the Mid-State project. This is a sandy soil, much more 

so than in the Mid-State area.

Senator Burdick. All right.

The next witness is-----

Mr. Tye. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Robert Schrup 

make a few comments to you, he is here representing Taylor County 

Board of Commissioners, in which he is a commissioner in Loup 

County.

Mr. Schrup. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Robert Schrup. I am a member of the Loup County Board 

of Commissioners. I have served in that capacity for the past 10 

years.

I am appearing before this subcommittee as a representative of 

the Loup County Commissioners and also Loup County.

* The reservoir on the Calamus River which is a part of the North 

Loup project, together with other land taken by the District will 

cause Loup County to lose more than 10,000 acres. This land will 

not only cost the loss of 18 families, the means of their livelihood,

* but will no longer be available to Loup County for tax purposes. 

The value of the 10,000 acres for tax purposes is set at $423,570. The 

personal property, $324,573. Also, buildings $40,760, making a total 

of $788,903.

However, we feel that if this 10,000 acres was sold as one unit the 

asking price would be well over $200 an acre. It is stated tha t the 

tax loss to Loup County for a year would amount to approximately 

$7,600. It is to be remembered that this loss will continue from year 

to year.

The Loup County Board of Commissioners has been besieged with 

numerous objections from a great percentage of the citizens of Loup
82

County, specifically objecting to the said project for the following 

reasons.

No. 1, the loss from the tax rolls of a large amount of property, 

adding to the difficulty of suitable governmental operations for its 

citizens.

No. 2, Loup County will receive no economic benefit of any nature 

while it will from year to year lose a substantial amount of tax income. Loup County has had no opportunity to express its desires 

relative to said project. It is the firm belief of the county board 

of commissioners th at said project is not feasible, but it will, i f promoted, create a burden on all landowners in the district.

The petitions have been circulated, opposing said project in which 

owners and operators of more than two-thirds of the land in Loup 

County, oppose the completion of said project and appeal to Congress to prevent this North Loup Reclamation District be approved.

The board of county commissioners in regular session on March 

13, 1972, adopted a resolution requesting tha t the above project be 

discontinued and fully abandoned. A copy being attached to this 

statement.

Senator Burdick. Th at Loup County area is in the area of the reservoir ?

Mr. Sciirup. Yes, sir. I would like, Air. Chairman, to mention 

tha t my thinking is th at the rise in water level in time will kill out 

the entire 13 acres of trees and also destroy the nesting grounds of 

the herons. Most of these trees, I understand, are over 100 years old 

and would be hard to replace.

I think, Air. Chairman, that is all I have, unless there is a question.

Air. Tye. Air. Chairman, we have one other witness who is Air. A1 

Blessing, an attorney in Hastings, Nebr., and also a landowner in the 

Elba area.

Air. Blessing. Air. Chairman, mv name is Alfred Blessing. I reside at 1125 North Kansas Avenue, Hastings, Nebr.

Now, for a little geology. Air. Geweke here spoke about the Valley 

County land and I would like to chat just a minute about the Greeley County and Howard County land. Of course, I am in the socalled benefit area also. That is down between Elba and Cotesfield, off 

the Elba Canal.

Senator Burdick. You seem to be north of the river some distance.

Air. Blessing. AVe think of it as west of the river. I was born on 

a farm a mile west of E lba in 1930, 5 or 6 years ago I purchased the 

farm from my fath er who was operating it, and this is a farm tha t 

has some significance for me. It is located on the first branch of the 

North Loup River and is in the heart of the area there to be served 

by the Elba Canal.

This land was immediately leveled, three wells drilled and we 

have operated and irrigated farms durin g the crop years of 1957 to 

1971. During this period of time we found tha t it is necessary to 

apply an average of 2.25 acre-feet of water from our wells to supplement the rainfall. There is only 1 year of the 5 tha t we were able 

to get by on less than 2 acres. But it averaged out to about 2.25. 

This is 50 percent more than the acre-feet tha t will be delivered 

under the proposed project. It seems to me it is not feasible to raise 

corn on a foot and a half of water for irrigation in this valley. You
83

can’t provide the type of irrigation which is suitable and will yield 

the type of benefits tha t they are talking about.

Another thing tha t disturbed me is we have had a lot of talk and 

this project is being sold on the basis they are going to b ring irrigation to the North Loup Valley. Gentlemen, irrigation is there. As a 

matter of fact, even in 1958 when the irrigation district was organized. when they conducted their first study, we were talk ing about 

52,000 total of irrigable acres. At that time, in 1958, of the 52,000 

acres, 17,000 were already irrigated.

When we talk about benefit, we can’t talk about benefits for 

52,000, we have to talk about benefits for 55,000. In the intervening 

years since 1958 and bringing it up to date, I was able to, through 

the help of Mr. Geweke, I was able to study the present state of irrigation in the county. I canvassed 75 percent of the proposed project.

Based upon this canvass, which comes directly from the records of 

wells and so on, there are now 30,000 irrigating acres in the valley, 

remaining to be irrigated, 22,000.

When we talk about benefits, we can’t talk about the 52,000, we 

have to talk about today, and today there are only 22,000 acres in 

the project which are not already irrigated.

I submit to this committee tha t the good farmers of the Loup 

Valley have already brought irrigation to the valley. We don’t need 

the Bureau of Reclamation to bring it there for us at a substantially 

greater cost tha t we are delivering our water.

Further, there was a 10-year period for development, and in advance development of the valley continues. Once again, the good 

farmers drilling the wells and spending the money themselves as it 

has oyer the last 10 years. So if you pass the bill and if the Bureau 

goes into the project, instead of benefiting 52,000 acres, I submit an 

important realistic figure is 13,000.

Senator Burdick. And you are taking out approximately 20,000?

Air. Blessing. Th at’s correct, and it seems to me this is interesting.

Senator Burdick. Your theory is you are only going to gain 

13,000 acres, because you are taking out 20,000 for easements and reserve. To follow your argument, are you going to have it all irrigated in 10 years, and it will be 13,000 acres. The area needed for 

the reservoir and their easements will be 20,000?

Air. Blessing. Tha t’s correct.

There is one other item, and I submit the people computing the 

cost for acquisition of easements, and, as I recall the testimony, the 

Bureau indicated there would be some 375 miles of canals.

But there is a rather interesting recent case in Nebraska, down 

from Hamilton County. There was a man there who had an irrigated farm suitable for gravity or sprinkler system and the power 

company acquired an easement across the ground. This easement ra n 

about a mile. He was awarded the sum of $60,000 by the d istrict 

court for this easement and the only difference was that after the 

easement was granted he had to irrig ate by gravity rather than by 

sprinkler.

There are several of these systems presently being operated which 

will be cut diagonally by the proposed canals. It seems to me the 

people studying these costs should restudy their costs in the ligh t of
84

what the courts have been deciding in the State of Nebraska as reasonable compensation for cutting diagonally across the field.

In the light of these costs and changes in the benefits, this is in

1958, we have to look at it based upon the 1972 figures, and I apologize, but I don’t have any more accurate figures. I would hope t hat

perhaps the Bureau or district could study it and come up with upto-date figures on the acres th at will be benefited.

Those acres tha t are not now irrig ated which could be served by

the district it seems to me this is the significant figure. *

The good people of the valley have taken care of the acres irr igated with wells, and based upon this, it seems to me the committee

should give serious consideration to suspending any further action

on th is project and require further study to give accurate reflection

of the actual irrigated acres which will result from this project.

Senator Burdick. Wha t has been your observation as to the 

groundwater levels ?

Mr. Blessing. There has been no change, no problem at all on the 

three wells. My father-in-law operates in another part of Nebraska, 

pretty much served by the same groundwater flow, one well operated 

since 1953 and another one since 1967, and he has no difficulty at all.

If you draw it over a longer period of time it remains constant. As 

a m atter of fact there is an area to the southwest of here where the 

water level is coming up instead of going down. A lot of people 

think it is because of the dam which is destroying some of the good 

irrig ated grounds because of the moisture that percolates under.

The land presently immediately below the dam might suffer the 

same fate because of seepage. This can be a real problem below a 

project like this. It has been very destructive in some areas of Nebraska because the water level is rising.

Mr. Tye. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask Mr. John Roll here only 

for the purpose of answering your question with furthe r reference to 

water levels and wells.

Mr. R oll. My father is 75 years old. I am 43. My granddad 

bought the place in the first place and dad took it over, and I am 

gradually getting into the swing of it.

In 1905 they drilled their first well to static water level. It was 92 

feet. I n 1955, in the fall of 1955, there was drilled the first irrigation •

well. This well is located a quarter of a mile not over that and it 

was 97 feet. B ut then last year, we went back and built a new stock 

well, our well rusted out and we wanted more water for the livestock, so we put down a submersible electric well. This was during *

the summer while we were pumping our irrigation wells, and we 

built this new Stockwell, and it was 92 feet to static water level.

From 1955 to 1972, I would say our static water level has not 

dropped.

Senator Burdick. In all fairness, are you not going to have the 

maximum irrigation tha t you might have under this project of 

52,000 acres ?

Mr. R oll. No. Actually the time to take your water levels and so 

forth is through the winter months. I realize the more wells put 

down the lower it is getting to draw it down in some cases. When 

we drilled our irrigation wells, we have two, and when we drilled 

them the static water level was 45 feet, they drew it down to 200 

feet when we drilled it in 1955. Last year, one of our dryest seasons,
85

we have had tremendous irrig ation wells put in since 1955 and the 

draw down on that well, it was in shape to pump, and was d rawing 

down to 175 feet. Tha t tells me that well got 25 feet better.

Our well at home drew down from 97 feet when we drilled it, to 

175 feet last summer. But last summer, I drawed down to 175 feet, 

so T don’t know, it all depends on the water bearing material you 

have in the well, where your water bearing material is.

I should explain about the structure of our well at the bottom of

* ours, it has 19 feet of water bearing gravel clear down at the bottom, our well is 338 feet, from 120 to 118 feet, or about 381 feet to 

336 feet, we have got to have fine gravel tha t the well d rillers say is 

the best in the State and so they went on down into 2-foot mire and

* put the end plug and cased our well. Now, the well drillers and the 

wellmen there say we will never run out of water there on that 

pump. A lot of these wells have their water bearing m aterial up, say 

150 feet, and 140 feet.

If our water bearing material was there, we wouldn’t get any 

water. T hat has to be taken into consideration too.

Mr. Tye. Mr. Chairman, I have one short thin g and then we are 

through. Attached to my written statement which was offered and 

accepted for the record, is a proposed amendment to Senate bill 

2350. We request, Mr. Chairman, and offer this amendment to the 

bill at this time and request that the committee take into consideration. This amendment is the very same as the amendment tha t we 

offered in the hearings on the midstate bill, which was included in 

the bill as finally passed.

In effect it guarantees to these people and to the rest of the people 

in the reclamation and irrigation districts that this project will not 

be constructed or built until there is a guarantee to us tha t they do 

have water contracts for the 52,580 acres of land proposed to be irrigated and/o r to make the project feasible.

We therefore offer this proposed amendment and ask tha t the 

committee take it into consideration.

P roposed Ame nd me nt to S. 2350

In or de r to as su re repa ym ent of the irriga tio n po rtion of th is pro jec t, no 

a

fun ds shall be ap pr op ria ted no r shall any constru cti on be st ar te d un til firm

and bin din g co ntracts have been sign ed by the ow ners of the full 52,570 acres 

of lan d to he irriga te d from waters fu rnishe d by th e No rth Loup Div isio n of 

the Mis souri River Ba sin Proje ct, said co nt racts to he certified by th e local 

Bo ard of Di rectors of the No rth Loup Division, Ne bra ska , of th e Mis sou ri 

» River Ba sin Proje ct.

Senator Burdick. It will be considered. I think it is important to 

know the attitude of the people in the project area, and the witnesses have testified a certain percentage is relating to who is against 

and who is for it. Those of you who oppose this project, if you will 

give me a littl e better reading on your public opinion polls that you 

took out there, I would appreciate it.

Nlr. Tye. Mr Chairman, we began to prepare for these hearings 

approximately 3 weeks ago. We began canvassing the area at that 

time. Mr. Geweke testified about the people he canvassed in this 

area. We attempted to pursue this contact. And if the committee 

will allow, we will be glad to submit in writing at a later date our 

conclusion when that poll is completed.
86

Senator Burdick. I would appreciate it. Th ank you very much.

Mr. Tye. Thank you, sir.

(The complete statements of Alfred Blessing, Gaylord Wallace, 

Lloyd Gweke, Clifford Gubbs and Robert Sclirup follow:)

Sta te m ent of Alfred Ble ssin g , H a st in g s, Neb r.

My name is Alfred Blessing; I reside at 1125 North Kansas Avenue, Hastings, Nebraska. I was born in 1930 on a farm about one mile west of Elba,

Neb raska; at that time the farm was a livestock-feed grain and small grain *

operation owned by my grand father Elijah Welsh and operated by my fathe r 

Alfred Welsh. After the death of my fathe r in 1933 I lived with my grandparents in Elba, Nebraska, a small farming community, and continued to reside in 

the North Loup Valley until entering the U.S. Army in 1955.

In 1966 I purchased the S2

 #= 32 — 16 — 11, commonly known as the “To- war’s Land,” from other members of the Welsh family, this land being a part *

of the farm where I was born. The “Towar’s Land” is comprised of about 310 

A. of reasonably level cropland located on the first bench of the North Loup 

River midway between Elba and Cotesfield, Nebraska, and in the approximate 

center of the farming area which would be served by the Elba Canal of the 

Calamus Dam Project. The Towar’s Land was leveled in the fall of 1966, three 

irrigation wells were drilled and during the intervening crop years of 1967,

1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 it has been operated as an irrigated farm.

In this five-year period we have found it necessary to apply an average of 

2.25 acre feet of irrigation water in addition to our normal rainfall in order to 

secure satisfactory results. Our cost in applying this irrigation water to the Towar’s land during the same period has averaged $6.31 per acre foot as compared with a projected cost of $7.07 i>er acre foot from the Elba Canal of the 

proposed Calamus Dam Project. Thus, the existing irrigation practices now 

utilized on the “Towar’s Land” provide water at substantially less actual cost 

than the proposed cost suggested by advocates of the Calamus Dam Project.

Of course, everyone knows tha t it is far more desirable to use well water 

than ditch water in a farming operation, e.g., greater availability of water, 

more flexibility in time of application, less weed control problems, use of center pivots, reduced leveling costs, reduced labor costs, etc., are all factors 

which dictate the use of well waiter whenever a choice is available.

Certainly a 73 million dollar Irrigation Project must be financed to a large 

extent by the water charge imposed per irrigable acre. According to the 1958 

study of the Twin Loups Irrigation District there were 34,603 irrigable acres 

in the District. During the past few weeks I have surveyed the District lands 

located in Howard, Nance, Greeley, and Valley Counties (which lands comprise 

over three fourths of the irrigable acres in the district) and found a remarkable shrinkage in the irrigable acres in the District. Assuming th at the percentage figures computed from these counties also prevail in Nancy County, it 

would appear that there are now only 21,592 irrigable acres in the District instead of the 34,603 irrigable acres available in 1958. It is reasonable to assume 

that this trend will continue (and even perhaps accelerate in view of the development of the center pivot systems) in the future and thus at the time that 

water might be available from the proposed project the irrigable acres will no 

doubt have shrunk to about 13,472 irrigable acres. With the smaller number 

of irrigable acres available the proposed water charge would have to be increased to such a high figure tha t the use of ditch water for irrigation in this 

Project would be absolutely prohibitive.

There have been some rath er interesting developments in other ditch irrigation projects in the state of Nebraska during the past few years. Several of 

the farmers who formerly utilized water from the Tri County Irrigation District in south central Nebraska have terminated such water use as being impractical. The management of both the Farwell Project and the Mid-State 

Project in central Nebraska require farmers to sign extended commitments 

for water use. e.g.. a 50-year contract in the Mid-State Project, thereby recognized that terminations by water users present serious problems and therefore 

the requirement of such longterm committments by proposed water users is an 

admission by Project management that a substantial number of farmers often 

terminate ditch irrigation once they have tried it a few years.

A recent award by the District Court in Hamilton County, Nebraska in an 

eminent domain proceeding appears significant and we believe should cause an
87

upward revision of easement acquisition costs in this Project. The owner operator of a half section of irrigated cropland suitable for either a center-pivot 

system or gravity type irrigation was awarded the sum of $60,000 for a power 

line easement across his property, which merely prohibited the use of a pivot 

system but still allowed use of gravity irrigation. In the Calamus Dam Project 

there are several center-pivot irrigation systems now in place and operating 

which will be cut diagonally by Project canals and more of these systems are 

being installed every year along the proposed canal routes. The impact of this 

decision must be weighed and new acquisition costs computed before an accu- 

_ rate cost benefit ra tio can be submitted to this Committee.

Gentlemen, in light of the increased costs of this project and the tremendous 

shrinkage of irrigable acres we urge you to give serious consideration to suspending any further action on this project for the reason it is not economically 

sound or, in the alternative, requiring further study which will give a more 

« accurate reflection of the actual number of irrigated acres which would result

from the funding of this project.

Statement of Gaylord Wallace, Burwell, Nebr.

My name is Gaylord Wallace of Burwell, Nebr. I have been a ranch owner 

and ranch manager for 34 years. At the present time my wife and I own 7720 

acres of land, and rent 3,2S0 acres of land, on which we run 300 cows, calvering at present time, plus 70 comeing 2 yr. old heifers, which will calve spring 

of 1973. Also we are retaining 60 heifer calves to put into the breeding herd, 

or to calve in 1974. So by 1974 we will have 400 cows calveing. Our long range 

plan was to build this ranch into a 500 cow operation.

But now discussion of part of our land being taken away from us for a 

Dam, discourages one from plans to build larger.

On the 1971 market our calves sold for average of $175.00 per head, our 

yearling steers sold for $250.00 per head, cows culled from herd as canners 

have sold up to $290.00 a head. Bulls no longer needed for breeding are selling 

$400-$425 on the weigh up market.

To handle this type of an operation we have 3 homes, 1 a 4 bedroom house, 

1 a 3 bedroom house, and 1 a 2 bedroom house, 2-Quonset machine sheds, a 

cattle shed, 100 ft. long, enclosed for calvering in snow or rain storms, good 

corrals and 2 slielterbelts. One is 2640 feet long—285 feet deep, the other 1584 

feet long and 100 feet deep. These trees are from 35 to 50 years old.

Our operation as a cow and calf unit is to take all the cattle we can to the 

sand hills during the summer and fall, and then bringing the cattle back home 

to the Calamus river and Gracie Creek. Both are spring fed the year round 

and neither has ever been know to raise over a foot in depth from any prolonged rain of several inches.

A river such as this tha t only freezes in the very coldest of weather, and 

the Gracie creek has never been known to freeze, has a value of undetermined

# value to a rancher in the winter, when his livestock needs warmer water than 

they can get from drinking out of stock tanks, let alone all the trouble and 

work removeing the ice each day from the tanks so their cattle can drink.

I am sure you can understand we get more weight on our cattle, from being 

able to drink warm water in the winter, compared to men whose cattle have

* to drink- from an ice cold water tank.

We have 150 acres of alfalfa on the second bench or level of the Calamus 

river, which in normal years produes 2 to 3 ton of alfalfa per year, this along 

with the good river/bottom hay meadows and what hay we get from the upland, produces all the hay we need to feed our cattle and horses besides selling some to neighbors.

This must sound to you gentleman, that ranching is all roses, but on the 

other side of the ledger, we spend many dollars, for gasoline, diesel fuel, propane gas. Salt, mineral, protein feed. Electricy, grain for the livestock. Real 

Estate taxes, Personal taxes, Labor, Groceries, Machinery of all types, used in 

ranching, Automobiles, trucks. Veterinary services, and medicene for cattle, 

plus the big item of interest on borrowed money which is now between 7% to 

8y2 %.

