30VERNMENT

Storage

MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO 7'4 

. PII3-

ri 31) 3A11600 703051 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION

OF THE

it4

COMMITTEE ON

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 405

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN THE MANN

CREEK FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

APRIL 5, 1962

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

83816 WASHINGTON: 1962
ilINIEMENIEENIE111

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico, Chairman

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada

JOHN A. CARROLL, Colorado

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

OREN E. LONG, Hawaii

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

LEE METCALF, Montana

J. J. HICKEY, Wyoming

HENRY DWORSHAK, Idaho

THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

JACK R. MILLER, Iowa

MAURICE J. MURPHY, Jr., New Hampshire

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

JERRY T. VERKLER, Chief Clerk

STEWART FRENCH, Chief Counael

ROY WHITACRE, Committee Assistant for Reclamation

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico, Chairman

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

JOHN A. CARROLL, Colorado

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

I. J. HICKEY, Wyoming

II

THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

JACK R. MILLER, Iowa

•

114

10.1,
„."-PgTA-TI-Isr •

4.t.41/ 

ii'rii\

4:\

1 !..., N.,

119

KANV..k

CONTENTS

Page

S.405 1

Agency reports on S. 405:

Budget Bureau 4

Interior Department 2

STATEMENTS

Billington, Ken, executive sectary, Washington Public Utility Districts'

Association, Seattle, Wash 17

Church, Hon. Frank, a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho 5

Coles, LaSelle E., president, National Reclamation Association, Prineville,

Oreg 16 Dworghak, Hon. Henry, a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho 6

Gunn, Everett D., member, board of directors, Mann Creek Irrigation

District 14

Jackson, Herschel, secretary, hoard of directors, Mann Creek Irrigation

District, Idaho 10

Palmer, William I., Assistant Commissioner; accompanied by Donald R.

Burnett, Chief, Division of Project Development, and Harold T. Nelson,

regional director, Boise, Idaho, Bureau of Reclamation 7

Stout, Robert, rancher, Mann Creek area, Idaho 16

Tarter, Herbert, Weiser, Idaho 13

Williamson, C. J., chairman, board of directors, Mann Creek Irrigation

District 13

COMMUNICATIONS

Nelson, Harry N., publisher, Signal-American: Letters, dated March 24,

1962, to—

Senator Frank Church 14

Senator Henry Dworshak 15

Norwood, Gus, executive secretary, Northwest Public Power Association:

Letter dated April 4, 1962, to Senator Henry M. Jackson 19

Roberts, G. L., manager, Consumers' Cooperative Association, Inc.:

Letter, dated March 29, 1960, to Senator Frank Church 15

Weiser Chamber of Commerce, letter containing resolution of December 5,

1960 15

III

MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1962

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

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

Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson (chairman of

the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Anderson and Burdick.

Also present: Roy Whitacre, professional staff member; Jerry

Verkler, chief clerk, and Stewart French, chief counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting of the Subcommittee on Irrigation

and Reclamation will come to order.

S. 405, introduced by Senators Church and Dworshak, would

authorize the construction of the $3,490,000 Mann Creek reclamation

project near Weiser, Idaho. This is primarily a supplemental water

project to furnish 4,465 acres of presently irrigated land and to furnish

a full supply to about 595 acres of new land.

The plan calls for an allocation of costs of construction to irrigation,

fish and wildlife, and recreation. Of the costs chargeable to irrigation,

$1,014,000 will loe repaid by the irrigator while the balance, $2,376,000,

will be paid from Bonneville power revenues.

Favorable reports have been received from the executive agencies

on this measure.

A copy of the bill and reports thereon will be placed in the record

at this point.

(The exhibits follow:)

[S. 405, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Mann Creek

Federal reclamation project, Idaho, and for other purposes

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

America in Congress assembled, That, for the purposes of providing irrigation

water for approximately five thousand and one hundred acres, conserving and

developing fish and wildlife, and providing recreational benefits, the Secretary of

the Interior, acting pursuant to the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17,

1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto), is

authorized to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities of the Mann Creek

Federal reclamation project, Idaho. The principal works of the project shall

consist of a dam and reservoir, diversion facilities from the reservoir, and drainage

facilities.

SEC. 2. The base period provided in subsection (d), section 9, of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended, for repayment of the construction cost

properly chargeable to any block of lands and assigned to be repaid by irrigators

may be extended to fifty years, exclusive of any development period, from the

time water is first delivered to that block. Costs allocated to irrigation in excess

1
2 MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

of the amount determined by the Secretary to be within the ability of the irrigators

to repay within said fifty-year period shall be returned to the reclamation fund

from such net revenues derived by the Secretary from the disposition of power

marketed through the Bonneville Power Administration as are over and above

those required to meet any other present capital costs assigned for repayment

from such revenues.

SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in connection with the

Mann Creek project, to construct basic public recreation facilities but such facilities (other than those necessary to protect the project works and the visiting

public) shall not be constructed until an agreement has been executed by the

State of Idaho, an agency or political subdivision thereof, or an appropriate local

agency or organization to assume the management and operation of the facilities.

The cost of constructing such facilities shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable

under the reclamation laws.

(b) The Secretary may make such reasonable provision in the works authorized

by this Act as he finds to be required for the conservation and development of

fish and wildlife in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 and the following), and the

portion of the construction costs allocated to these purposes, together with an

appropriate share of the operation, maintenance and replacement costs therefor,

shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable. Before the works are transferred

to an irrigation water users' organization for care, operation, and maintenance,

the organization shall have agreed to operate them in such fashion, satisfactory

to the Secretary, as to achieve the benefits to fish and wildlife on which the allocation of costs therefor is predicated, and to return the works to the United States

for care, operation, and maintenance in the event of failure to comply with his

requirements to achieve such benefits.

SEC. 4. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any moneys

in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated such sums as will be necessary to

carry out the purposes of this Act.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: This responds to your request for the views of

this Department on S. 405, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

construct, operate, and maintain the Mann Creek Federal reclamation project,

Idaho, and for other purposes.

We recommend the enactment of this bill if it is amended as hereinafter

suggested.

The Mann Creek project would provide water for irrigation to serve an area

of 5,060 acres of irrigable land along both Mann and Monroe Creeks, tributaries

to the Weiser River, a few miles from the town of Weiser in western Idaho. Of

the total acreage, 4,270 acres are within the boundaries of the Mann Creek

Irrigation District, while the remaining 790 acres are in the Monroe Creek Irrigation District. Primarily, the project would provide a supplemental water supply

to 4,465 acres. In addition a full water supply would be made available to 595

acres which are not now irrigated and which are dispersed throughout the Mann

Creek Irrigation District.

The principal works recommended are the Spangler Dam and Reservoir on

Mann Creek, diversion facilities from the reservoir to the existing Joslin ditch,

and drainage facilities for the Mann Creek area of the project. The drainage

facilities would be constructed by the irrigators after the project is placed in

operation and the need for such facilities becomes evident. The existing distribution systems would be used and improvements and extensions would be the

responsibility of the water users. Spangler Dam would be a rolled earthfill

structure creating a reservoir of 13,000 acre-feet capacity of which 11,000 acre-feet

would be for irrigation and 2,000 acre-feet for dead storage.

The total estimated cost of the project facilities based on 1961 prices is

$3,490,000, as compared with the estimate of $3,221,000, based on October 1957

prices, presented in our planning report (H. Doc. 444, 86th Cong.). Of this

amount, 83,390,000 is tentatively allocated to irrigation, 865,000 to fish and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., January 26, 1962.
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

wildlife, and $35,000, being the specific cost of minimum basic recreation facilities

including purchase of land, is assigned to recreation on a nonreimbursable basis.

Farm budget studies demonstrate that the irrigators probably could meet their

annual operating costs and repay a total of $1,014,000 in a 50-year period. It is

recommended that the remaining reimbursable cost, $2,376,000, be repaid from

revenues derived from the disposition of power marketed through the Bonneville

Power Administration. These revenues accumulate from individual projects

within the Bonneville Power Administration system only after full repayment

with interest of the commercial power investment in those projects. Studies

demonstrate that the $2,376,000 in required aid from power revenues could be

made available from the Bonneville Power Administration system during the 50-

year Mann Creek project payout period.

To clarify the language on use of Bonneville Power Administration revenues,

we recommend that the last sentence of section 2 be deleted and that there be

inserted in its place the following:

"Costs allocated to irrigation in excess of the amount determined by the

Secretary to be within the ability of the irrigators to repay within the repayment

period or periods herein specified, shall be returned to the reclamation fund

within such period or periods from revenues derived by the Secretary of the

Interior from the disposition of pc wer marketed through the Bonneville Power

Adtr inistration."

in addition to the irrigation works, provisions for conservation and development

of fish and wildlife and for basic recreation facilities are proposed. A fishtrap

would be built on Mann Creek near its confluence with Weiser River for collection

of anadromous fish for transportation around the dam. The outlet works of the

dam would be screened to prevent the loss of fish during periods of flow. The

cost of these facilities would be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.

Basic recreation facilities would be authorized by this bill, with the Secretary

to arrange for the operation and maintenance of the same by appropriate State

or local agencies or organizations. The cost of constructing these facilities also

would be nonreimburable and nonreturnable.

In order to clarify the terms of the bill in connection with recreation development, we suggest that the bill be amended by revising section 3(a) to read as

follows:

"SEC. 3(a). The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in connection with

the Mann Creek project, to construct minimum basic public recreation facilities,

and to acquire such lands as may be necessary for that purpose, substantially in

accordance with the plan in the report of the Secretary of the Interior, but such

facilities (other than those necessary to protect the project works and the visiting

public) shall not be constructed until an agreement has been executed by the State

of Idaho, an agency or political subdivision thereof, or an appropriate local agency

or organization to assume the management and operation of the facilities. The

cost of constructing such facilities shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable

under the reclamation laws."