If you gentleman vote to put in the Dam on the Calamus, we will lose 840 

acres of deeded land, on which all our buildings, corrals and shelterbelts are 

located, plus 120 acres of rental land. In all 960 acres, right in the heart of 

the ranch, will be under water, which we can not replace, under any condi-
88

tions. Losing this portion of the ranch is comparable to losing the yolk and 

white out of an egg. All we will have left is a shell.

A ranch without buildings, corrals, hay ground and trees is practically useless, unless one wants to be a suit case rancher, here in summer, and gone the 

rest of the time. Our only means of useing what would be left of our ranch, 

would be to take in cattle for summer range, which greatly reduces the income 

of the ranch, the area he lives in, and to the community as a whole.

Also on this ranch, as well as all those that may be covered with water, are 

many deer, game of all kinds, such as pheasant, prairie cliiecken, Grouse, 

Quail, many types of song birds, Squirrels, rabbits, and etc.

In the river are many muskrat, Beaver and good fishing.

Our story applies also to all those below us, who also will be flooded out of 

their homes, their ranches and forced to become members of the urban Society 

of some city.

Any of the ranchers who loses their homes, buildings, shelterbelts, hay 

ground, etc. will have left a portion of their land whose value in dollars will 

be decreased from *4 to % of its market value.

This seems very inconsiderate to good cattle county, whe ntlie demand for 

red meat is continually on the increase, while the price of corn and other 

grains are cheaper, because of irrigation, fertilizer and good farm management, already in practice.

I can not see how any one can justify building many miles of large canals 

and laterals, to irrigate more farm land up to 100 miles from the Dam. Think 

of the evaporation that will occur on a hot windy day, besides the hundreds of 

acres of good productive land tha t will be destroye dso a canal can carry this 

water. Think of the farmer who will have to turn his four row machienry 

around on pointed rows, when this canal cuts his land into from N.W. to S.E. 

or any other direction.

Statement of Lloyd Geweke, Valley County, Nebr.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am the owner-operator 

of 2.080 acres in Enterprise Township of Valley County, Nebraska. The NW1

/* 22 W% 5-18-14 lays within the boundaries of this Twin Loups Irrigation 

District. I have lived in this area all of my life. My irrigation exi>erience 

dates back to 1939, which was the sta rt of the North Loup Rural Public 

Power and Irrigation District. My dad and I owned and operated 320 Class I 

acres under that project. Through the years each of use served on the Board 

of Directors of that District.

The original contract for water from the NLRPPI District was $2.50 per 

acre. Later, $2.50 per acre was added for repair and maintenance. Using and 

working with this open ditch project for the past 30 years has proven to me 

tha t projects of this type are not satisfactory or feasible. Each of the two 

quarters mentioned above has irrigation wells operating at the present time to 

supplement the open ditch project.

In the fall of 1954 we drilled our first irrigation well on the north line of 

N’W% of Section 22. This well was 405 feet deep and test pumped over 900 gallons per minute from 190 feet. For a number of years we irrigated 300 acres of 

this land from three 80 rod sprinkler lines, moving pipe by hand once or twice 

a day.

In the early 1960’s, with hired help harder to find, we decided to level some 

land and gravity irrigate all we could, farming the rest as dry land.

We leveled 95 acres at a cost of $110.00 per acre. The well we drilled in 

1954, mentioned previously, handles the water needed for these 95 acres. This 

well is pumping just as much water or more today, as when new.

I drilled my second well on the north side of the SW% of Section 15 18-14 

in 1966. We leveled 45 acres in the NW% of Section 15 at a cost of $2200 and 

parallel bench leveled 60 acres in SWy4

 15 at a cost of $8280. This well, being a larger capacity well of over 1,000 gallons per minute, handles the water 

needs of these 105 acres easily. Although we have leveled 200 acres of land at 

a cost of over $20,000, it would be impossible to irrigate from an open ditch. 

All the water is handled under low-pressure through gated pipe to irrigate the 

210 acres.

The above described ground, according to Bureau of Reclamation maps, is 

all Class II land, with the exception of a few Class III acres.

The cost of operating my first well on the NW^4 of section 22 18-14 for the 

year 1971 was as follows: $365 for natural gas, $300 for depreciation on
89

motor, $370 depreciation on well, $25 for oil, making the average cost of wa ter 

$11.15 per acre, while delivering 300 acre feet of wa ter to my land. The cost in 

1971 was a little higher than in 1970 because of being extra dry.

Well number two, on the SW% of Section 15 18-14, is powered by an electric motor. The electricity cost $842.76 for the year 1971, plus deprecia tion of 

$380, making the average cost of wa ter $11.64 per acre, while deliv ering 3.06 

acre feet of water to 105 acres of land. Again the cost is higher because of the 

extra dry year. I have records proving the wa ter costs quoted are higher tha n 

any previous year.

The alre ady two-year old estim ated cost of $10.60 per acre for 1.51 acre feet 

< of water by the Twin Loup Reclamatio n District is more tha n twice as high

per acre foot of water than the system I am now using.

The more modern type of irriga tion in our area , where underground wa ter 

is so abun dant, is the new pivot system. Working this sytem with sprink ler 

line makes the irrigation of a large amount of acres possible from one well.

* The map from U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture Stabilization of Conservation 

of Sec. 33 18-14 shows how sprinkler and pivot systems are doing the job. 

The south half of Section 33 is owned and irriga ted by one man. He irriga ted 

145 acres by sprinkler lines and 130 plus by pivot, all with high pressure. It 

cost him $1,416.17 for natur al gas, elec tricity and depreciation for 117 days ir ­

rigation during which he applied 1.4 acre feet per acre to 275 acres at a cost 

of $5.15 per acre.

The Bureau of Reclamatio n Irrigab le acres map shows 64 acres irrigable on 

NE% of Section 33. The owner is irriga tin g 147 acres by tow line system. The 

NW% of Section 33 shows 85 irrigab le acres. A new well and pivot system 

just installed will irr igate 130 acres. The progress of irrigation with in the 

boundaries of the Twin Loup Reclamation District in Valley County is moving 

so rapidly tha t, with the already 140 plus wells irriga tin g 18,000 plus acres, I 

feel very certain a ditch system would be disastrou s to the land owners and 

operators in this area.

It doesn’t seem feasible to spend 74% million dollars plus over 19,000 acres 

of land in fees and easements, to irriga te 52,000 acres of which a vast amount 

is alread y being irrigated. The Reclamation Bureau figures 65 miles of main 

canal in our area . In thi s same area , the canal will cross 35 qu art ers of already developed irriga ted land. Can you imagine the loss and inconvenience to 

these land owners?

Because of the rolling and hilly terrain, the 105 miles of later als in Valley 

County in this Reclamation Dis trict will cut the alre ady developed land into 

patc hes not suitable for our modern type equipment. In my particular case, the 

NW% of Section 22 and the SW% of Section 15 18-14, which are fully developed, will be cut into three patches. One latera l % of a mile long (crossing 

this good, already irriga ted ground with underground pipe installed, a well developed building site, and feed lots) will take wa ter to ONLY 17 undeveloped 

proposed acres in this project.

Another % mile latera l, crossing these same two qua rters, will deliver water 

t- to 23 acres of undeveloped proposed irrigated land. The third late ral, y2 mile

long, crossing these same two qua rters, takes wa ter to 50 acres of undeveloped 

proposed irrigated land. This is a tru e example th at shows how trea cherous 

this kind of project can be to our area.

I have cards signed, in the las t three weeks, by the land owners repre sent-

* ing 27,000 acres th at lay with in the boundaries of this dis trict in Valley 

County, indicating that they do not wan t to con tract wa ter from this District. 

I feel that the $10.60 es timated cost for 1.51 acre feet of water delivered is so 

high th at most of the land owners in the entire dis trict will not wa nt to sign 

a fifty yea r con trac t for water.

The cost benefit ratio is based on a hundred yea r analysis at a 3% discount 

rate. If you figure intere st rat es at a more practic al percent such as five o r six 

percent, the cost ratio would be so fa r out of line th at the project would no 

longer be feasible.

It is estim ated in the Benefits Summary that total irriga tion benefits are a 

little over $3,800,000. It is also estim ated about 70 to 75% of our crop is corn. 

If that is tru e and I will not question the 70 to 75% figure, we should benefit 

about $2,800,000 from raising corn on the 52,000 acres of proposed irriga ted 

land. The trut h is, gentlemen, if we raised corn to sell on the open market the 

last ten years, due to cost of production, we would not be able to survive. The 

only way a farme r can make $1.00 bushel corn pay off is the raising and feed-
90

ing of livestock. That, gentlemen, is our major industry. In fact, more than 

75% of our crops are feed to livestock in one way or another.

I have a statement from the Treasurer of Valley County showing what has 

been collected in taxes from 1955 to February 29, 1972 for Twin Loup Reclamation District. We feel this $44,265.80 has been a wasteful expense for a 

needless and unfeasible project.

Attached are A.S.C. photos of NW ^ 22 W% 15 18-14 and Section 33 18-14. 

I have referred to in my statement.

Gentlemen, it is with all sincerity that I make this plea to you—to reconsider the proposed project. I have lived all my life in this area, and love this 

land of ours more than words can tell. We are only here on this earth a short 

time, and I feel that it is our duty to try to improve the land and our country 

whenever possible. Please do not approve a project tha t will scar the land tha t 

we have spent our entire lives trying to improve.
Collections:

1955 levy____

1956 levy____

1957 levy ____

1958 le vy____

1959 le vy____

1960 levy____

1961 levy____

1962 le vy____

1963 le vy____

1964 levy____

1965 levy____

1966 levy____

1967 levy____

1968 levy____

1969 levy____

1970 levy____

1971 levy 1__

Back tax es__

Motor vehicle 

In tere st_____

Of f ic e of T r e a s u r e r of V a lley C o u n ty,

. Ord, Nebr. Twin Loups Reclamation

------------------------------------------------------ $1(

 873. 22

................... ..................... ..................- ......... 1,8 50.48

- ...................-........................... - ......... ........ 1,7 75.79

----------- 2,5 06 .22

-------------------- 2,7 90.24

------- --------- 2,5 94.04

------------------ 2,7 02.62

------------------------------------------------------ 2, 770. 92

- ------- 2,8 56.04

- ------- 2,7 86.46

-------------------- 2,8 91.71

------------------------------------------------------ 1, 745. 27

- ------- 1,8 53.64

------- --------------- 2,2 36.84

-------------- 2,3 40.27

------------------------------------------------------ 4, 446. 41

---------------------- 1,6 47.45

-------------------- 990.04

- ---------------- 1,360.63

---------------------------------------------------------- 247. 51

Total collections from November 1956 to Feb. 29, 1972______ 44, 265. 80

Less:

Refunds_________________________________________________ 5. 94

County fees______________________________________________ 248. 94

Twin Loups-----------------------------------------------------------. . . . . .. 43, 400^ 00

Total disbursements from November 1956 to Feb. 29, 1972__ 43, 654. 88

Valley County Treas ure r’s balance Feb. 29, 1972___________ 610. 92

> Co llection s to Fe b. 29,1972.

Sharon L. F oth, 

Valley County Treasurer.

Sta tem en t of Cliff or d Goff , B urw ell, N ebr.

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subc ommittee: We, the Clifford Goffs, 

would like to voice our objection to this proposed “Twin Loup” Irriga tio n 

Project.

We live on a farm on the south side of the North Loup River, three and one 

half miles west of Burwell. This is a good prod uctiv e river-bottom-land valley 

and is served by th e North Loup i rrig ation project, also by irrig ation wells.

We have an irrigation well, and we pre fer it very to the ditch water. We 

find we get about twice as much water out of our well as we got from the 

ditch, as we were served by the ditch prior to 1955. We pump with electricity 

and it doesn’t cost as much as the water from the ditch cost.

Our objection to the project is that it will cut across our irriga ted farm . We 

alre ady have the North Loup ditch cuttin g across us, also an old ditch that 

was put in about seventy yea rs ago. This old ditc h was never used very much 

as it was so poorly engineered and constructed as to be of little use.

We do not feel this new “Twin Loup” project is at all practic al or necessary, or feasable as we are very well acqu ainted with the land th at is to be ir ­

rigated. The land is much too rolling—hilly—th e water will have to be 

pumped to water it. There are many farms which are alre ady watered from 

wells. Many farms have, by means of several wells, many more acres watered 

than could ever be done from a ditch.

We feel this is the only practic al way to irrigate. We have been irrigati ng 

for thir ty-eight years, and we know th at thi s land won’t irr igate from an open 

ditch.
92

We are asking you to investiag e very thoroughly the merits of this project, 

and to have enough of thi s land signed under con trac t to secure the repayment 

of this loan before gra nting it.

Sta te men t of R obert Schrup, Mem ber, L oup County B oard of

Com mission er s

Mr. Chairm an and Members of the Inter ior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Irr iga tio n and Reclamatio n : My name is Robert Schrup. I am a member of the Loup County Board of Commissioners and have serve d in this ca- £

pacity for the las t 10 years. I am appearing before this subcommittee as a 

representive for all the Loup County Commissioners and for Loup County.

The reserv oir on the Calam us River which is a pa rt of the North Loup Project, together with other land taken by the district, will cause Loup County to 

lose more tha n 10,000 acres. This land will not only cost eighteen families to •

lose their means of livelihood but will no longer be availab le to Loup County 

for tax purposes. The value of the 10.000 acres for tax purposes is set at 

$423,570, personal property $324,573, and buildings $40,760 making a total of 

$788,903. However, we feel th at if this 10,000 acres was sold as one unit the 

asking price would be over $200 an acre.

It is estimated that the tax loss to Loup County per year, figuring the present mill levy would amount to approximate ly $7,600. It is to be remembered 

that thi s loss will continue from year to year, indefinately. Loup County Board 

of Commissioners have been besieged with numerous objections from a gre at 

percentage of the citizens of Loup County, specifically objectiong to said pro ject for the following reaso ns :

1. The loss from its tax rolls of a large amount of property, adding to the 

difficulty of providing suitable governmental operation for its citizens.

2. Loup County will receive no economc benefit of any nature , while it will 

from year to yea r lose a substan tial amount of tax income.

3. Loup County has had no opportu nity to express its desires relative to 

said project and especially to cast a vote for or against it.

4. It is the firm belief of the Board of County Commissioners th at said pro ject is not feasible, but will if promoted create a burden on Loup County and 

all lan d owners in the District. -

5. Th at Petitio ners have been circ ulated opposing said project, in which 

owners and operators of more tha n two-thirds of the land in Loup County oppose the completion of said project, and appeal to Congress to prevent the 

North Loup Reclamation District from being approved.

6. The Board of County Commissioners in regular session on March 13, 1972, 

adopted a Resolution requestin g th at the above project be discontinued and 

fully abandoned, a copy being attach ed to this stateme nt.

Reso lutio n—Cou nty B oard of Com mission er s of Lou p County H

Re: HR 869 and S 2350 to autho rize the Secretary of Interio r to construct, 

operate, and maintain the North Loup Division, Missouri River Basin Project,

Nebraska, and for other purposes, and the environmental statem ent with refer ­

ence th er et o: S

Whereas, the Inter ior and Insular Affairs Committee, House of Rep resentatives, 92nd Congress, has scheduled hearings by the subcommittee on Irriga tion 

and Reclamation. Whereas, these bills authorize the construction of the North 

Loup Division of the Missouri River Basin Pro ject in Loup, Garfield, Valley,

Greeley, Howard, Merrick and Nance counties in Nebrasks; and whereas, the 

United States Departm ent of Interior. Bureau of Reclamation has requested 

comment as to the Environm ental Statement.

Now the refore be it resolved th at the Loup County Board of Commissioners 

in meeting assembled on the above date, passed this Resolution opposing this 

project and the Environmental Sta tem ent and asked Congress to reject the 

above bills for the following reas on s:

1. Th at many parts of the North Loup Pro ject affect peopople who are not 

within the boundaries of the Dis tric t, have no right to vote or be heard 

thereon, and th at they will be adversly affected if said project is constructed.
93

2. The construction of this project will cause trem endo us damage to many 

prop erty owners which property is some of the best agricult ural and cattle 

graz ing land in the United States.

3. That construction of this project will in effect completely destroy all possible cattle rang ing in the entire Calam us Valley which affects thousands of 

acres of grazing land and many thousand head of cattle and will in effect take 

away complete cattle operations on lands not with in the boundaries of the 

North Loup Pro ject by taking away all effective means of operatio n and continued operation of said ranches withou t representatio n and withou t any compensation whatsoever.

4. Th at thousands of acres of land which has high valu ation , will be taken 

from the tax rolls. This will necessitate raising the taxes on other property in 

the county to make up for the land taken out and income from said land 

take n or condemned by thi s project will be lost forever as fa r as the tax ing 

autho rities with in the county are concerned.

5. There will be much damage to other land tha n that taken for ditches and 

reservoirs. Canals run on curved and diagonal courses for many, many miles 

which cuts farms and completely destroy s irriga tion presently being used by 

landowners within the dis tric t and all land within the District will be subject 

to damage by seepage.

6. That the Environmen tal Statem ent is inad equ ate and false in th at there 

will not be economic activity totaling $36 million in that development has already been made by the farm community and damages from seepage, seve rance, and inundation of all irrigab le and usable hay are a in the Calamus Valley completely destroying ranches along the valley.

7. Th at des truc tion to the Calam us Valley will cause fu rth er mig ration of 

people to urban centers because of complete destruc tion of ranc hes in the Calamus Valley are a rendering them completely worthless.

8. Th at the fluctuation of the Calamus reservoir because of irriga tio n needs 

and the requ ired flow of the Calam us and North Loup in Jul y and August will 

render the Calam us reservoir area completely unfit and unusuable for recrea ­

tional development.

9. Th at des truc tion of all trees, windbreaks and shru bs in the Calamus Valley because of the reservoir will destroy all na tural ha bitat for present wild 

life which will never retur n and probably die.

We ask the Bureau of Reclamation and the Subcommittee on Irriga tio n and 

Reclamation to protect us aga inst the injustice and th at the Pro jec t be discontinued immediately.

Signed:

Glen P ollard,

F loyd Dunbar,

R obert Sch ru p,

County Commissioners of Loup County.

Atte sted b y :

H. R. Ton ac k,

County Clerk.

Senator Burdick. Our time is running out and we have four or 

five witnesses left. I may have to be on the floor and some may have 

to give their statements before staff.

Is there anyone in this group tha t would like to file a statement 

and make a quick summary? Miss Doris Gates, Miss Mary Carter, 

Mr. Kenneth Cook, Mr. Carroll Harmon.

Air. Harmon. I am Carroll Harmon, sir. I would like my statement made a part of the record.

Senator Burdick. I t will be, th at is very fine, thank you.

What about Doris Gates ?

Miss Carter. I am Mary C arter, Miss Gates was unable to come.

Senator Burdick. Tom Eason.

79-70 4 0 -7 2 - 7
94

STATEMENT OF TOM EASON, LOWER LOUP-PLATTE WATER 

ASSOCIATION, INC.

Air. Eason. I am Tom Eason. I live in Dodge County. I will be 

very brief.

We feel in our area tha t the project as outlined is going to be 

very suitable for our area, we think our interest is protected. AA’e 

support the project. I also represent the Governor on the State's oil 

and water conservation commission and I think from the State's 

angle, this is or has been developed as a part of the overall State 

comprehensive water plan which is a good plan and a lot of plan ­

ning has gone into it. I would urge tha t decision in this regard and 

other regards on the project be made as soon as possible because 

there is a predictable amount of water in Nebraska, because it is 

hard to build a plan or anything of future projects unless you know 

where you stand on one particu lar project.

A lot of these things brought up today, probably not many of 

these would have arisen if your time element had not been so long in 

the planning and the execution of the program.

Senator Burdick. Air. Eason, do you have a title in the Low’er 

Loup-Platte Water Association?

Air. E ason. No, sir. I am the director.

Senator Burdick. Who are the members of the association ?

Air. Eason. AVe have representatives from the towns of North 

Bend, Rodgers, Valley, Fremont, that area is represented by the 

Lower Loup and the Pla tte River.

Senator Burdick. You don’t pretend to represent the views of the

c i ty—Air. E ason. I represent primarily agricultural industries.

Senator Burdick. Thank you, sir.

Now, Aliss Carter.

STATEMENT OF MARY CARTER, CITIZEN, OMAHA, NEBR.

Aliss Carter. I guess I am here representing a minority. I will be 

brief. Aly name is Alary Carter, I am a student, I am a citizen of 

Nebraska, I have lived in Omaha all my life, I have traveled around 

the State all my life, and I can’t quite comprehend the need for a 

dam project. I think that progress is nice, but when progress has 

already happened a lot in that area, wThy be redundan t and destructive while you are doing it.

Prim arily I am interested in the environmental aspects. I am an 

environmental-type student. Although I don't know a whole lot 

right now. I would like to go over a couple of things. Hybridication 

really occurs. This is where east meets west. You can’t put a cost on 

that, but it should be considered in the whole realm of things. There 

is something called the Federal Antiquities Act. That prohibits the 

construction of the sites, tha t would destroy sites of archeological 

value. This is a law and no research has been done by anybody from 

the Bureau of Reclamation, so I think tha t it would be nice to find 

out, you know, so we can abide by this law.

Senator Burdick. Do you have any evidence yourself of anything 

in tha t area.
95

Miss Carter. Nothing specific. The whole area of Nebraska is rich 

in tha t type of thing, yon know, we have found fossils and things. 

We shouldn’t rule out the fact there are some and we should find out 

one way or another. I would like to stress again the 150 acres of 

trees tha t will be destroyed, and it will take at least 100 years to 

make them come back adequately.

It is kind of interesting about the great blue heron rookery, the 

fact they won’t be able to survive there because the tree roots will be 

water soaked. It doesn’t seem to have been mentioned a lot. It is 

something tha t should be taken into consideration. The kingfish 

requires a place to dig a nest tunnel tha t overlooks the water. That 

is how they like to live. This shouldn’t be ignored. One thin g tha t 

no one has talked about, mosquitoes. Because this is free-flowing 

water and it is not a large reservoir tha t has shallow water, not 

many mosquitoes are there. If a reservoir was built a lot of additional nesting places for mosquitoes will be provided. Mosquitoes 

will have to be controlled by pesticides, which will affect the plants 

and animals there, and will ultimately affect humans.

Senator Burdick. What do you say about the testimony tha t has 

been offered. I t gives a lot of seepage and water runs away.

Miss Carter. I am not claiming to be an expert. All I am is a c itizen that doesn’t feel this thing should be done. Tha t is all I have.

Senator Burdick. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kenneth Cook, director of agricu ltural development, is he 

here? I f not his statement will be made a p art of the record.

(The statement follows:)

Statement of Kenneth L. Cook, Director, Agricultural Development, 

Burlington Northern, I nc.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committe e: My name is Kenneth L. Cook, 

Dire ctor of Agricu ltural Development for Burlington Northern Inc., with hea dquarters at St. Paul, Minnesota. Fo r more tha n a century, the growing economic development of the West has drawn its principle stre ngt h from the 

fru itful partn ers hip of American agriculture and American Railroads. As 

Director of Agricultural Development for Burlington Northe rn—one of the oldest of the grange r railroads and today the largest in track miles—I am 

pleased to submit for the record of this hearing a statement in support of the 

North Loup Division of the Missouri River Basin Project.

Our fai th in the potential of this development is based on solid experience. 

Burlington Northern, through its predecessor companies, has been dire ctly involved for many yea rs in programs of the type proposed for the North Loup 

Division. Our record of cooperation in the development of agricultura l resources thro ugh out the Midwest and West speaks for itself.

Burlington Northern serves many outstanding agricultqral are as in the vast 

territor y linked by our 25.000-mile rail network. Agricultural sta tes include Il ­

linois. Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas, Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon. In 

this richly productive region are a number of the nation’s most highly developed a reas of irriga ted agriculture.

The degree to which irrigation as an economic factor can affect such an 

are a is clearly dem onstrated by the changes we have experienced in volume 

and chara cte r of traffic and the revenues generated. These are relia ble measures of growth and improvement—not merely for Burlington Northern, but for 

the communities and businesses we serve.

The destinies of these communities are intr insically linked with our own, 

and I can thin k of no better way of inte nsifying the agr icu ltural economy or 

stemming the mig ration from rur al America tha n thro ugh irriga tio n development. This is p articu larly significant to a sta te like Nebraska, which alread y is 

heavily agriculture-oreinted.
96

Any of the irriga ted are as we serve might be used as an example of how investm ent in irrigation has brou ght with it investment in pla nt and facilitie s 

and general economic growth. However, because of my fam ilia rity with it, I 

would like to refer to the Columbia Basin Project. Some of you, of course, are 

acquainted with it also, and I believe it will be easy to illustra te the salient 

points I would like to make.

Burlington Northe rn operates 172 miles of line in the Columbia Basin Project, the most recent irriga tion development on our railroad. Before 1952, we 

served only a handful of country elevators in the entire area—all that was 

needed for the lesse r production of dry farming.

Where there were nine industries handling agricultura l production before ir ­

rigation, the re are now at leas t 140—an increase of more than 1300 per ce nt ! 

Obviously, such industrial growth represen ts a sub stantial investme nt by many 

firms. We estimate th at along our lines alone, approximately $75 million has 

been invested in facilities to handle products from the Columbia Basin Project. 

And two other railroads also serve the project. Our business in the area has 

more tha n doubled in the past 10 years. The growth since the star t of irr igation in 1952 has been of even gre ater proportions. This is not to say that the 

North Loup Division will necessarily produce the same spectacular re su lts; yet 

they will be similar and the industries which will develop are of the same nature. They include sug ar beet, potato and dry bean processing, as well as those 

supp orting agricultural production—fertilizer, farm machinery and other products and equipment. These same crops and agricultura l inputs are pa rt of Nebra ska’s agricultural economy today, and will expan d with irrigation 

development.

Burlington Northern prese ntly operates a branchlin e thro ugh the North Loup 

River Valley. Like many branchlin es in Nebraska, it was built before the turn 

of the century and is generally constructed of light-weig ht rail. Although the 

revenues derived from the area have been failry stable, the costs to maintain 

and operate the line are constantly rising. The economic improvement of the 

are a which will result from author ization and construction of this project will 

help toward pu ttin g the branc hline on a sounder economic basis.

The stakes involved in a project of this scope are high, but the economic 

benefits are sub stan tial and far-reaching. Irriga tion would provide long-term 

economic stability which would u ndergird even furth er development.

Burlington Northern’s long yea rs of experience in serving irriga ted agricultucal regions convinces us that the proposed North Loup Division development 

is an asset with unique and valuable potential.

Senator Burdick. That concludes our witness list, you have been 

very good—Air. Harmon-----

STATEMENT OF CARROLL HARMON, NEBRASKA SOIL AND WATER 

CONSERVATION COMMISSION

Mr. Harmon. Aly name is Carroll Harmon, Nebraska Soil and 

Water Conservation Commission. I am here to present a statement 

for Air Vincent Kershaw. I would like to quote p art of the letter he 

has directed to Senator Jackson:

Our office and the University as a whole are enthus iastica lly supporting the 

development of irrigation and those projects which have physical and environmental feasibility. We also strongly supp ort the concept of long-term management for the tota l water resources for urban and rural development. We believe th at the North Loup Project is a worthy project. In cooperation with the 

U.S. Geological Survey, we investig ated the potentials for irrigation. As a part 

of our program we have establish ed and maintained a continuous level of water 

level changes. Unlike many pa rts of Nebraska, a larg e portion of the project 

lands are underland by limited reservoir, limited by potential storage and poten tial yield of wells. A relatively larg e number of irrigation wells have been 

constructed in the area. As more wells are drilled, as they most surely will be, 

a competition for limited ground water storage will lower levels. In fact, records of wells measured in the Valley County portion of the project by the U.S.
97

Bur eau of Reclamatio n since 1958, indicate this downward trend of wa ter levels have been established in the las t 3 to 7 years. In comparison, wa ter levels 

measured in the fall show declines. A storage of surfac e water, will help 

achieve the objective of wa ter resources managem ent and irriga tio n of downstream use. In the streams for long-term use should be developed with this 

project. Experience elsewhere in the sta te dem onstrates the tabulation th at occurs in rural area with the management that comes with storage facility and 

total wa ter resources utilization. Experience also shows th at problems resulting from----- ”

I urge your committee take favorable action toward its authorization.

Senator Burdick, Thank you very much.

Mr. Harmon. If I can answer any questions.

Senator Burdick. We have a conflict in the evidence about the 

groundwater levels.

Mr. Harmon. It appears from the work I think that the conservation survey division has done, there is a great deal of difference 

between this surface area, between the kinds of wells t hat might be 

developed in some areas where you got realtively good wells, but in 

other areas you are not able to develop the kind of well required for 

irrigation.

Senator Burdick. What do you say about the cost of the water. It 

seems that it is going to be twice as costly as the present system ?

Mr. Harmon. I wonder in some of the testimony previously pre ­

sented here, if the entire cost of the wells w’as included in that $11 

figure for 3 acre-feet pumping, I am talking about the amortization 

of the wells, the drilling of the well and the equipment required, or 

if this is only the power cost. I t seems like a low figure.

Senator Burdick. It certainly is a dramatic difference. Well, we 

will be asking the Bureau for more information also.

Thank you very much.

Now, do you have rebuttal back there in the red shirt?

Voice. We took in the complete cost not only our gas cost, electric 

cost, but we also took into consideration we would depreciate our 

well in 10 years, our motor in 20 years, and we figure it out, the full 

cost.

Senator Burdick. You took in all of the necessary and usual busi-

* ness costs and you figured your profits and losses.

Voice. Some days good profits and some days not many.

Senator Burdick. Thank you very much.

The meeting will be adjourned and the record will be held open

* for 30 days.

(Whereupon, at 1: 05 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.)

(The statement of Dr. Kershaw submitted by Mr. Harmon follows :)

Statement of Dr. Vincent E. Kersha w, O mah a, Nf.br.

I am again st the North Loup Project because I believe it will be environ ­

mentally destruc tive and economically unsound. I see it as ano ther make work 

project by a burea ucr atic organization with a history of numerous expensive 

projects which have been insensitive to the actual needs of the people of this 

country.

I believe it is environmentally destructive for the following reasons :

1. It will degrade the chara cte r of the Calamus river which is one of the 

unique and bea utiful rivers of Nebraska. I feel th at as a citizen of Nebrask a
98

tha t part of the Calamus river is mine. I further believe that the Loup and

the Platte and the Missouri into which the Calamus flows as partly mine also.

I resent the feeling of a small group of Reclamation engineers who feel they

have a right to “improve” or modify these rivers and thus take something

away from myself and many more like me.

2. It is my understanding that any decisions to continue this project are in 

violation of the intent of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act because 

of incomplete environmental impact study reports.

3. Migrating waterfowl habitat would be destroyed. This is due in part to

the destruction of small ponds and creeks with their associated plant life and *

also to lowering of the water temperature in fall and winter secondary to the

storage.

4. Woodland habitat now existing along the river in the area to be inundated would be destroyed. I doubt that ecologically effective woodland in sufficient quantity will be replaced. •

5. The network of canals will be a thre at to both the animal and human 

population from the standpoint of drowning particularly to children and deer.

6. The reservoir cannot serve the functions of a natu ral lake because of the 

extreme water level functions.

7. The loss of water downstream from the dam in the Calamus, the Loup, 

and the Platte is in violation of water rights of other landowners.

8. The use of pesticides for mosquito control will affect not only the reservoir but downstream and add to the total load draining into the Gulf of Mexico.

9. It would destroy the nesting habitat of Great Blue Herons and the Belted 

Kingfishers.

I believe the proposed project is economically unsound for the following reasons :

1. An unrealistic interest rate of 3*4% has been reported to have been used 

in the feasibility study. The actual cost of use of the money should have been 

used.

2. A poll has indicated an overwhelming objection to the project by the 

farmers in the involved areas.

3. The need for irrigation is being met by central pivot systems in the involved area on a free enterprise system in a manner which is not destroying 

the land. It is in addition much less destructive to the environent.

4. It is further, it seems to me, an unseemly type of ridiculous behavior to 

be spending millions to increase certain food commodities at the same time 

that even more is being spent on taking land out of production.

5. The reservoir and related easments and canals will remove an estimated 

19,000 acres from any agricultural production. In my opinion this land will be 

needed within the next 50 years for food production.

In summary I believe the North Loup Project cannot be justified on an economic basis. If the proposal is carried out it will be the cause of significant 

local and downstream environmental havoc. In my opinion it will also be testimony to our inability to manage our own welfare.
A P P E N D I X

(Under authority previously granted, the following communications 

representative of the many letters received by the committee, were 

• ordered printed in the hearing record.)

Statement of William C. Smith, Jr., One of The Board of Directors of

The National Water Resources Association

Mr. Chairman, my name is Judge William C. Smith, Jr., of Ainsworth, Nebraska. I am Nebraska’s representative on the Board of Directors of the National Water Resources Association. Our Association is proud to support the 

two projects in Nebraska, namely, the North Loup Division and the O’Neill 

Unit who are presently seeking authorization. The North Loup Division, sponsored by the Twin Loups Reclamation District and the Twin Loups Irrigation 

District, is a multiple purpose project that will enhance the social and economic well being of a large p art of Central Nebraska.

The National Water Resources Association believes that development and 

construction of this multiple purpose project is necessary to strengthen the 

economy of the entire nation, while enhancing the human environment of a 

seven county area, in Central Nebraska. I am sure you realize tha t my appearing here before you indicates my complete support of this project. Tlie National Water Resources Association and I are pleased that you gentlemen have 

granted the local sponsors of the project this time to be heard.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and if there are any questions, I shall be glad to 

answer them.

Resolution—Ord City Counsel

By the Ord City Council encouraging the Congress of the United States to 

enact, fund and implement the Twin Loups irrigation and reclamation project 

at the earliest possible opportunity.

Whereas the Twin Loups Irrigation and Reclamation Project will preserve 

and improve area water levels essential for human consumption, agriculture 

and industry, and

Whereas said Project will increase and stabilize farm income to enable Nebraska farmers to conduct economically feasible operations and maintain their 

basic philosophy that they can and should be self supporting, and

Whereas said Project will provide new jobs in an economically depressed 

area, and

Whereas said Project will lessen outmigration from Nebraska and consequent overcrowding of metropolitan areas already beset with problems of mass 

crime, housing, education and sanitation,and

Whereas said Project will improve and stabilize area taxpayers’ ability to 

pay existing, substantial and increasing costs of providing essential roads, improvements and other public services, and

Whereas said Project will conserve and utilize our ecology and natural resources efficiently and wisely, and

Whereas said Project will relieve the energy crisis by reducing the cost of 

making general and irrigation water available, and

Whereas said Project will provide recreation to thousands of Americans.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Ord City Council meeting in regular 

session this 6th day of March, 1972, tha t the Congress of the United States by 

urged to enact, fund and implement the Twin Loups Irrigation and Reclamation Project at the earliest possible opportunity, and be it further resolved 

that said City Council wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse said project 

(99)
100

without qualification and deliver a copy hereof to the House and Senate Subcommittees on Insul ar Affairs and all other inte rested and appropriate bodies 

as evidence of said endorsement.

Passed and approved at Ord, Nebraska this 6tli day of March, 1972.

ATTES T:

City of St. Paul, Nebraska,

St. Paul, Nebr., March 15, 1972.

Hon. Henry M. J ackson,

Chairman, Comm ittee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

Ncic Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator J ackson: The City of St. Paul, Nebraska supports the North 

Loup Project. We know it will provide economic opportunities for a larg e number of residents of our city and the surrounding area . How ard County and the 

City of St. Paul, Nebraska both showed a gain in popu lation during the census 

period from 196(1 to 1970. We believe tins is the direct result of new results of 

irrigation development in the Loup Basin.

Development of the North Loup Division will help every community in the 

North Loup Basin.

Respectfully submitted,

J. J. Lewis,

Mayor.

Citizens National Bank,

St. Paul, Nebr., March 15, 1972.

Hon. Henry M. J ackson,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator J ackson : The Citizens National Bank is located in St. Paul, 

Nebraska, in the center of a farm ing community. Our banking business is 

closely associated with agriculture. From 1964 to 1970 our loans to farm ers 

and farm rela ted businesses have nearly tripled. We believe this increase in 

our loan business can be attributed direc tly to the development of the Farw ell 

Unit here in Howard County, Nebraska.

Making loans to farm operato rs with irriga tion is advantageous to both our 

Bank and our customers. We strongly support the development and early constru ctio n of the North Loup Division as our experience shows that irriga ted 

farm ing helps create a progressive rural community.

Sincerely yours,

Stan Edwards,

President.
RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, t h e B o a rd o f H ow ar d C o u n ty N e b r a s k a C o m m is s io n e r s 

h a s r e c e i v e d t h e d r a f t o f t h e E n v ir o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t f o r t h e 

N o r th L oup D i v i s i o n , P i c k —S l o a n M i s s o u r i B a s in P ro g r a m ,

N e b r a s k a ; a n d

WHEREAS, i t a p p e a r s t h a t a u t h o r i z a t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n 

o f t h e N o r t h L oup D i v i s i o n w o u ld e n h a n c e t h e hu m an e n v ir o n m e n t 

o f t h e L oup B a s i n , w h ic h r i v e r b a s i n i n c l u d e s a p a r t o f H ow ar d 

C o u n ty , N e b r a s k a ; a n d

WHEREAS, t h i s B o a rd i s a w a re o f t h e f a v o r a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t a l 

a c t i v i t i e s c r e a t e d b y t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e 

F a r w e l l U n i t w h ic h i s l o c a t e d , f o r t h e m o s t p a r t , i n H ow ar d 

C o u n ty , N e b r a s k a .

NOW, THE REF ORE , BE IT RESOLVED b y t h e B o a rd o f H ow ar d 

C o u n ty N e b r a s k a C o m m is s io n e r s , a t a s p e c i a l s e s s i o n , a s s e m b le d 

t h i s 1 3 th d a y o f M a rc h , 1 9 7 2 , t h a t t h e E n v ir o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t 

p r o p o s e d f o r t h e N o r t h L oup D i v i s i o n , P i c k - S l o a n M i s s o u r i 

B a s in P ro g r a m , N e b r a s k a b e , a n d t h e sa m e i s h e r e b y a p p r o v e d .

D a te d a t S t . P a u l , H ow ar d C o u n ty , N e b r a s k a , t h i s 1 3 th 

d a y o f M a rc h , 1 9 7 2 .

BOARD OF HOWARD COUNTY NEBRASKA 

COMMISSIONER S
102

It was moved by Geral d A. Hruza and seconded b y Clifford

Stefanowicz that the above and foregoing resolution be adopted

as read. On roll call vo te the following voted "Yea": Gerald

A. Hruza, Clifford Stefanowicz and Myron K. Nielsen.

This Resolution adopted March 13, 1972.
103

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the St. Paul, Nebraska

Chamber of Commerce is aware of the social, economic and

v environmental benefits created by a prosperous agricultural

community; and

WHEREAS, all the members of the St. Pa ul Chamber of

Commerce recognize that due to construction of the Farwell

Unit, Howard County's population decline has stopped and

between the 1960 and 1970 census the County of Howard and

the City of St. Paul, Nebraska showed a population gain; and

WHEREAS, the benefits of increased agricultural production

will cause a shift of population to rural areas, all of which

will be beneficial to all the citizens of the C ity of St.

Paul, Nebraska.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the St. Paul, Nebraska

Chamber of Commerce, through its Board of Directors, does

hereby go on record in support of the North Loup Divi sion,

Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program.

Dated at St. Paul, Nebraska, this 9th day of March, 1972.

*

The Board of Directors of

the St. Paul, Nebraska Chamber

of Commerce

Its president.
OFFICERS

Fresident

Henry G. Lang e

Ord. Nebrask a

V k a President

Donald E. Kllda y

Pa lmer. Neb rask a

Twin Loups

Reclamation District

St. Paul. Nebraska 68873

Cushing, Nebraska

Louis Cording

Elba, Nebraska

Ca rl F. Anderson

Charles S. Augustyn

Elyria, Nebraska

John Potrzeba

Secretary-Treasurer

A. L. Russell

Fu lle rto n. Nebrask a

Attorney

Cy ril P. Shaughnessy

St. Paul. Nebraska

A p r i l 12 , 1972

S e n a to r C lin to n P . A n d e rs o n 

C h a ir m an , S ub co m m it te e on W ate r 

an d Pow er R e so u rc e s

C o m m it te e on I n t e r i o r an d I n s u l a r A f f a i r s 

U n ite d S t a t e s S e n a te 

W a s h in g to n , D. C. 20 51 0

H o n o ra b le S e n a to r A n d e rso n :

On M ar ch 20, 1972, y o u r C om m it te e h e ld h e a r in g s on S . 35 2 an d 

S . 23 50 r e g a r d in g t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n o f th e N o rth Lo up D iv is io n 

o f th e P ic k - S lo a n M is s o u r i B a s in P ro g ra m . D u ri n g th e s e h e a r in g s , 

c o n d u c te d by t h e H o n o ra b le S e n a to r Q u e n ti n N. B u rd ic k , c e r t a i n 

p e o p le fr om o u r a r e a r e q u e s te d a d d i t i o n a l ti m e t o su b m it i n ­

f o r m a tio n . S e n a to r B u rd ic k a l s o a llo w e d u s th e same ti m e to 

f u r n i s h a d d i t i o n a l s t a te m e n ts f o r th e r e c o r d . T h is l e t t e r an d 

i t s e n c lo s u r e s f u r n i s h t h i s a d d i t i o n a l in f o r m a tio n .

F i r s t o f a l l , many o f th e e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s in c lu d in g o u r 

H o n o ra b le S e n a to r s fr om N e b ra s k a , S e n a to r Roman L . H ru sk a an d^ 

S e n a to r C a rl T. C u r t i s , C ongre ssm an Da ve M a rtin , th e H o n o ra b le 

J . J . Exo n, G o v ern o r o f o u r S t a t e , s e v e r a l c i t y c o u n c il m a n an d 

m a y o rs, a s w e ll a s c o u n ty s u p e r v i s o r s and S t a t e s e n a t o r s , hav e 

a l l e n d o rs e d o u r p r o j e c t f o r d e v e lo p m e n t. T h ese a r e a l l e l e c t e d 

o f f i c i a l s an d a r e v e ry s e n s i t i v e t o th e n e e d s and w is h e s o f 

o u r l o c a l p e o p le . We b e l i e v e th e s e e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s a r e s i n c e r e 

i n t h e i r s p o n s o r s h ip o f t h e N o rth Lo up P r o j e c t b e c a u s e th e y a r e 

c o n v in c e d t h e r e i s l o c a l s u p p o r t in o u r a r e a f o r t h i s d e v e lo p m e n t.

To f u r t h e r s u p p o r t th e c o n t e n t i o n o f l o c a l d e v e lo p m e n t, we have 

c i r c u l a t e d p e t i t i o n s am ong fa rm e rs who a r e o w n ers a n d /o r o p e r a to r s 

o f t h e 5 2 ,5 7 0 a c r e s o f la n d i n o u r p r o j e c t . 40 6 s i g n a t u r e s have 

b e e n o b ta in e d on th e a t t a c h e d p e t i t i o n s s u p p o r tin g th e d ev elo p m en t 

T h e se p e o p le r e p r e s e n t 60% o f th e la n d s t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e fr om 

th e N o rth Lo up P r o j e c t , o r a c r e a g e w is e , 3 0 ,7 6 0 a c r e s .

79-734 222

WATER — THE KEY TO LOUP BASIN'S ANO NEBRASKA'S PROSPERITY
105

OFFICER*

President

Henry G. Lange

Ord. Nebraska

Vice President

Donald E. Kilday

Palm er. Nebraska

Secretary-Treasurer

A. L. Russell

Fullerto n. Nebraska

P ag e Two 

S e n a to r C lin to n 

A p r i l 12 , 19 72

Twin Loups

Reclamation District

S t Pout Nebraska 68873

• A n d ers o n

DIRECTORS

Cushing, Nebraska

Louis Cording

Elbe, Nebraska

Carl F. Anderson

Charles S. Augustyn

Elyria, Nebraska

John Potrzeba

Attorney

Cyril P. Sha ughn essy

St. Paul. Nebraska

Whe n o u r Twin L oups I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t w as fo rm ed i n 1 958, 

t h e r e w ere 1 6 ,8 1 9 a c r e s o f i r r i g a t e d l a n d s . Owne rs o f 7 ,6 0 2 

a c r e s p e t i t i o n e d i n t o t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t le a v in g 9 ,2 1 7 

a c r e s . O w ne rs o f 3 ,9 8 0 a c r e s o f th e s e 9 ,2 1 7 a c r e s d e s i r e 

p r o j e c t s e r v i c e . S in c e 1 958, o w n ers o f 4 3 ,3 5 3 a c r e s h av e b e e n 

i n th e Twin L oup s I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t . A ddin g t h e 3 ,9 8 0 a c r e s 

now d e s i r i n g p r o j e c t w a te r , b r i n g s o u r s e r v i c e a r e a t o 4 7 ,3 3 3 

a c r e s o r w i t h i n 10% o f th e t o t a l o f 5 2 ,5 7 0 a c r e s w i t h i n th e 

p r o j e c t . As m e n ti o n e d a b o v e , t h e s e p e o p le who a r e i r r i g a t i n g 

w ith w e ll s e r v i c e a r e s t i l l v e r y mu ch i n t e r e s t e d i n a c q u ir in g 

p r o j e c t s e r v i c e . So, we b e l i e v e we h a v e no p ro b le m i n d e v e lo p in g 

th e t o t a l p o t e n t i a l o f o u r a r e a .

*

S h o u ld som e o f th o s e whom we h av e n o t b e e n a b l e t o c o n t a c t , 

d e c id e a g a i n s t p r o j e c t s e r v i c e , t h e r e a r e am p le la n d s i n t h i s 

a r e a t o d e v e lo p th e t o t a l p o t e n t i a l o f th e p r o j e c t . Th e 

p ro b le m i n o u r a r e a i s n o t la n d b u t o ne o f a s u f f i c i e n t w a te r

s u p p ly .

M r. Th om as Tye a t th e M ar ch 2 0 , 19 72 h e a r i n g , s u g g e s te d a n 

am en dm en t t o o u r b i l l t h a t we m u st h a v e s ig n e d w a te r c o n t r a c t s 

w ith i n d i v i d u a l w a te r u s e r s f o r th e 5 2 ,5 7 0 a c r e s . A tta c h e d i n 

g r e a t e r d e t a i l i s a n e x p la n a tio n o f th e d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n an 

i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t and a r e c la m a tio n d i s t r i c t . S u f f i c e i t to 

sa y h e r e t h a t a n i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t i n N eb ra sk a c a n o b l i g a t e 

th e ow n ers o f t h e la n d w i t h i n th e d i s t r i c t t o t h e re p a y m e n t 

o f o u r c o n t r a c t w ith th e U n it e d S t a t e s . T h u s, t h e r e i s no need 

f o r n o r w ould su c h a n am en dm en t s e r v e an y u s e f u l p u rp o s e and 

a c c o r d in g ly , t h e r e i s no need f o r th e i n d i v i d u a l w a t e r - u s e r 

c o n t r a c t s f o r o u r d e v e lo p m e n t.

M r. V in c e n t D re e s z e n , D i r e c t o r o f C o n s e r v a tio n an d S u rv e y 

D iv is io n , U n i v e r s i t y o f N eb ra sk a i n L in c o ln , N e b ra sk a , f u r n is h e d 

you a l e t t e r on A p r i l 5 , 19 72 w h ic h a m p lif ie d h i s p r e v io u s 

s t a te m e n t. Th e w a te r t a b l e i s d e c l i n i n g an d t h e r e i s need f o r

WA TER — THE KEY TO LOUP BASIN'S ANO NEBRASKA'S PROSPERITY
OFFICERS

President

Henry G. Lange

Ord. Nebraska

Vice President

Donald E. KUday

Pa lmer. Nebraska

Secretary-Treasurer

A. L. Russell

Fu lle rto n, Nebraska

106

Twin Loups

Reclamation District

St. Paul. Nebraska 68873

DIRECTORS

Cush I nfl, Nebraska

Louis Cording

Elbe, Nebraska

Carl F. Anderson

Charles S. Augustyn

Elyria, Nebraska

John Potrzeba

Attorney

Cyril P. Shaughnessy

St. Paul. Nebraska

P age T h re e

S e n a to r C lin to n P . A n d e rso n 

A p r i l 12, 19 72

c o n ju n c tiv e u s e o f w a te r i n o u r a r e a .

Some o f th e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s a t o u r h e a r in g on M ar ch 20, 1972, 

i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e C ala m us R iv e r had som e p o t e n t i a l f o r c a n o e in g . 

We w ould l i k e t o p o in t o u t , a s i s done i n one o f o u r a tta c h m e n ts , 

t h a t a l l th e la n d a lo n g th e C al am us R iv e r i s i n p r i v a t e o w n ers h j^ 

T h u s, a n y c a n o e r i n o r d e r to g e t t o th e C ala m us R iv e r m ust 

t r e s p a s s . H ow ev er , w ith th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f o u r p r o j e c t , th e 

C al am us R iv e r w ould b e a b u t t e d b y p u b lic ro a d s an d w ould be 

o p en t o e v e ry o n e . So, t h e r e w i l l b e a n o p p o r t u n it y f o r e v e ry o n e 

t o u s e th e a r e a .

A t th e h e a r in g s M ar ch 2 0 , 1972, th e r e se em ed t o b e c o n f l i c t i n g 

s ta te m e n ts r e g a r d in g p e o p le who l i v e i n th e r e s e r v o i r a r e a .

We h av e in c lu d e d a re su m e o f t h e a t t i t u d e s an d c o n c lu s io n s o f 

m or e th a n a m a j o r it y o f t h e p e o p le l i v i n g in th e r e s e r v o i r a r e a .

M e s s rs . Gew ek e, and B le s s in g i n d i c a t e d t h a t ll{ a c r e - f e e t a t th e 

fa rm t u r n o u t w as i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r c ro p p r o d u c tio n i n th e N o rth 

Lo up D iv is io n a r e a . T h is i s c o n t r a r y t o th e f i n d in g s o f a c t u a l 

e x p e r ie n c e on th e F a r w e ll P r o j e c t w h ic h i s j u s t a fe w m ile s fr om 

th e N o rth Lo up D iv is io n a r e a . Th e a tta c h m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t 

maximum w a te r p e r a c r e d e l i v e r e d t o th e fa rm tu r n o u t wa s o n ly 

1 .2 9 a c r e - f e e t i n 1 9 7 1 . G ra n te d t h a t ll j a c r e - f e e t i s a n a v e ra g e 

f i g u r e , b u t we f e e l i t i s m or e th a n s u f f i c i e n t t o p ro d u c e 

optim um c ro p y i e l d s .

A tta c h e d i s a l i s t o f i r r i g a t i o n w e lls t h a t a r e i n th e S a rg e n t 

U n it s e r v i c e a r e a . Lan<^s_e

o f th e S a rg e n t U n it and th o s e o f th e 

N o rth Lo up D iv is io n a r e a a t o ne p o i n t w i th in f o u r m ile s o f e a c h 

o t h e r . O p e r a to r s o f n in e o f th e w e lls h a v e n o t u se d th e w e ll 

s i n c e p r o j e c t w a te r bec am e a v a i l a b l e w h ile n in e m or e o p e r a to r s 

u s e th e w e ll o n ly f o r o f f s e a s o n i r r i g a t i o n .

B ase d on th e e x p e r ie n c e g a th e r e d fr om th e u s e o f w e l l s in th e 

S a rg e n t U n it, we b e l i e v e t h a t ma ny o f t h e w e ll i r r i g a t o r s w i l l 

w a n t a p r o j e c t s e r v i c e .

WATER — THE KEY TO LOUP BASIN'S ANO NEBRASKA'S PROSPERITY
OFFICERS

President

Henry G. Lange

Ord, Nebraska

Vice President

Donald E. Kllday

Palm er, Nebraska

Secretary-Treasurer

A. L. Russell

Fullerto n. Nebraska

107

Twin Loups

Reclamation District

St. Paul. Neb rask a 68873

DIRECTORS

Cushing, Nebrask a

Louis Cording

Carl F. Anderso n

Charles S. Augustyn

Elyria, Nebraska

John Potrzeba

Attorney

Cyril P. Sha ugh nessy

St. Paul. Nebraska

P age F o u r

S e n a to r C lin to n P . A n d ers o n 

A p r i l 12. 19 72

I n summary t h e n , we b e l i e v e we h a v e th e u n ite d s u p p o r t o f o u r 

C o n g r e s s io n a l D e le g a tio n , th e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f o u r S t a t e an d 

L o c a l G o vern m ent, an d o u r l o c a l p e o p le . We a r e c o n f i d e n t t h a t 

b y r e a s o n o f th e e x i s te n c e o f th e Tw in Lou ps R e c la m a ti o n D i s t r i c t 

and th e Tw in L oups I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , we h a v e th e n e c e s s a r y 

l ^ g a l e n t i t i e s t o re s p o n d f a v o r a b ly t o th e n e c e s s a r y re p a y m e n t 

c o n t r a c t s b e tw e e n th e U n it e d S t a t e s an d o u r D i s t r i c t , th e la n d s 

an d t h e p e o p le t o s u p p o r t and p ay th e o b l i g a t i o n s d ue th e U n it e d 

S t a t e s . We s i n c e r e l y b e l i e v e t h a t a s a r e s u l t o f th e u n t i r i n g 

e f f o r t s on th e p a r t o f ma ny p e o p le l i v i n g i n t h e a r e a t h e s e 

p a s t 18 y e a r s who h av e w ork ed so d i l i g e n t l y t o o b t a i n a u t h o r i z a ­

t i o n o f th e p r o j e c t t h a t a t t h i s tim e y o u r C om m it te e w i l l s e e 

f i t t o a c t f a v o r a b ly on th e N o rth Lo up P r o j e c t . We a r e g r a t e f u l 

f o r t h e o p p o r t u n it y t o p r o v id e t h i s a d d i t i o n a l in f o r m a tio n 

c o n c e rn in g th e N o rth Lo up P r o j e c t . We th a n k you f o r y o u r ti m e 

and c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m itte d .

< ---- ----- _ f

A tto r n e y f o r t h e Twin L oup s R e c la m a ti o n 

D i s t r i c t and t h e Tw in L oup s I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t

WATER — THE KEY TO LOUP BASIN'S ANO NEBRASKA'S PROSPERITY
108

F o r: S e n a to r C li n to n P . A nders on

C ha ir m an , S ubcom m itte e on W at er an d Po wer R eso u rc e s

R e f e r : M arch 20, 19 72 H e a rin g s on S .3 5 2 an d S.2 35 O to 

a u th o r iz e th e N o rt h Lou p D iv is io n , N e b ra sk a ,

P ic k -S lo a n M is s o u ri B a s in Pro gra m

It e m 1— E x p la in i r r i g a t e d la n d s w ith in th e Tw in Lo up s I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t 

a s o f 1958 an d 1971.

When t h i s i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t (a p o l i t i c a l s u b d iv is io n o f th e S ta te 

o f N e b ra sk a ) was l e g a l l y fo rm ed in 1958 , i t s p e c i f i c a l l y in c lu d e d 

4 3 ,3 5 2 a c r e s o f th e 52 ,5 7 0 a c r e s to r e c e iv e p r o j e c t s e r v i c e — 35 ,7 5 1 

a c r e s o f i r r i g a b l e la n d s an d 7 ,6 0 2 a c r e s o f i r r i g a t e d la n d s who se 

ow ner s in d i v i d u a l l y p e t i t i o n e d p r o j e c t s e r v i c e . A bo ut 3 ,7 0 0 a c r e s 

o f th e o th e r 9 ,2 1 7 a c r e s o f i r r i g a t e d la n d s (5 2 ,5 7 0 - 4 3 ,3 5 2 ) pump 

i r r i g a t i o n w a te r fro m r i v e r s an d s tr e a m s an d th u s , c o u ld n o t be 

e x p e c te d to g iv e up t h e i r e x i s t i n g w a te r r i g h t s u n t i l a n o th e r s o u rc e 

o f i r r i g a t i o n w a te r was a t h a n d . Many ow ne rs o f 5,5 17 a c r e s o f 

i r r i g a t e d la n d s (9 ,2 1 7 - 3 ,7 0 0 ) to ld us to com e and s e e them a g a in 

a f t e r o u r p r o j e c t i s a u th o riz e d an d re a d y f o r c o n s tr u c t io n .

A t th e en d o f 1971 s e a s o n a b o u t 1 2,1 30 a c r e s o f 35,7 51 a c r e s o f 

i r r i g a b l e la n d had d e v elo p ed a w e ll- w a te r su p p ly an d ha d be co me 

i r r i g a t e d s in c e i t s i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t wa s fo rm ed in 1958. The se 

la n d s a re s t i l l w ith in th e i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t an d s u b je c t to an y 

re p ay m en t c o n t r a c t s th e d i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s e x e c u te .

We have c o n ta c te d fa rm e rs , ow ne rs a n d /o r o p e r a to r s o f th e i r r i g a b l e 

la n d in our p r o j e c t . Of c o u rs e , in th e lim it e d ti m e fo r th e su rv e y 

i t was im p o s s ib le to c o n t r a c t n o n r e s id e n t ow ne rs an d th o s e o u t o f 

th e co mmun ity f o r on e re a s o n o r o t h e r .

406 s ig n a t u r e s o f in d iv id u a ls fa v o r in g th e p r o j e c t s ig n e d th e 

a tta c h e d p e t i t i o n . T h is r e p r e s e n ts mor e th a n 70 p e r c e n t o f th e 

q u a l i f i e d v o te r s o f th e Tw in Lo up s I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t .

3 0 ,7 6 0 a c r e s - Ow ner s an d o p e r a to r s s t i l l w ant p r o j e c t s e r v i c e .

3 ,9 8 0 a c r e s - Ow ner s o f la n d n o t in th e i r r i g a t i o n b u t w ant p r o j e c t 

s e r v i c e . T hese la n d s a r e a p a r t o f th e 5 2 ,5 7 0 a c r e s , 

b u t d id n o t o r i g i n a l l y p e t i t i o n i n t o th e Tw in Lo up s 

I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t .

T h e re a r e 4 3 ,3 5 3 a c r e s o f p r o j e c t la n d s now in th e Tw in Lo up s 

I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t . T hese la n d s can be com m itte d to an y re paym ent 

c o n t r a c t s . A n o th e r 3 ,9 8 0 a c r e s o f la n d (a p a r t o f th e p r o j e c t 's 

52 ,5 7 0 a c r e s ) s ig n e d th e a tta c h e d p e t i t i o n a s w a n ti n g p r o j e c t s e r v ic e 

T hus, a s o f t h i s w r i t i n g , 47 ,3 3 3 a c r e s by re a s o n o f th e i r r i g a t i o n 

la w o f th e S t a t e o f N e b ra sk a can be com m it te d to th e d i s t r i c t re p a y ­

m en t c o n t r a c t .

S hould th e re m a in in g 5 ,2 37 a c r e s e l e c t to s ta y o u t o f th e p r o j e c t 

th e ow ne rs o f ma ny o th e r a c r e s o f la n d w i l l welco me th e o p p o rtu n ity 

to have th e s e r v i c e . I r r i g a t i o n s e r v ic e to 52 ,5 7 0 a c r e s o f p r o j e c t 

la n d s can be s e rv e d w it h o u t r e s e r v a t i o n .
109

It em 2—E xpla in d iffe re n c e be tw ee n N eb ra sk a i r r i g a t i o n and re c la m a ti o n 

d i s t r i c t s —

An ir r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t in N eb ra sk a i s a p o l i t i c a l su b d iv is io n of 

th e S ta te . To form one r e q u ire s p e titio n s to a co unty boa rd w it h 

land ow ne r s ig n a tu re s of mo re th an h a lf o f th e la nd and h a lf o f th e 

ow ne rs. A fte r fa v o ra b le co unty boar d a c tio n , an e le c tio n fo r 

fo rm ati on o f th e d i s t r i c t m us t be h e ld . A ll th e ow ners o f i r r ig a b le 

la nd in th e d i s t r i c t who liv e in N eb ra sk a a re e le c to r s . More th an

• h a lf o f th e v o te s c a s t m us t fa v o r d i s t r i c t fo rm at io n to ha ve th e 

d i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l l y fo rm ed .

At th e Twin Loups I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t e le c tio n in November 1958—

• Fo r 198

A gai nst 95

In N eb ra sk a, th e e le c te d o f f i c i a l s o f an i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t ca n 

make and c o lle c t le v ie s and t o l l s a g a in s t a l l o f th e la nds w it h in 

th e d i s t r i c t . Un paid w ate r b i l l s a re a lie n on th e la n d , th e same 

as any o th e r un pai d ta x e s . T his ha s be en pro ven many tim es in 

N eb ra sk a 's c o u rts .

The U nit ed S ta te s th ro ugh th e S e c re ta ry of th e I n t e r i o r and th e 

Bu reau o f R ec la m at io n ha s many a c tiv e re pa ym en t c o n tra c ts w it h 

N eb ra sk a ir r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s in th e N or th P l a t t e , R epublican,

Loup an d N io b ra ra R iv er B a sin s.

Thu s, th e re is no ne ed to ha ve in d iv id u a l w ate r c o n tra c ts w it h 

la nd ow ne rs fo r th e de ve lo pm en t of th e N or th Loup D iv is io n .

A re c la m a ti o n d i s t r i c t in N eb ra sk a is a p o l i t i c a l s u b d iv is io n of 

th e S ta te w it h pri m ary o b je c ti v e s o f in c lu d in g a l l o f th e 

b e n e f ic ia r ie s w it h in th e p r o je c t a re a and of c o lle c tin g re ven ues 

from mo re th an j u s t th e w ate r u se rs o f a de ve lo pm en t. Wi th a 

fa v o ra b le v o te o f th e e le c to r s liv in g w it h in th e d i s t r i c t , i t s 

e le c te d o f f i c i a l s may le vy and c o lle c t an ad va lo re m ta x on a l l 

p ro p e rty w it h in th e d i s t r i c t —up to one m ill o f a sse sse d v a lu a ti o n 

p r io r to th e d e li v e ry o f w ate r and two m ills a f t e r w ate r d e liv e ry . 

With m in or e x c e p ti o n s , i t s o th e r ta x in g po we rs a re li m it e d to 

c o n tra c ts w it h ta x in g b o d ie s ( i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s , m u n ic ip a litie s , 

e t c . , and in d iv id u a l w at er u s e r s ) .

The Twin Lou ps R ecl am at io n D i s t r i c t v o te was h eld Aug us t 10 , 195 4:

For A gain st T o ta l

> 735 307 1,04 2

71 p e rc e n t 29 p e rc e n t

7 9 -7 0 4 O - 72 -
110

We e x p e c t t h a t th e Tw in Lou ps I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t an d Tw in Lo up s 

R ec la m a ti o n D i s t r i c t w i l l e a c h have re p a y m e n t c o n tr a c ts w it h th e 

U n it e d S t a t e s . Th e tw o d i s t r i c t s w i l l have c o n t r a c t s w it h each 

o th e r .

Su ch c o n t r a c t u a l a rra n g e m e n ts have b een e x e c u te d an d o p e ra te 

e f f e c t i v e l y among th e U n it e d S t a t e s , th e S a rg e n t an d F a rw e ll 

I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t s and th e Lou p B a s in R e c la m a ti o n D i s t r i c t s in 

o u r a r e a o f th e Loup R iv e r B a s in .
Ill

It em 3

»

a

—Are o th e r la nds a v a ila b le to ta k e p r o je c t s e rv ic e sh ould some o f th e 

52 ,5 70 a c re s o f la nd dr op o u t o f th e p ro je c t?

Yes —many a c re s o f e x c e lle n t q u a lity la n d .

C hap te r 11 , pa ge 14 7, " A lt e rn a ti v e A ra ble Lan ds ", o f H.D, 491 

l i s t s s e v e ra l a lte r n a tiv e a re a s th a t ha ve la nd s u ita b le fo r p r o je c t 

s e rv ic e . One o f th ese a lte r n a tiv e a re a s is near N ort h S ta r an d i t 

c o n ta in s 4,0 00-5 ,0 00 a c re s o f hig h q u a lity la n d .

C ente r p iv o ts and s p r in k le r i r r i g a t i o n to da y o ffe rs many 

o p p o rtu n it ie s to p ic k up o th e r la n d s , sh oul d su ch a ne ed d ev elo p . 

Some o f ou r d ir e c to r s now ha ve s p r in k le r sy st em s on p r o je c t la n d s 

th a t i r r i g a t e more la nd th an d e sc ri b e d by th e Bu reau la nd 

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n su rv eys o f th e l a te 1 9 5 0 's .

In ou r a re a , th e re is more la nd th an w a te r. I r r ig a te d a g r ic u ltu r e 

is th e way to su rv iv e in ou r p a r t o f N eb ra sk a.
112

It em 4 —T he N o rt h Loup D iv is io n h a s th e s u p p o rt o f th e e le c te d o f f i c i a l s 

o f c i t i e s , c o u n tie s , th e S t a t e an d th e C on gre ss m en and S e n a to rs 

fr om N e b ra sk a .

O f f i c i a l s o f towns from B u rw e ll , O rd , S t. P a u l, Col um bu s, an d 

F re m ont have s u p p o rte d o u r p r o j e c t .

S t a t e S e n a to r Ko ke s o f th e 4 1 s t D i s t r i c t an d S e n a to r N ore o f th e 

22 nd D i s t r i c t have s p e n t c o n s id e r a b le ti m e sh ow in g t h e i r s u p p o rt 

o f th e p r o j e c t .

E ach o f N e b ra s k a 's g o v e rn o rs s in c e 19 59 h as t r i e d to a d v an c e th e 

N o rth Lou p D iv is io n . The p r e s e n t g o v e rn o r, J . J . Exon, h as s a id 

t h a t N eb ra sk a m ust have p r o j e c t s su ch as th e N o rt h Loup i f th e 

S t a t e i s to ke ep a s t a b i l i z e d econom y an d p o p u la tio n .

S e n a to rs Roman H ru sk a an d C a r l C u r tis an d C ong re ss m an Dave M a rti n 

h av e c o n s i s t e n t l y backed th e p r o j e c t an d a r e c o n tin u in g to s u p p o rt 

u s .

Th e L e g is la tu r e o f N eb ra sk a h a s tw ic e p a ss e d un an im ous r e s o l u t i o n s 

r e q u e s ti n g th e C o n g re ss to a u th o r iz e th e N o rt h Lou p D iv is io n .

D ir e c to r s o f th e Tw in Lou ps R e c la m a ti o n D i s t r i c t and Tw in Lo up s 

I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t have b e en e l e c te d s in c e 19 54 an d 1958 

r e s p e c t i v e l y , an d alw ay s by a la r g e m a jo r ity .

We b e lie v e t h a t we have th e s u p p o rt o f th e e le c t e d p e rs o n s a t a l l 

l e v e ls o f govern m ent an d we f u r t h e r b e l i e v e , t h a t th e s e e le c te d 

o f f i c i a l s a re s e n s i t i v e to th e n e ed s and w is h e s o f th e lo c a l p e o p le .
113

It e m 5- - P u b lic A ccess to Cal am us R iv e r

13

*

A ccess to th e Cal am us R iv e r f o r r e c r e a t i o n , f i s h i n g an d h u n tin g , 

i s th ro u g h la n d own ed o r le a s e d by fa rm e rs an d r a n c h e r s . To 

a v o id t r e s p a s s v i o l a t i o n s , p e rm is s io n f o r e n tr y to th e r i v e r 

s h o u ld be o b ta in e d fr om th e ow ner.

When th e o r i g i n a l la n d s u rv e y o f N e b ra sk a wa s ma de in th e m id d le 

1 8 0 0 's , s tr e a m s m e a su ri n g l e s s th a n th r e e c h a in s (1 98 f e e t ) w ere 

n o t d e lin e a te d fr om th e a d ja c e n t la n d a r e a . As th e Cal am us R iv e r 

i s in t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , th e la n d s u rv e y wa s made in to w n sh ip s 

an d s e c tio n s w it h o u t re g a rd to th e r i v e r . C o n s e q u e n tl y , th e la n d 

w her e th e r i v e r i s lo c a te d i s n o t d e lin e a te d an d i s b o u g h t an d 

s o ld w it h th e a d ja c e n t la n d .

In th e p o t e n t i a l Cal am us R e s e rv o ir a r e a , a l l la n d i s in p r i v a t e 

o w n e rs h ip e x c e p t two s e c t i o n s (1 ,2 8 0 a c r e s ) o f s c h o o l la n d . T h is 

i s le a s e d to r a n c h e r s .

When th e Cal am us R e s e rv o ir be co m es a r e a l i t y , a c c e s s f o r th e 

g e n e r a l p u b lic w i l l be g u a ra n te e d by p u b lic ro a d s an d p u b l i c l y - 

owned la n d c o m p le te ly s u rro u n d in g th e w a te r s u r f a c e . Group u se 

a r e a s to be d e s ig n a te d f o r u se by S c o u ts and o th e r o rg a n iz e d 

g ro u p s a r e a ls o a p a r t o f th e p r o j e c t p la n .

3
114

It em 6-- W ate r Req ui re d fo r Optimum Crop P ro duction

The q u e sti o n o f how much i r r i g a t i o n w ate r is n ec e ssa ry to grow a 

good corn cr op in th e Nor th Loup D iv is io n ca n be an sw ered by us e 

o f d a ta from th e a d ja c e n t F arw ell U n it .

The s o i l s of b o th th e Nor th Loup D iv is io n and th e F arw ell Uni t 

a re h ig h ly f e r t i l e , th e c li m a te and grow ing se aso n a re id e n tic a l, 

and th e cro ps grown and me thod s of fa rm in g a re th e same . He nce, 

in p u ts o f i r r i g a t i o n w ate r w ill r e s u lt in co m pa ra bl e cr op y ie ld s .

Re co rds o f th e F arw ell U ni t show th a t fo r th e y e a rs 1968 to 197 1, 

in c lu s iv e , th e farm d e li v e ry o f i r r ig a tio n w ate r was 1.16 a c re - 

f e e t (1 3.9 2 in ch es) p e r ir r ig a b le a c re . Dur ing 1970 and 1971, 

th e w ate r d e liv e r ie s to far m tu rn o u ts we re 1.2 8 f e e t and 1.29 

f e e t p e r a c r e . As th e F arw ell U ni t is s t i l l in th e de ve lopm en t 

ph as e and a l l p ro je c t la nds a re not y e t i r r i g a t e d , th e re was 

more w ate r a v a ila b le th an was re q u ir ed fo r p ro je c t u se . The 

F arw ell D is tr ic t made a v a ila b le ea ch y ear 1. 25 a c r e - f e e t (1 5.0 0 

in ch es) fo r th e minimum ch arg e, so th e use o f w a te r ha s be en no 

r e s t r a i n t on cr op p ro d u cti o n in th e F arw ell U n it .

P re c ip ita tio n a t S t. P au l was ab ov e av er ag e fo r two o f th e se y ears 

and be low av er ag e th e o th e r two y e a rs . The t o t a l av er ag e p r e c ip ita tio n and ir r i g a t i o n w ate r ra ng ed from 36.4 in ches in 19 70, to 

38.7 in ch es in 196 9. The o th e r two y e a rs were 36.8 in ch es in 

1968 and 37.8 in ch es in 19 71. The av era ge ir r ig a te d co rn y ie ld 

d u ri n g th is fo u r- y e a r p eri o d was 111 b u sh e ls p e r a c re .

Rec ords fo r a l l o f Howard Co unty wh ere th e F arw ell U ni t is lo c a te d , 

show th a t th e av er ag e ir r ig a te d co m y ie ld fo r 19 68 -196 9-19 70 

was 109 b u sh e ls p er a c re (d ata fo r 1971 is n o t y e t a v a ila b le ) .

The F arw ell U nit and Howard Co unty cr op y ie ld s a re ta k en from d a ta 

p u b li sh ed by th e Bur ea u of R ec la m at io n and th e S ta te of N eb ra sk a.
115

Item 7

J

»

*

■Land owners' Sen tim en t in R e se rv o ir Ar ea

Du rin g F eb ru ar y 19 72, Mr. and Mrs. N eil Fr y of B u rw ell , who a re 

land ow ne rs and re s id e n ts in th e pr op os ed Calamus R e serv o ir a r e a , 

v i s ite d t h e i r neig hbors to d ete rm in e su pp o rt fo r our N or th Loup 

P ro je c t. T h eir p e titio n c o n ta in in g 19 names in su p p o rt o f th e 

p ro je c t was p re sen te d on March 20 , 1972 a t th e h e a ri n g f o r S. 35 2.

On March 29 , 19 72, Dr. Glen Au ble an d Mr. W illiam Schudel, both 

of Ord , and C. P. Sha ug hn es sy o f S t. P au l, dr ov e to th e home of 

N eil and E ll a Mae F ry . T og eth er w it h th e F ry s , we v i s i t e d t h e i r 

neig h b o rs to dete rm in e t h e i r a t t i t u d e in re gard to th e p o te n tia l 

Calam us R e se rv o ir .

As is u s u a ll y th e c a s e , ea ch in d iv id u a l has f e e lin g s and b e lie f s 

th a t a re h is a lo n e . Many o f th o se we c o n ta cte d o ffe re d co m pl et e 

su pp o rt fo r th e p r o je c t. A no th er th re e co uple s we re e ld e rly 

peo ple who fa vore d th e p ro je c t but were re lu c ta n t to sig n a 

p e titio n fo r f e a r o f re p e rc u ss io n s fro m n eig h b o rs . One co uple 

f e l t th e only way th ey wo uld re c e iv e a re aso n ab le p ric e fo r 

t h e i r ra nch wo uld be to s e l l to th e go ve rnmen t fo r p ro je c t use .

An e ld e r ly co uple wa nted to d is p o se o f t h e i r la nd to t h e i r 

c h ild re n and b e li e v e d i t wo uld be e a s ie r to s e l l out and sh are 

th e money w it h th e c h ild re n , th an to tr y to f a i r l y d i s tr ib u te 

la nd to the m.

About 920 a c re s o f la nd w it h in th e re s e r v o ir a c q u is itio n li n e 

is S ta te sc hool la nd on le a s e to ra n c h e rs . The S ta te of Neb ra sk a 

has c o n s is te n tly su pport ed our p ro je c t and we ha ve ev er y re aso n 

to b e lie v e th ey w ill c o n ti n u e .

We f e e l our su p p o rt in th e re s e r v o ir a re a is very go od .

Per so ns liv in g in pr op os ed re s e r v o ir a re a s g e n e ra ll y re c e iv e few 

d ir e c t b e n e f its so any su p p o rt fro m th a t a re a is norm al ly un ­

ex p ecte d .

In sum mary, as shown by th e a tt a c h e d map and a tt a c h e d co py of th e 

o r ig in a l p e t i t i o n , th e re a re ap pro xim ate ly 25 ow ne rs hi ps in th e 

r e s e r v o ir s i t e . Of t h i s nu mber, 14 ow ne rs hip s a re in fa v o r of 

th e p r o je c t which ow ner sh ip s re p re s e n t an esti m ate d 4 ,8 00 a c re s ; 

and 11 ow ner sh ip s a re a g a in s t th e p ro je c t wh ich ow ne rs hi ps 

re p re s e n t an e sti m ate d 5,0 00 a c re s .

(M r. F r y 's le tt e r, map an d peti ti on with 19 nam es w ere 

re ta in e d in th e co m m it te e f i l e . )
116

Item 8— WELLS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SARGENT

IRRIGATION DIS TRI CT

C l i f f o r d H anna:

U se d som e a s a s u p p le m e n ta l s u p p ly , m o s tl y b e f o r e w a te r i s in 

th e d i t c h and a f t e r i t g o e s o u t i n th e f a l l .

M a rv in P r i c e : V er y Sel do m

Jo h n T r o x e l:

U se d some a s a s u p p le m e n ta l s u p p ly . Ha s som e u n d e r pum p n o t U

i n th e D i s t r i c t b u t h a s b ro u g h t som e o f t h i s la n d i n t o th e D i s t r i c t .

F lo y d S l a g l e :

U se d som e a f t e r f i r s t a l l o t m e n t fr om D i s t r i c t i s u se d u p .

C a r l R o g e rs :

N ev er b e e n u se d s i n c e P r o j e c t w a te r was a v a i l a b l e . *

Om ar Jo h n s o n :

Has a l l la n d u n d e r th e pump a l s o i n th e D i s t r i c t , u s e s pump v e ry 

l i t t l e .

R a lp h S l a g l e :

H as n o t u se d pump s in c e P r o j e c t w a te r be ca m e a v a i l a b l e .

R oger F le m in g ;

S u p p le m e n ta l i r r i g a t i o n fr om pump , som e y e a r s .

A gnes M onro e:

S u p p le m e n ta l i r r i g a t i o n fr om pu mp, som e y e a r s .

W il m et C o le :

S u p p le m e n ta l i r r i g a t i o n fr om w e l l , som e y e a r s .

G e ra ld F e llo w s :

S u p p le m e n ta l i r r i g a t i o n fr om pu mp, som e y e a r s .

W ilb e r S l a g l e :

S e r v ic e w as n o t f u r n is h e d a t c o n s t r u c t i o n o f P r o j e c t . Wou ld 

s t i l l l i k e t o g e t u n d e r t h e d i t c h .

L e la n d S w e e t:

Has n o t u se d f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s .

G eo rg e S e m le r:

A f t e r P r o j e c t was d e v e lo p e d , h e s o ld pump fr om w e l l .

S te v e S m ith ;

N ev er u s e s .

L ee P e n n y :

Has tw o w e lls f o r 40 2 a c r e s b u t b r o u g h t a l l la n d i n t o th e D i s t r i c t .

N ev er u s e s w e l l s .

Ra y P r o b e r t :

N ev er u s e s .

C a r l R o g e rs ;

R e q u e ste d som e la n d on a se c o n d fa rm b e r e c l a s s i f i e d a s i r r i g a b l e 

2 y e a r s ago b u t d ue t o s o i l ty p e , was r e f u s e d . As a r e s u l t he 

d r i l l e d a w e l l .
Ord, Nebr., April 15, 1912.

Senator Clinton P. Anderson,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

W ashington, D.C.

Dear Senator Anderson : At the above hearings, Larry Holcome, Chairman 

of the Quality Environment Council made a statem ent rela tive to the Jaycees. 

Due to this stateme nt, the Ord Jaycees wanted to clarify the ir position on the 

Twin Loups Irriga tion and Reclamation District, by subm ittin g their April 13, 

1972 Resolution, which supports the Twin Loups Project.

They have asked th at I forward this Resolution to you and your Committee 

and also wanted it noted that they have supported this Project since early 

1960 and that they reaffirmed the ir position aga in at the Field Hearings, held 

in Ord, Nebraska on Jul y 17, 1970, by submitting a supporting Resolution from 

the ir Organization, at t ha t time.

They have asked th at the ir April 13, 1972 Supporting Resolution be ente red 

and made a pa rt of the Twin Loups Pro jects Hearings.

Respectfully Yours,

Donald L. Wagner,

Director, Twin Loups Reclamation District.

Resolution

By the Ord Jayc ees encouraging the Congress of the United States to enact, 

fund and implement the Twin Loups irriga tion and recla mation project at the 

earlie st possible opportunity.

Whereas the Ord Jaycees, upon hearing the fac ts incident to and particu ­

larly the need for and costs of the Twin Loups Irriga tio n and Reclamaton 

Project finds th at said Project will be of service to mankind generally in th at 

said Project w ill:

1. Preserve and improve are a water levels essential for human consumption, 

agriculture and industry, and

2. Increas e and stabilize farm income to enable Nebraska farmers to conduct 

economically feasible operations and maintain their basic philosophy th at they 

can and should be self-supporting and

3. Provide new jobs in an economically depressed area, and

4. Lessen outmigration from Nebraska and consequent overcrowding of metropolitan areas alre ady beset with problem s of mass crime, housing, education 

and s anitation, and

5. Conserve and utilize our ecology and na tural resources efficiently and 

wisely, and

6. Relieve the energy crisis by reducing the cost of making general and ir ri ­

gatio n wa ter available, a nd

7. Provide recreation to thou sand of Americans.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the general members of the Ord jaycees, 

meeting in regular session this 13th day of April. 1972, that the Congress of 

the United States be urged to enact, fund and implement the Twin Loups Ir ri ­

gatio n and Reclamation Project at the earlie st possible opportunity, and be it 

furth er resolved that said Ord Jaycees wholehearted ly and enthus iastically endorse said project without qualification and deliver a copy hereof to the House 

and Senate subcommittees on Insular Affairs and all other inte rested and appro priate bodies as evidence of said endorsement.

Passed and approved at Ord, Nebraska, thi s 13tli day of April, 1972.

Dale Melia, 

President, Ord Jaycees.

A ttes t:

Charlie R. Kriewald,

Secretary.
118

Ord, Nebr., Ap ril 10, 1972. Se na tor Clinton P. Anderson,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Anderson : I am Alfons Bon ne and am a Valley Countj 

fa rm er living approxim ate ly 6 miles South We st of Ord an d with in the presen t 

boun darie s of No rth Loup Irriga tion & R eclam ation Di str ict.

I am for bringing su rfac e irriga tion water into th is new propose d proje ct. K, How ever, I am fo r hav ing all of the la te ra ls burie d in pip e ins tea d of hav ing 

the old type of su rfa ce laterals. Th is als o app lies to par ts of the Main Can al, 

whe n it involves a lrea dy irriga te d farm grou nd.

I would he willing to pay more pe r acre for water if things were un de rgro und . *

Very truly yours,

Alfons Bonne.

Statement of H enry G. L ange, President Twin Loups Reclamation

District

Mr. C hai rm an : My nam e is He nry G. Lan ge and I am Pr es iden t of the Tw in 

Loups Reclama tion Di strict . Our di st rict is governe d by a board of nin e director s. They ar e all farm ers an d all hav e lived in th e di st rict for more th an 

twenty (20) yea rs.

Tw ent y years ago we proceded to form a Re cla ma tion Distri ct by a petiti on 

of the owners of 30% of the land in the distric t. We then held an electio n in 

which the people vote d a levy of one mill by a vote of 750 to 300 for the pu rpose of pro moting an irriga tio n proje ct.

Fo ur years la te r an irriga tio n dis tr ic t was formed with in the bounds of the 

Re cla ma tion District . Th is was done by a pe tition sign ed by nearly 80% of the 

people owning irrig ab le land in the distric t. An electio n wa s the n held on the 

pro positi on which ca rri ed by a m ajor ity of 2 to 1.

Twelve years later , in Ju ly of 1970, and ju st preced ing a field he aring in 

Ord held by the House In te rior Sub-committee, our Bo ard of Di rec tor s polled 

th e people once ag ain to give them an oppo rtu nit y to reaffirm thei r com mitme nt to the pro jec t. 175 fa rm er s owning lan d in the di st rict and living here, 

ind ica ted by signin g said statem en t th at the y sti ll wa nte d the pro jec t. These 

sig na tures ar e on file with the Ho use In te rior C omm ittee.

It is the jud gm ent of our director s th at over the ye ar s the people hav e by a 

su bs tantial majo rity ind ica ted a pa tie nt de term ination to have this proje ct and 

ar e sti ll of this mind today.

Ev ery two years th e people ha ve an op po rtu nit y to cha nge the Board of 

Dire cto rs if they do not app rov e th e Bo ard's prom otion of this pro jec t. However, each mem ber of the Bo ard has been reelected for a th ird ter m with no 

one ever filing ag ains t him. Th erefore we feel we hav e the solid sup po rt of the 

peop le of the distr ict .

Ord, Nebr., April 10, 1972. Se na tor Anderson

U.S. Senate

Washington, D.C.

Sir : I un de rstand th at you have continued the he arings on the Tw in Loups 

Irriga tion Pro jec t.

I would like to take this op po rtu nit y to spe ak for a large numb er of sm all er 

fa rm er s in the ar ea to be serviced by this Pro jec t. We ar e unable to attend 

the he arings to supp ort the Proje ct, bu t would like to have the Com mittee 

he ar ou r side of the questio n.

Th ere ar e a lot of small fa rm s with some acres th at can be irriga te d bu t not 

enough acres to ju st ify the inv estm ent of tho usan ds of do lla rs for a well. Th is 

Pr ojec t would ena ble them to irri gat e enough acres to as su re them of a ste ady 

sou rce of feed fo r th ei r live stoc k, in an area where, bec aus e of the fre qu ent 

occ urrence of sum me r dro uth , feed pro duction is a major problem.

By sta bil izi ng th ei r op erati on s most of the se fa rm er s and stockme n will be 

able to rem ain on the farm the reb y, no t addin g to the inf lux of people into the
cities. It will also prevent the larger operator from taking over the smaller 

farmers which, I believe, is one concern of our Government. By keeping these 

people on the farm, we will also aid the business man in the small town.

Therefore, I urge you to fund this Project, sincerely believing it to be in the 

best interests of the entire area.

Very truly yours

H. S. Duvall.

Ord, Nebr., April 9, 1972.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: As a farmer who is now irrigating with wells, I wish to present my views on the proposed irrigation 

project. I feel, as do other farmers I have talked to, that an open canal would 

be objectionable because:

(1) It would cut up valuable farm land which would make it difficult to 

farm and make inconvenient access to some of the fields.

(2) It would be dangerous to livestock falling in and drowning.

(3) Heavy rains or storms could damage and wash out the laterals and canals.

(4) The wind blows weed seeds and trash into them; also weeds would be 

growing along the canals.

(5) There would be loss of water due to evaporation and seepage.

A better system would be the use of underground pipe, which would prevent 

all of this. There are many advantages to the use of underground pip e:

(1) Fields would not be cut up and valuable land would be saved. All the 

field could be farmed; with our large investment in machinery, we can’t afford 

to waste any part of the field.

(2) There would be no need to build bridges across the canals or laterals. 

We are losing land to new roads, highways, and housing (just to mention a 

few) so let us save our land and water right here for livestock and crops. The 

best beef in the world comes from our area here.

(3) There is a lot less upkeep on an underground water system and a lot of 

added land can be developed because of the greater pressure in the lower par t 

of the irrigation area.

I have underground pipe with risers where I need water. There is no water 

loss, and I think this is the best way to irrigate because the same amount of 

water will go twice as far (irrigate twice as many acres.)

In talking with others who would have the ditch going through their farms, 

I find their views are as follows: Right of way would be gotten cheaper from 

them to go underground. An underground system would not stop the circular 

pivot irrigation which many of us are using now. This would be more satisfactory to us and we feel it would be the right way to irrigate.

With all the progress we have made in machinery and know-how, we can go 

underground and do less damage to farmers. We can produce more and better 

food for the American people.

I would appreciate your giving this most serious consideration.

Sincerely yours,

J oseph J. Bonne.

The University of Nebraska—Lincoln,

Conservation and Survey Division,

Lincoln, Nebr., April 5, 1972. Hon. Clinton P. Anderson,

Cfeoirwan, Subcommittee on Water and Poicer Resources,

Committee on Interior and Insular A ffairs,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Anderson : I had hoped to testify at the hearing on the North 

Loup Division before your committee on March 20, 1972, as indicated in my 

letter of March 8 to Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Because of a conflict I was unable to appear and 

wish to request that the lette r be made a part of the hearings. Also, I would 

like to present in this lette r additional testimony that I had planned to present orally and request that it be made a part of the North Loup Division 

hearings.
120

My strong support for the North Loup Division project is based on the 

premise that it is a major component of a water-management scheme in tlie 

Loup River basin and in Nebraska. When implemented, the project will provide an opportunity to utilize water stored in surface-water reservoirs and in 

the groundwater reservoir in an integrated use system for long-term sustained 

yield of water and the products of irrigation.

As you heard in testimony presented at the hearings, a large portion of the 

acreage proposed for irrigation in the unit is now being irrigated by pumps, 

largely from groundwater. Investigations tha t we have made in the area in cooperation with the U.S. Geologic Survey along witli data provided from well k

logs registered with the Nebraska Department of Water Resources show that 

geological and hydrological conditions vary over the unit lands.

The Valley County portion of the unit is in Mira Valley, an abandoned late 

Pleistocene river valley system. Mira Valley has many of the features of a 

major river valley in Nebraska except for the size of stream and coarse al- *

luvial valley fill. Gravels and coarse sands are generally thin or not present.

However, the area is underlain by relatively thick fine-grained sands, sandstones, silts and cays with an average aggregate thickness of about 300 feet.

No known suitable aquifers occur below these beds known as the Ogallala Formation. Water levels are relatively shallow, ranging from a few feet to about 

70 feet. Well depths range from about 200 to slightly more than 500 feet. Well 

yields are generally good with yields reported in the range of 600 to 1200 gpm.

However, drawdowns in many of the wells are excessive, averaging between 

100 to 150 feet. Specific capacities are relatively low ranging from 4 to 30 gpm 

per foot of drawdown. The average specific capacity calculated from registered 

well data is about 10. As a comparison, specific capacities generally greater 

than 30 are common for many wells in the state.

Irrigation wells in Mira Valley number about 125 and a large portion of 

these have been drilled in the pas t several years. Water-levels have started to 

decline. Based on our experience elsewhere in the state, we can predict tha t 

much of the land tha t can be irrigated from wells by any of the rapidly advancing technical means will be irrigated within the next decade or two. The 

additional stress on the groundwater reservoir will result in an increase in 

drawdowns of wells because of interference between wells and a progressive 

decrease in well yields. We anticipate tha t water levels will decline at rates of 

a foot or more per year. In order to more closely obsevve changing conditions 

in the area and to focus local attention and interest in efficiency in use of the 

available water supply, we are in the process of installing an observation well 

to automatically record day-to-day and seasonal water-level change.

Elsewhere in the unit there is a greater variability of geology and hydrology 

than in Mira Valley with parts of the area being more favorably situated and 

other parts having no adequate water supply without the project. Optimum 

water-resource management in the down-stream portion of the unit can best be 

realized there as in Mira Valley by an integrated use of water from stream 

storage and groundwater storage. f

Sincerely,

Vincent H. Dkeeszen,

Director.

V

Nebraska Water Resources Association,

Lincoln Ncbr., March 6, 1972.

Hon. Clinton P. Anderson,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Anderson : Our association is vitally interested in the hearing 

on S. 2350 which would reauthorize the North Loup Division of the Pick-Sloan 

Missouri Basin Program which hearing is scheduled March 20, 1972, at 10:00 

A.M. before your committee. Our association at its annual meeting on October 

21, 1971, adopted a resolution in support of the North Loup Division which 

reads as follows:

“Whereas, the well-being of people, their environment and economy, together 

with the conservation, development and utilization of land and water resources
are vital to the State of Nebraska and the area to be served by the North Loup P rojec t; and

Whereas, the works of the North Loup Division will achieve these objectives 

by storing the regulating off-season flow upstream for irrigation and downstream uses; and

Whereas, the North Loup Division has been investigated by the Federal and 

State agencies, lias been favorably considered by the Missouri River Basin 

States, has been recommended by the State of Nebraska, recommended by the 

Department of the Interior for re-authorization and construction, and is now 

before the Congress for re-autliorization ; and

Whereas, the Sub-Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the House 

Committee on Interior and Insu lar Affairs held field hearings on the North 

Loup Division at Ord, Nebraska, on July 17, 1970, and received decisive favorable local and State of Nebraska support for the development of the North 

Loup P roj ect; and

Whereas, before the North Loup Division can have a hearing before the Congress, i t is necessary that the Project have a report from the Office of Management and Bud get; and

Whereas, the Report of the North Loup Division appears to be “stalled” in 

the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, D.C.,

Now, therefore, be it resolved, tha t the Nebraska Water Resources Association commends our Nebraska Congressional Delegation for the efforts they 

have put forth in behalf of the North Loup Division and urge our Delegation 

to continue their efforts to the end that authorization of the North Loup Division will be secured a t the forthcoming session of the Congress.”

I hope that you will make this resolution a part of the record of this hea ring.

Your continued support of the project will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Dan S. J on es, J r. ,

President.

Garr ison Dive rsion Cons erv anc y Dis tr ic t,

Carrington, N. Dak., March 20, 1972. Hon. Henry M. Jackson,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : The Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, a 25- 

county governmental entity in the State of North Dakota, concerned with the 

development and operation of the Garrison Diversion Unit, supports and urges 

the reauthorization of the North Loup Division of the Pick-Sloan Missouri 

River Basin Program.

We support the full development of the land and water resources of the Missouri River Basin through sound water resources projects, thereby enhancing 

the economic growth and stability of the Midwest region. We believe that the 

development of the North Loup Division in Nebraska will contribute to this 

objective.

We respectfully request your favorable consideration and support of S. 2350 

and S. 352 which would reauthorize the North Loup Division.

Sincerely,

Vernon S. Cooper,

Manager.

Sta teme nt of M ax E. K ibu rz, Genera l Manager, Lou p P ower Dist rict

Col um bu s, Nebr.

The Loup River Public Power District has owned a water right on Loup 

River waters since 1934. This right permits them to use 3500 feet per second 

of Loup waters for the generation of power.

The Loup District serves electricity to Platte, Boone, Nance and Colfax 

Counties at retail and the economic development of this area is largely dependent on the waters of the Loup River.
122

There is a dire need for an overall comprehensive plan to provide maximum 

utilization of the Loup River waters for the benefit of all upstream and downstream interests.

The various interests have agreed to modify the North Loup Project by increasing the storage capacity so tha t it is not necessary to divert any water 

during the months of July and August. These months are the critical months 

as far as low flow in the downstream areas are concerned. I understand that 

these changes are incorporated in the present bill.

With these changes we feel:

(1) tha t this project will add to Nebraska's and our area’s economy, i

(2) that this project is the first step in a comprehensive program that will 

be supported by all interests in the Loup River basin, to make maximum use 

of the v ital resource, and

(3) tha t Congress should encourage, promote and fund a comprehensive plan

for the development of this river basin. <

We respectfully request that this subcommittee give favorable consideration 

to the North Loup Project.

The City of Columbus, 

Columbus, Nebr., March 16, 1972.

Hon. Henry M. Jackson,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

Neiv Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Jackson : At the Field Hearing held in Ord. Nebraska in July 

of 1970, Mr. Larry Byrnes, a representative of our City, presented a Resolution recording the support of the citizens of Columbus of the North Loup Division. Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. We, in the City of Columbus, continue to favor the North Loup Project. As Mayor of our City, Iwish to take 

this means to pledge our continued support of the Project.

Respectfully,

Barney L. Micek,

Mayor.

Farmers National Co.,

Omaha, Nebr., March 16, 1972.

Hon. Henry M. J ackson,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

U.S. Senate,

New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator J ackson : In response to a lette r I received from Mr. Cyril P. 

Shaughnessy, Attorney-at-Law representing the Twin Loups Reclamation District in Central Nebraska advising that there would be a hearing held in your 

Office in Washington, D.C. on or about March 21st, 1972 regarding the proposed Twin Loups Reclamation District in Central Nebrasla. I am submitting 

to you the following for your consideration and hopefully approval of the 

Twin Loups Reclamation District referred to as the North Loup Project.

1. Personally, while living in Scotia, Nebraska in the early 1940’s, I worked 

on numerous committees helping to promote further development of the irrig ation in the North Loup Valley from Burwell to Fullerton. This is in line with 

the now’ proposed Twin Loups Reclamation District.

2. Personally have promoted and arranged for a meeting at which time the 

original Board of Directors of the Twin Loups Reclamation District were appointed. (Later these same appointed men w’ere elected from their various 

areas to serve as the Official Board of Directors for the District.) Most of the 

original Board of Directors are still active members, a few having been replaced due to death of some of the original Board Members.

3. The Board of Directors have been very active since tha t time, never giving up hopes of seeing the project through to completion. The Board, of 

course, met with many problems that at times w’ere disheartening, they never 

gave up. They have met these problems face to face and have worked them 

out, I believe, to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.
4. The need for irrigation wa ter is never ending. To avoid dis aster of 

drou gth in this normally low rainfa ll areas.

5. With the proper utilization of the available wa ter in the North Loup 

River Basin, which asjoins the sand hills ground wa ter reservoir, I am of the 

opinion that the North Loup Project is feasible and very much needed in Nebraska. The proposed dam on the Calam us River northw est of Burwell, which 

is the upper end of the project, would retain good clean fresh water which 

would be used throughout the entire length and breadth of the project.

6. Construction of the proposed dams on the Calamus River and the Davis 

Creek dam will stabilize the flow of wa ter in the North Loup River, resulting 

in less flooding along the river during times of excessive and heavy rain s, and 

the reten tion of the water which can be used for irriga tion purposes.

7. Adding an additional 52,570 acres of good irrigab le land, by using one of 

the Sta te’s most valuable resources, water, thereby stabilizing the income of 

all the people, not only the are a which it serves, but throug hou t the entire 

State.

8. Provide assurance of grain, hay and forage for livestock, all of which are 

imp orta nt enterprises in the Sta te of Nebraska.

9. Help stabilize our underground water supply in the State, which is being 

heavily draw n on by pump irriga tion in other parts of the State. I wish to 

add at this time th at we find that in numerous areas of the State the present 

irrigation wells originally installed at normal pumping depths have had during 

the past several years had to be exten ded an additional 20 up to 40 feet of 

casing added in the wells in orde r to obtain the norm al production of irr igation water from these irrigation wells. This of course is becoming alarming 

due to the lowering of the static wa ter level in the State. It is my opinion 

th at additional gravity irrigation will help stabilize this underground sta tic 

water level and maintain this to a more uniform and normal level. In some 

areas of the Sta te where heavy irrigation pumping has been prac ticed we find 

the artesian wells and stock wells have gone dry during the heavy irriga tion 

pumping season. Therefore, it is of vita l importance to retain our surface 

wa ter from lakes and stre ams by use of dams and red istr ibu te thi s wa ter in 

these irriga ted valleys through the growing season to ma intain our sta tic 

water level. In oth er words protect, use and carefully supe rvise our gre ate st 

resource in the Sta te of Nebraska namely water.

10. The above recom mendations provide much more needed wa ter for rec rea ­

tion, and fish and wildlife opportu nities for all people, not only in Nebraska 

but adjoining States, at the proposed rese rvoirs and diversion works.

I am hopeful th at you and other Members of the Committee will find the 

above recommendations helpful in your final decision and recom mendations for 

the approval of fund s to support the Twin Loups Reclamation District in the 

Committee hea ring on Inter ior and Insular Affairs.

For the past 15 years, I have been employed by The Farmers National Company, 4820 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska. This is the larges t Far m Management Company in the United State s. Five yea rs I was active farm manager 

for this Company at Hastings, Nebraska and the las t ten yea rs and presently 

Distric t Manager in the Omaha Office with 14 farm managers and app rox imately 685 farms und er my direc t supervision. These farm s are mainly located 

in Central, North Central and Eastern Nebraska. The remaining farms und er 

my supervision are located in Southern and Eastern pa rts of South Dakota, 

Southwestern part of Minnesota and Northern Iowa. I find that of these approximately 685 farm s, und er my supervision, approximate ly or a little over 

115 farms are under irrigation, some of which are irrigated from canals, dams 

and reservoirs and others under deep well irrigation. With all of these ir ri ­

gated farm s, one can pre tty well be assured of maximum production due to 

the benefits of irrigation. The same results I am sure would be obtainable 

from the family farms located with in the boundaries of the Twin Loups Reclamation District. Your favorable consideration of the above pro ject I am sur e 

would be a gre at asset to the State of Nebraska.

For furth er info rmation rega rdin g my experience and qualifications, please 

refer to the attac hed reference “Experience and Qualifications Sta tem ent”. 

Sincerely yours,

R u ss ell J e n s e n , 

Dis tric t Manager.
124

Portland Cement Association, 

Minneapolis, Minn., March 14, 1912. Hon. Henry M. J ackson,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : The following is a statement in behalf of S. 2350 and S. 

352, bills to re-authorize the North Loup Division of the Pick-Sloan Missouri 

River Basin Program.

The Portland Cement Association is an organization to improve and extend 

the uses of Portland cement through research and engineering field work. The 

Portland Cement Association does not sell cement and has nothing to do with 

the marketing policies of the cement companies.

This proposed multi-purpose water and land resource development should be 

considered an integral par t of a broad plan to retain and increase population 

in and around the project area and help to reverse the flow of people from 

rural to metropolitan areas. Steps taken now to implement rural development 

will reflect in the quality of life of generations to come.

A report prepared for the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 

in 1056 gives the total cost of the North Platte Project in Nebraska and Wyoming at $22.5-million. Repayment by water users to June 30, 1955 totalled 

$16.2-million. The debt to the U.S. Treasury is rapidly approaching full repayment. In addition to this repayment, the Federal Treasury is receiving in excise and income taxes every 18 months an amount exceeding the project cost. 

A like but admittedly smaller percentage of Federal tax collections to project 

cost can reasonably be predicted in the North Loup Project. Inflationary 

trends could increase this percentage of Federal taxes to project cost.

The economic impact of irrigated agricu lture on the economy has been set 

forth in Nebraska Economic and Business Reports, Number Four, da ted: 1968. 

The report concludes tha t for each $1 of increased agricultural production 

$6.68 of economic impact was generated in Nebraska. Some of this spins off 

nationaly in commerce and industry.

Other testimony will no doubt attest to benefits accruing within and around 

the project area. We know the members of this committee are thoroughly familiar with the facts tha t irrigation produces a balanced economy, offsets the 

effects of climatic vagaries, induces agriculture-related industry, and broadens 

the tax base.

Nebraska today is a more attractive state, an improved place to live, work, 

farm, hunt, fish, or simply to enjoy the great outdoors as a result of man-built 

water resource facilities. Most certainly, none who lived through the dust bowl 

days of the dirty 30's would hold a view other than man’s environment has 

been measurably improved by the irrigation, flood control and soil conservation 

projects built since this disastrous drought.

In the project area there exist some irrigation wells. Generally the ground 

water level is lowering. By the time this project can be built ground water depletion will very probably be at levels tha t preclude further well irrigation.

There exists strong local support for the North Loup Division. We have long 

been familiar with this project and we urge your support of this worthy project.

Yours sincerely,

Fred R. McComb,

Regional Manager, North Central Region.

Statement of E. R. Horner, North Loup, Nebr.,

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation: I. E. R. Horner, a Water Well Driller by 

trade, have been in the Well Drilling business in this area for over 40 years. I 

have drilled domestic as well as irrigation type wells. We have our home as 

well as 480 acres of land which is pump irrigated, plus other real estate. We 

have drilled wells all over this area, ranging in capacity from 600 to 5,000 gal-
125

Ions per minute. We have, I think, the best underground water supply of any 

state in the union. This state has been very active in cooperating with the 

Well Drillers Association in logging and recording water levels and geological 

information for the past 40 years. Consequently, our state has some of the best 

records of geological data kept anywhere.

A Mr. Condra, Doctor of Geology, was State Geologist for many years, and 

he used to tell the Drillers our main water supply came from the north country—Minnesota and on west. It came under the shales and hard pans of the 

Dakotas, under the Missouri River, where the shale is 2000 feet or more thick. 

6» Then, as the shale breaks off in the northern part of this state, the water

comes back up to fill the large gravel beds in the so-called sand hill area of 

the state. We know it is under terrific pressure in the sands under the shale 

cap. Drill down through the shale into it and you get artesian flows 1800 to 

2000 feet deep. These shale are almost waterproof. There’s no seepage, even to 

' let the water through, until they break off at the northern border of the state.

These sand and gravel beds then filter the water on south to come out and 

make up our rivers, the North Loup, Middle Loup, and Calamus.

As you know, the Loup River has the most even year round flow of any 

river in this nation. Is this from rain or snow recharge? No, this is from underground recharge. We have some fluctuations during heavy pumping at irrigation time, but it is right back to normal again after the season shut off. 

State readings, year after year, do not vary more than a few inches.

The land tha t would come under this project is mostly rolling land. It is 

very difficult to gravity irrigate it. The level land tha t came under the project 

years ago, when it was first planned, has now been mostly developed by pump 

irrigation and ninety percent or more of that is watered with a dual purpose 

system—a combination of part gravity and part sprinkler system so the 

acreage to be watered has been substantially reduced. It is being reduced more 

and more as farmers are putting in more pump irrigation every year. I doubt 

very much if there is a full 160 acres under the whole project that could be irrigated gravity type, so a farmer would still have his sprinkler system to 

maintain. He would have to pick the water up from his canal and pump it to 

the rolling ground.

Feasibility of payoff? With the terrific cutback on acres left to pick up for 

irrigation, I can’t possibly see it. With the lost of acreage by canals, laterals, 

dam site, etc., and the extra acres still being cut off by pump irrigation, it 

seems about fifteen years late. Wherein the plans call for 1.51 feet of water, it 

takes 2.50 to 3.00 to produce a corn crop. That was, and still is, the trouble 

with the present North Loup Irrigation Canal. They started with 1.50 acre feet 

of water, lost half their crop from drouth. Many of them supplemented with 

pumps and wells, then cancelled out their water contract with the North Loup 

Irrigation Canal. These that did not were able to purchase another 1.00 acre 

foot of water at additional cost to produce their crop. The North Loup Canal 

was a choice strip of land along the river valley, and it did not pay off. The 

j land owners are buying it back now for .15(1 on the dollar.

Mismanagement? Not necessarily. It was due more to competition, pump irr igation, low prices on farm produce, etc. Had they been getting a fai r price for 

their produce, they could have paid more for the water and at least have kept 

the interest paid on the canal. It is true that their yield went up, but their 

overhead and costs of equipment increased so much more, and they received no 

more for their corn than they had twenty years ago.

I do know tha t some of the farmers tha t were in favor of tbe project signed 

up for it, but do not want the water when the project is completed. The reason 

they signed up was because they were told tha t if they didn’t take it, it would 

be diverted down into Oklahoma or even Texas.

Recreation spot? Yes, but only for a few. Not for the people who would be 

taxed for it. With the fluctuation on water level in the dam, I can’t see too 

much fishing and boating from a dry dock.

You may feel that I am opposed to this project in a business way, due to 

being a well driller, but I am not as it is a very small area of our drilling operations. I just can’t see throwing good tax money away when it can’t possibly 

pay it’s way. Due to above reasons, I make a plea tha t the Subcommittee turn 

down proposed project.

7 9 -7 0 4 0 - 72 - 9
126

Sen. Henry J ackson,

Chairman, Comm ittee on Inte rio r and Ins ula r Affairs,

Old Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator J ackson : When I canoed the Calamus and North Loup rivers 

las t August, there was some talk of an irrigation dam on the Calamus. More 

recent intelligence indicate s the matt er has progressed beyond the talking 

stage. I am solidly aga inst this proposal.

It is my und erstanding th at the original Environmental Impact state ment 

was both insufficient and had not been reviewed by all of the proper autho rities. This alone should stay action on any approvals or appropriations until 

and unless the Environm ental Impact statement is acceptable—and accepted.

One major consideration I did not know of ear lier was th at this project, if 

completed, would include 275 miles of canals and ditches which would take 

more than 8,000 acres of prime valley crop and hayfleld land out of production 

for the sole purpose of moving water from where it is now readily available to 

marg inal land which would never he as productive as the valley is now. Tha t 

is, w hat valley would still remain if the Calamus were to be dammed.

Irriga tio n ditches are hard on kiddies, livestock and wildlife, to say nothing 

of the ruination of the integrity of fields presently in crops or hay. Central 

pivot irrigation systems which I saw along the river l ast summer appeared to be 

very efficient. They take very little land out of production, and did not appear 

to have any adverse effect upon the river itself.

Most of the valley farmers and ranche rs are vita lly opposed to the project 

because it would cost them the ir homes and the ir livelihoods. “Benefits” to 

someone else look extremely doubtful.

Tax dollars spent to take water out of the valley at the expense of the valley would be a national trav esty as well as a local disaster.

Though ideas have begun to swing the other way, a lot of people still think 

that population loss is bad and th at population growth is an asset per se. 

Niether of those postulations is quite true. Irrigation, I believe, would make it 

possible for still fewer people to work more acres which would lead to a more 

rapid loss of population in the affected area.

The Bureau of Reclamation has not released any figures I have seen relative 

to reservoir management. Recreation, draw-downs, and downstream water releases usually are incompatible. I don’t see how the project can be justified for 

any sta ted use, or how it could receive Congressional approval without specific 

provisions for how many acre-feet or cubic feet per second would be put to 

what uses. Releases downstream—or lack of them—would make quite a difference below the impoundment. Releases and water draw n off for irrigation or 

other wa ter supply purposes creates too much shoreline fluctuation for man or 

beast to use or enjoy.

Innundation of some 8300 valley acres would completely destroy th at many 

acres of fish and wildlife habitat which in the imme diate environs of the rive r 

is just about the only fish and wildlife habitat for several miles around. Most 

tree s of any size along the river are at lea st 100 years old. They cannot be 

tran splanted, nor would re-plantings produce mature trees any more rapidly.

To summarize, any “benefits” to be realized by construction of the project 

would be limited to those outside the immediate area, and would accrue at the 

expense of present landowners and the taxpay ers of the entire United States. 

It jus t doesn’t make sense.

Sincerely,

(Miss) Nancy C. J ack.

Statement of H arry H. Foth, Ord Nebr.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcomm ittee: I moved on this farm in 

the sprin g of 1929. At that time we bought 320 acres of ground of which 160 is 

now in the Twin Loups Irriga tion Project. Since th at time we have purchased 

ano ther 480 acres adjoining this land. This land is all in the Irrigation Project. After our son married he bought ano ther 160 acres close by which is also 

in the Irriga tion Project. Through the years we have continued to improve the 

land. We now have thre e wells on the 960 acres in the project.
127

On the 160 acres a short way from home we have 147 acres of farm ground. 

This land is all in grass which we irrigate with one of the three wells. On the 

last page you will find a photo of this land and an explanation of the farm.

With our tow-line we can irrigate 147 acres for a cost of $900.00 a year. 

This includes fuel and oil for the motor and repairs. We cross the farm 4 

times putting on 8 inches of water each time. This makes 32 inches of water 

or a cost of $6.12 per acre. Under the Bureau’s irrigation project we can irrigate 64 acres at a cost of $10.60 an acre. With this project we are to receive 

approximately 18 inches of water. We would not be able to leave this land in 

J grass as it is not level enough to flood irrigate. Now, I ask you, which is the

better irrigation system?

The remainder of our land is irrigated by gravity and sprinkler system. We 

are able to plant corn in half-mile rows. We know the main canal goes 

through this land. We do not know where the laterals will be. We know tha t 

1 we will have shorter rows which will be inconvenient for large machinery.

We also will lose some of the best producing ground we own. This land will 

go off the tax rolls. Also the grain it would raise and the cattle the grain 

would feed goes off the tax rolls. Is this progress?

We have used one well more than 15 years and the water level has not lowered. In Valley County the proposed Twin Loups Irrigation District covers 

land where there are now more than 140 wells. The US Dept of Agriculture 

ASC office in Ord, Nebr., allows each farmer 130 acres per well. At this rate 

there are nearly 19,000 acres of irrigated ground. Valley County has only a little over 20.000 irrigated acres in the District.

It is our understanding that in the entire project there are nearly 19,000 

acres in lakes, dams, canals and laterals that will be taken out of production. 

In other words, nearly every acre that would be irrigated in Valley County is 

being taken out of production somewhere.

There are many pivot systems in our area with more going in. I do not 

know how these farmers will be able to operate them with open laterals and 

canals. It would be a large financial loss if the farmers have to sell these as 

second hand machines. Also the dealers in the area will lose business.

I believe the users of water should have the final say-so of whether they 

want this project or not. I know many civic organizations have promoted it. I 

understand no farm organizations, which are made up of the farmers of the 

area, were in favor of the project discussed here. I think this speaks on how 

the farmers feel.

Burwell, Nebr., March 17, 1972.

Chairma n and Members of Subcommittee.

Dear Committee Mem bers: I (Etta Sebesta) am a native of Loup County, 

having lived almost all of my life in the area.

The ranch home where I spent ten years with my late husband was located 

two miles from the Calamus River. I still own a life estate in the ranch, so 

naturally, am interested in the community.

At the present time, I am teaching in a school located in the river valley. If 

the dam materializes, this school and the home of families in the community 

will become non-existent.

The area around the proposed dam site is of sandy soil, which, if disturbed, 

" and the native grasses torn up, can very easily create serious erosion problems. If the reservoir is used for recreational facilities, the added traffic will, 

in my estimation, be likely to create problems, not only in soil erosion, but in 

adding to the pollution and destruction of wildlife habitat, as well.

Added to the foregoing objections, some consideration should be given to the 

effect this project will have on property owners in Loup County.

According to statistics reported in our local newspaper 12,240 acres of land 

will be removed from the tax rolls. At least 18 families will have their homes 

either destroyed, or their farms reduced too drastically to continue in operation, with a forfeiture of $836,675 from the assessed tax valuation for Loup 

County. (These figures were taken from a report in the Mar. 9 issue of Taylor 

Clarion).

In view of the fore-going facts, and the lack of job opportunities, I feel tha t 

we can ill afford to have this land diverted for the purpose proposed.

Very respectfully,

Etta Sebesta.
128

C

Burwell, Nebr., March 15, 1972. hairman and Members of Subcommittee.

Dear Committee Members: We are not for the diversion dam on the Cala­ mus river for the following reason’s.

1. We do not think that the water from the North Loup Valley should be diverted to other area’s until a thorough check has been made of the Valley to 

determine if it is possible to use more water farther down the Valley; possibly 

by use of storage Reservoirs, which could be filled in off-season for Irrigation.

2. We have been short on our annual precipitation now for several years;

this may in time lower our water level and cut down the out-put of some 

wells in the Valley. We do not believe there’s no such thing as these wells C

“net” going d ry ; we feel there is more water being pumped from the ground 

than there is going hack in to it.

3. The 900+ acres that the Reservoir will cover is good wild life ar ea ; and

a Blue Heron Herony; and a real nice Ranch Home; and other home site’s; 

plus good Bottom-land will he destroyed; also quite a few large trees that *

takes a life-time to grow.

We feel this area should be preserved.

Yours Truly

Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Sewell.

March 8, 1972. To Whom It May Concern, Chairman of Subcommittee:

I would like to make a few comments on our trip down the Calamus River 

in June, 1965

There were five adults and 12 Boy Scouts who made this 45 mile trip with 

Canoe packs tents and food for 5 days and nights.

The Scouts have made a number of similar trips on other Nebraska rivers, 

but we all felt this had to be the most enjoyable of all.

My son-in-laws who live in the Burwell area and myself contacted each 

rancher along the river for permission to camp on their ground, and have access to water.

The permission was granted by each rancher. I have met several since that 

time—have hunted deer and quail on their property—so have very good relations whenever we meet.

I would like to mention a few of the high lights we enjoyed.

We started out just beyond the Fish Hatchery—which I assume belongs to 

the State Department. This place was beautiful. We started down the river 

early the next morning (on Monday) and spent 5 days traveling the Calamus 

to Burwell—getting out in the park.

Early each morning—deer was sighted the boys would watch—each trying to 

the see one “first”. Wild life was plentiful as well as beautiful.

We carried every thing to exist—except water. When we would pass near a 

ranch home, we would ask for permission the get necessary water—all were 

most accommodating. We did find several springs along the way—so could use 

it.

Every one had a great time—swimming and enjoying the clean, clear water.

So in closing, I want to say—I would enjoy another trip down the Calamus 

in a canoe—some time in the future.

Yours sincerely

Iven A. May,

Assistant Scout Master, Troop 61/.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: This is a lette r concern­ ing the Twin-Loups Irrigation Project, 640 acres which will be under the district, and John L. Roll Sr. and John L. Roll Jr., who are the owner and operators of these 640 acres.

John L. Roll Sr. is 75 years old, wTas horn and has lived on th is place for all of his life. John L. Roll Jr., 43 years old has lived here also for all of his life.

In 1905 the first stock well was drilled on this place with static water level 

of 92 ft. In 1955 we put down an irrigation well, located about 500 yds. from 

this first well. The static water level in this well was 90 to 95 ft. In 1970 we 

drilled the second stock well, not because we ra n out of water, but because our 

old well was rusted out and was jus t plainly worn out. The static water level
129

in this new well was also 92 ft. It would seem th at our underground wa ter 

table is pret ty stable.

If thi s project goes through we will loose in a 56 acre field, approximately, 

25 acres. This does not mean off one end or the other, but diagonally acro ss 

this field, puting 10 acres on the lower end of the canal and 15 acres above 

the canal.

On this 640 acres, we irr iga te abo ut 85% of 250 acres by gra vity and the 

res t thro ugh sprinkler, from 2 irriga tion wells th at were both drilled in 1955. 

In 1955 we were pumping these wells from about 175 ft. with a 200 ft. setting 

in them. In 1971 we checked the draw-down in these wells during probably the 

most severe pumping time and also the dry est season we had since putting in 

the wells and were pumping both from 175 ft. draw-down. Accordingly, we are 

not losing our underground water.

We thin k this project will just be ano ther added cost to our projection with 

absolutely no benefits. We will absolutely not tak e water from this project and 

others in this project who now have wells, also will not tak e water. Another 

really bad pa rt of this project is that the main canals and later als will all be 

above ground. Even if this should go underground, it will be unfeasible, due to 

cost.

Sincerely,

J ohn L. R oll Sr.,

Owner.

J ohn L. R oll Jr .,

Operator.

Burwell, Nebr., March 10, 1972.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are again st the 

Twin Loups Reclamation Pro ject in Loup County because it would destroy the 

Beau ty of our community and the homes of many ranchers.

The Calam us River is a bea utiful riv er; it lias pure water which very few 

rivers in the nation h as; it provides fishing hun ting and canoeing for many 

people. Boy Scouts from different pa rts of the country use it for camping, 

canoeing and wildlife observation. The water is used for irriga tion and the re is 

“No Pollution” problem.

There is a wonderful “Sh elter Belt” which is one of the best, if not “The 

Best” in Nebr. th at would be destroyed. It provides a refuge for wild life, 

camping for Boys Scouts, protection for cattle from the cold winds besides the 

beauty th at it adds to our community.

The Valley View historical site has been here for years. There is a nice 

modern school house th at is in use and it serves as a community center.

So, if this pro ject goes through it would destroy one of the pr ettie st and 

productive valley in the county. It would take our home and we wouldn’t be 

alone as there are a number of other ranche rs that would be affected. We 

would have to find some where else to live.

Yours truly ,

Mr. and Mrs. Cyrus Wright a nd Son.

March 9, 1972.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Leland 

Scherzberg. I am forty-three years old. I was born in and have lived my entire 

life in the are a which will be directly affected by the North Loup Reclamation 

project. I farm and ranch on 3,700 acres in partn ers hip with my mother. Our 

principal crops consist of corn and alfalfa, and the raisin g of feed er cattle. I 

am married and have three children. Over the yea rs I have held the usu al 

school and church offices th at any responsible citizen does, inclu ding seventeen 

yea rs as a member of the county Agriculture Stabalization and Conservation 

Committee. In this capacity, which deals with all farm ers, I believe I have 

learned to view situations affecting many people over a broad area ra th er than 

just as they affect me. It is my opinion th at the North Loup pro ject is unnecessary and unjustified for the following reason s:

1. The Reclamation Bureau tends to ove rsta te the amount of acres which 

will supposedly benefit from this project and underestim ate the acres th at will 

be lost forever for the production of foodstuffs. The Bureau estimates th at 

10,000 acres will be used for the Calam us rese rvio r alone. This is not inclu ding
130

the hund reds of acres th at will be used for the rero utin g of roads around the 

reserv oir, the borrow pits (these are not in the are a to be covered by wa ter ), 

canals, etc. Nor does this figure include the acres lost to the diversion dam on 

the North Loup River and the ground covered by the water. Besides this there 

will be several thousand more acres lost in tiie hundreds of miles of main 

canal, laterals, and the Davis Creek Reservoir and pumping stations.

All of this land loss, which would probably amount to between 15,000 and 

20,000 acres and not even mentioning the enormous cost and loss of family 

farms, all this to irr igate an estimated 50,000 acres, including a good many 

acres of backs and steep side hills which the farmers themselves say are not 

feasible to irrigate, and of which the majority is alre ady irrigated by the 

farmers through their private financial means.

2. Since such a large amount of the project is alre ady watered by irrigation 

wells, the bure au thin ks this project may be necessary to recharge the und erground water supply of the irrigated areas. Although this sounds good there is 

no proof whatsoever that the project will do this. Unless or until this can he 

proven I believe this project is wholly unnecessary and a ridiculous, costly experim ent.

Respectfully,

Leland Scherzberg.

Omaha, Nebr., March 8, 1972. Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Upon notification of the pending dam project on the Calumus River in North Central Nebraska, 

I was impelled to write to your committee hearings.

As a Minister with Youth in a Metropolitan area such as Omaha, I find that 

travel and outdoor living is a valuable tool and resourse for getting into the ir 

lives and the ir struggles. The past two years we have used the Calumus River 

for canoe trip s with our Senior highs. Our dep arture point is located at a 

Church Camp near Burwell, Nebraska. This is a tremendous opportunity for 

young people to draw away from the hectic culture which they must participate in, to a place where reflection and deep meaningful relationships are developed.

I find that these kinds of experiences are very much attuned to the “adventureou s” spirit of youth, to the “getting back to natur e" idea that young 

people of today exemplyfy. The differen t kind of beauty th at they are exposed 

to along this area broadens the ir world view, as well as fac ilitiates the lea rning process for them.

Flooding that are a will be a lost that is not measurable from an economical 

frame of reference, but something which is not seen. The style of relationships 

and personhood, the growth and development of people.

I urge you to labor hard over your decisions and broaden your perspective 

to a fa r reaching range in order to make your recommendations.

Sincerely,

Harold D. Youngblood,

Minister With Youth,

Countryside Briardale United, Church of Christ.

Burwell, Nebr., March 10, 1972. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittees Concerning the dam of the Calamus River and Twin Loups reclamation project in Loup Co :

This dam w’ould ruin our home as well as our livelihood. If this goes 

thro ugh it will ruin our family sized cattle operation of 200 cows and calves, 

plus the c arry over of yearlings.

Anyone who has lived on a cattle ranch and raised cattle in the sandhills of 

Nebraska knows hay is essential, and plenty of it, if the cattle are to survive 

and. of course, we know the ranches won't be here long if the cattle are n’t. All 

of the hay for this ranch comes from valleys along this Calamus River. If 

these valleys, fields and meadows are covered with water in winter and sand 

in summer, it isn’t going to be a pre tty sight to view or profitably wise either.

You might go back in the hills and hay hut this isn’t profitable when the 

hay won’t cover the mower bars and make % ton or less to the acre.
131

This particular ranch, where we live, consists of 4,000 acres of hay meadows, fields, and pastures. We have lived here nine years and it is one of the 

best in the area. We lease it from Joe Snyder and Virginia Banks. The beautiful, exceptionally good shelter belts provide shelter for the cattle during the 

winter. Shelter is a must if cattle and ranchers survive the severe blizzards 

that hit this part of the countrye.

Lots of people from Burwell and surrounding areas and, possibly including 

yourselves, think this will be a great asset to Nebraska and the country in 

general. But if they figure on storing water in winter and pumping it out in 

summer it will only serve as a sand beach and we already have plenty of sand 

blow outs.

If people are wanting irrigation let them irrigate from their own rivers as 

the people in the Calamus Valley are irrigating from the Calamus River; instead of sending it across Nebraska into another water shed.

People from all over Nebraska and surrounding states come here to camp, 

hunt and fish. They all go home with the satisfaction of enjoying mother nature 

at its best and not something man has tried and failed. How many of you 

have had the privilege to see a hen pheasant with her babies, a quail and her 

family, the deer, turkeys with their little ones, or cows with baby calves lying 

in the tall grass? This is quite a satisfaction to any rancher who lives in the 

Calamus Valley or surrounding areas.

Every farm paper or news paper you pick up reads, “Keep the family sized 

ranch and farm going; we need more of them”. I’m sure such a construction 

as this is no way of keeping them.

Lets not ruin mother nature and God’s great creations by such a man made 

project.

Eldon and Darlene Larsen and Children.

Ord, Nebr. March U, 1912. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My occupation is full time farming—raising corn, grain, hay and livestock. I have lived and farmed 

in this area since 1920 and know this area through plentiful rainfall with 

abundant crops, through drouth years with crop failures to the present 

development of well irrigation. I am in the area which is covered by the proposed Twin Loups Irrigation Project.

I have four irrigation wells with sufficient water to irrig ate the 640 Acres of 

land that I own, which is in the area of the proposed project. We irrigate 

with underground pipe and aluminum gated pipe and a pivot system. We have 

no open ditches. I object to open ditches, canals and laterals because the project would cut up and destroy our valuable irrigated land, cause problems and 

dangers to our livestock. It would make inconvenient access to some of the 

fields and make it difficult to farm land that is all cut up with ditches. Also, it 

would destroy our wells which have been established at considerable work and 

expense.

Our present system is functioning very well, as is that of our neighbors. 

Those who are farming have already developed their land for irrigation from 

wells so there would no longer be any benefits to us from this project. We can 

do it cheaper this way than the proposed project would do. We can irrigate 

when crops need it, not have to wait for our turn to get water, which in some 

instances might be too late, or to irrigate when it is not necessary or pay for 

water we would not use.

The government is creating additional problems by irrigating more acres, 

than paying farmers to raise less.

Sincerely yours,

Joseph J. Bonne.

Statement of Rollie R. Staab, Ord, Nebr.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am a 33 year old 

farmer and cattle feeder. I am interested in this project because it will affect 

the community and future of my family. After spending two years in the army, 

18 months in Germany. I came to this community as a hired man for a cattle 

feeder. I chose this community because it is productive and progressive, with 

the latest equipment and methods being used. This area is very well kept with
132

neat and very modern farms, buildings, and equipment. I wanted a fine, upand-coming place to raise a family.

Eleven years ago, I bad an opportunity to buy a farm. I found that with the 

low prices of farm crops, I would have to supplement farming with something 

else. I started feeding cattle and hogs. I now feed my crops to cattle and this 

operation has kept me in the farming business. I own 860 acres. I operate 1380 

acres. 800 of this is pasture and 580 acres are farm land. 520 acres of this 

land are within the district. The land description is as follows: 160 acres 

NW'/j of Sec. 8-18-14; 160 acres, with irrigation well on it, NW% of Sec. 7, 

18-14 and 200 acres with irrigation well and pivot system, SWX4 of Sec. 7, 18-14 plus S%S% of NW% of Sec. 7, 18-14 of Enterprise Township, Valley 

County, Nebraska.

The land in this area is very productive. But it has it’s problems. Very little 

of the land lays with a gentle slope suitable for gravity irrigation. It is a rolling land with lots of ridges and runs in many directions. Even afte r it has 

been leveled, if it is to be gravity irrigated, the rows must run in many directions.

Due to the progressiveness of the area, I. like many others, started irrigating. Ten years ago, I leveled some land for gravity irrigation. It cost over 

$100.00 an acre. That was only the beginning of my problems. I had to use 

gated pipe to cross the ridges and ditches getting to the irrigated area. I also 

buried some underground pipe so the field wouldn’t be so chopped up. The 

water doesn’t run through evenly; some areas get more wate r than others. 

There is also loss of evaporation. It takes more labor to check the rows three 

times a day and then there is always some loss of water at the row ends. 

Farm labor is extremely hard to find. If it isn’t checked often there is a tremendous loss of water. On some fields it can be seen running down the road 

ditch. Then, because of the land running in many directions, there are many 

short rows and the fields are very chopped up, making it most unsuitable for 

the use of the large machinery being sold and used today. I found it has taken 

the last 9 years to get the ground back to productivity, because I lost so much 

top soil leveling. It was an added expense fertilizing to regain this productivity, plus a loss in crops due to poor soil. But this still didn’t take care of the 

problem. Mainly, and most important, afte r all this trouble and expense, I lost 

some crops in dryer years due to the fact I couldn’t cover enough acres with 

the gravity irrigation system because it takes longer to cover the ground and 

it takes more water.

Naturally, like many others in the community, we looked for a better method—one tha t was updated. We went to the sprinkler irrigation and pivot system. I can cover 133 acres by the pivot system where I could only irrigate 

about 75 acres with the same amount of water. My labor is cut down 95%. 

This is especially important as farm labor is so hard to find ; many farmers 

who have in the past employed people, must now work alone. In using gravity 

irrigation, it takes one person almost full time to just handle the water. Someone has to run the machinery and do the other work. You can see where this 

leaves the farmer who farms by himself. I find it takes about 3 acre feet of 

wate r to raise an adequate crop and more in extremely dry years, when we 

used gravity. The project estimates a farm delivery requirement of 1.51 acre 

feet of water, which is only half the amount necessary to raise an adequate 

crop.

My personal concern toward this project is tha t the canal will cross my 

farm and will go through under my pivot system. At the present time, with 

the pivot irrigation, my farm is worth about $90,000 saleable value. If the 

canal goes through my place, it will divide the farm in half so tha t it will 

hardly be worth dryland price, which would be about $30,000. In addition, wTe use the corn stocks for winter pasture. It would require extensive fencing 

which would make two small pastu res ; the question would be how to get the 

cattle across the canal to the other pasture. This would bring many problems 

to the cattle feeding situation.

Then there is the problem of tax rolls. If the cattle feeding operation is cut 

back, it will be a loss to the personal property tax rolls of our county.

You will note in the project report that total allocated cost as of the 1971 

reevaluation was $74,607,000. of which $73,670,000 is reimbursable and $937,000 

is nonreimbursable. This means that irrigation must pay for almost all of the 

project cost, and if they do not secure sufficient water users, it could mean 

tha t everyone within the district would be charged equally to reimburse the
government for the cost of the project whether they receive any benefit, no 

matt er if they use the services. This is not fair to those many farmers who 

cannot use gravity, or to the person who has already developed his farm. I am 

concerned that because of the extensive development of wells, sprinklers and 

pivot systems, that they will not get sufficient water users. It is not good judgment to put in a project that is not up-dated and then have to burden the already heavily burdened tax-payer with more tax dollars and no benefits.

I am concerned about the damaging effect this could have on the future of 

the community. Due to the additional tax burden, the damage from canals and 

ditches and lack of enough water at needed times crop losses would follow. If 

every farmer is forced to pay, it could cost the non-user enough money to prevent him from developing his acres tha t cannot be used by gravity. The above 

reasons could hurt the economy of this area. I would like to say tha t I am not 

against progress, and I know that progress always hurts some people. It would 

be easier to understand the hardships it will put on my operation if this project were feasible.

I am against this out-dated project because: Gravity irrigation requires 

more water, covers less ground, requires more labor, has more loss to evaporation, does not water evenly. Leveling of ground causes loss of top soil and productivity. It does not allow enough water to grow crops. It will create a tax 

burden to the people. Hardships of the many ditches and canals. Because so 

much of the land is not suitable for gravity irrigation. And because this progressive area on its’ own has surpassed the need for this by developing itself 

with more modern methods and systems. I am not an isolated situation; this 

will happen many times over. I believe this marginal project should not be a uthorized because the system used is as out dated as the figures used to represent the project. Much of the land the project is seeking to develop is already 

developed by superior systems which will save water and money as the end result.

March 17, 1972. Dear Senator Anderson : We bought our 680 acre ranch one year ago without the knowledge tha t an irrigation project would take approximately 75 per 

cent of our land. This includes our ranch headquarters. We have added a new 

home, a new well and wate r system, new sewer, and several miles of new 

fence.

This project would cause us considerable loss as we do not feel we could replace the investment we have made. We would sincerely appreciate your careful consideration on th is matter.

Yours truly,

Rupert and Iona Bristol.

Ord, Nebr., March 10, 1972.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: This is a letter concerning the Twin-Loups Irrigation Project. We, Walter and Victoria Conner, ages 

58 and 59 Respectively, own and operate 320 acres of land, which will be 

under the district. I, Walter have lived here all of my life. We have an irrigation well, drilled in the year of 1956, which we irrigate from by gravity and 

sprinkler line.

This proposed Project will go diagonally through our best irrigated land. We 

cannot see any good in this project as we absolutely will not take any water 

from it and many others who now have wells think the same. The water level 

is not dropping any here.

This is only an added cost and the ruination of land already developed for 

irrigation, as is nearly all the good land in the district.

Why would it be feasible to ruin the good to try to irrigate what is left? 

Sincerely,

Walter Conner and Victoria Conner.

Ord, Nebr., March 11, 1972.

Mr. Chairman and Members of Subcommittee: We are writing this letter to 

let you know we are opposed to the Twin Loups Reclamation Project, and the 

reasons we are opposed to it.

First of all it will damage more valuable land tha t is already being irrigated by wells, than it would benefit. We also find there is already as much
134

land irriga ted in the district as this canal would be irrigating, so why cut up 

some of this best land. It would also be taking a lot of land out of production 

and taxation.

We feel that any farmer tha t wanted irrigation has already put down a well 

and has his land all laid out for it. If he hasn’t it shows he just doesn’t care 

to work that hard, as farming takes a lot of hard work and good management. 

Why, try to raise more, with these low prices on grain, then the government 

has to pay out a lot of money to reduce.

With the high prices to be paid for machinery, a young farmer just can’t 

start, even some that already have irrigation are selling out because they can’t 

make a go of it. If this land gets cut up, it will only discourage more of them, 

many farms with pivot systems will be completely destroyed.

Another thing these petitions being signed in the city, you will find most of 

them being signed by merchants and city folk not knowing how it will hurt 

many farmers, and seek only recreation, or by farmers that the canal won’t be 

cutting through their land.

Please take all of this into consideration and lets not try to do more harm 

than good, we are sure the good Lord won’t let us down if he finds we need 

more water down below.

Respectfully yours,

Charles Vancura, Jr.

Crete, Nebr., March 18, 1972. Senator Clinton P. Anderson,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : We want to express opposition to the construction of the Norden 

Reservoir on the Niobrara River and to the North Loup Division Project. Our 

reasons are based o n:

(1) Our reviews of costs and benefits as computed by economists of the 

Quality Environment Council,

(2) Our fear of the loss of important biological areas,

(3) Our objection as taxpayers to subsidizing more irrigated plow crops in 

the face of many complaints by farmers about markets already glutted, and

(4) Our wish to retain wild areas for rare recreational experiences.

Please give this your careful consideration.

Yours truly,

Mr. and Mrs. Everett W. Gross.

Hays, Kans., March 16, 1972.

Dear Senator Anderson : As you can readily see we are living in Kansas, 

Nebraska’s neighbor to the South. What I am writing to you about concerns a 

project in your state that I have heard about recently. I speak of the proposed 

O’Neill Unit project to be constructed on the Niobrara River.

The details of the project need not he gone into here, as you are no doubt 

familiar with them. Suffice it to say that, from the information I have encountered, the project seems unacceptable and that I am in opposition to it. I say 

this, not as a Nebraskan perhaps, but as an interested and concerned member 

of the United States.

The large numbers of interesting and unusual species of birds, trees, animals, etc. make it a very unique and beautiful river. Such rivers are rare 

these days and must be preserved at all costs.

Another project tha t has been brought to my attention and tha t I feel 

strongly about is the proposed North Loup Project on the Calamus and North 

Loup rivers. Again, a lengthy discussion is not necessary at this time, but the 

evidences against such a project are clear and have been set forth by the 

Quality Environmental Council (QEC).

In closing, let me reassert my opposition to the O’Neill Unit Project and the 

North Loup project. Both, to me are unnecessary and represent a step backward in achieving a sound Environmental Conciousness.

Very sincerely,

Bill Wismer.
135

Bellevue, Nebr., March 19, 1972.

Senator Clinton P. Anderson,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs,

New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : The fact tha t I am a member and officer of the Missouri Valley 

Group, Sierra Club and a member of other local conservation organizations

»

should atte st to my position in opposition to the above named projects on ecological and conservation grounds.

Therefore I would like to direct your attention concerning these projects toward the fact that the primary goal of both projects is to provide water for 

irrigation of marginal crop lands in order to grow ever large r surpluses of 

corn. Aside from the drain on the taxpayer tha t additional surplus grain will 

bring, the porous soils of this region allow large percentages of surface waters 

to reach the existing water table thus posing a pollution threat to the water 

sources of area towns, ranches farms, and stock due to the heavy uses of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers necessary to grwo crops in this area.

Your vote and the votes of the other members of your subcommittee to kill 

these projects will he appreciated by a large number of the citizens of this 

state and of the nation at this point in time and doubly appreciated by future generations as wild, free flowing streams become ra re and cherished parts 

of our land.

Very truly yours,

G. E. Bayless.

o

f

I