The total annual operating costs are estimated at $10,700 which are allocated

to irrigation, fish and wildlife, and recreation in the respective amounts of $7,600,

$1,700, and $1,400. The fish and wildlife allocation is considered nonreimbursable, and the non-Federal agency which would operate and maintain the recreation facilities would meet the annual cost for those facilities.

To eliminate the necessity for an annual appropriation of $1,700 for the fish

and wildlife operating cost, the irrigators would meet this cost. This would

amount to a total of $85,000 over the repayment period and would justify a downward adjustment in the irrigation cost to be repaid by the water users. Thus,

over a 50-year period the water users' payments in addition to irrigation, operation

and maintenance costs would still total $1,014,000; however, this amount would

now include $85,000 for fish and wildlife operating costs and $928,500 for repayment of irrigation capital costs. The financial assistance required from the

Bonneville power system would remain unchanged.

This adjustment in the annual repayment would be subject to consummation

of a written agreement between the Department of the Interior and the Mann

Creek Irrigation District under which the district would be required to operate

and maintain these facilities during the repayment period in a manner satisfactory

to the Secretary of the Interior.

The project is economically justified with total benefit-cost ratio of 1.52 to 1

based on a 100-year period of analysis. If direct benefits only are considered for

a 50-year period of analysis, the ratio is 0.72 to 1. However, recent studies of
4 MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

the project using recently updated procedures indicate that the direct benefit-cost

ratio over a 50-year period of analysis would be 1.1 to 1.

A statement of the information called for by Public Law 801, 84th Congress,

is enclosed.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

KENNETH HOLUM,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Estimated additional man-years of civilian employment and expenditures for the first

5 years of proposed new or expanded programs

Year of construction

First Second Third Fourth Fifth

Estimated additional man-years of civilian

employment: 1

Substantive (program):

Engineering aids 3 5 5 2 

Engineers 2 4 4 3 

Inspectors 3 3 2 

Other 2 2 1 

Total, substantive 5 14 14 8 

Total, estimated additional

man-years of civilian employment 1 5 14 14 8 

Estimated additional expenditures:

Personal services $20, 000 884,000 $88. 000 $52. 000 

All other 826,000 1, 312, 000 918,000 

Total, estimated additional expenditures 20,000 910,000 1,400, 000 970,000 

I No additional personnel would be required as completion of projects now under construction would

coincide with initiation of construction of this project.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., January 22, 1962.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of January 17, 1961,

requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 405, a bill to authorize

the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Mann Creek

Federal reclamation project, Idaho, and for other purposes.

The purpose of this bill is clearly stated in its title.

The project report of the Department of the Interior on the Mann Creek

project tentatively allocates costs to fish and wildlife in excess of the specific

costs of fish and wildlife facilities. We would expect that, prior to a request for

funds to initiate work on the Mann Creek project, the costs of the project would

be reallocated in accordance with evaluation standards for water resource projects

to be established under this administration.

Accordingly, the Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to the enactment of S. 405.

Sincerely yours,

PHILLIP S. HUGHES,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Senator Church.
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO 5

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK CHURCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the subcommittee for this opportunity to urge favorable consideration of S. 405. As you know,

during the 86th Congress I joined with Senator Dworshak in the

introduction of an identical bill, S. 2704, to authorize construction of

the Mann Creek reclamation project on the Weiser River in western

Idaho. We have again joined forces for this project.

The Mann Creek project has received the support of the Bureau

of the Budget; and the Department of the Interior has recommended

its enactment. A companion bill, H.R. 529, has been approved by

the House Interior Committee and reported to the House Calendar.

Briefly, the proposed Mann Creek project is designed to serve

three end s: irrigation, wildlife, and recreation. It would serve an

area of 5,060 acres of land on both Mann and Monroe Creeks, tributaries of the Weiser River. These comprise 4,465 acres in the area

now semi-irrigated by diversion of the natural flow from the streams,

and an additional 595 acres to be put under full irrigation. This

will be made possible by the construction of Spangler Dam, a rolled

earth structure creating a 13,000 acre-foot capacity reservoir.

The water storage would enhance the resident game fish population

as a result of an anticipated reservoir fishery. Further, the reservoir

would serve as a small waterfowl resting area.

The recreational benefits of this water storage include boating,

fishing, camping, and possibly swimming. This aspect, although

somewhat incidental, has a particular appeal to the residents of the

surrounding townships, because the area is lacking in large water

impoundments.

The price tag for this project is modest compared to the benefits

that can be realized. Based on 1961 prices, the total cost estimated

is $3,490,000. A breakdown according to the proposed ends to be

served by the project shows that $3,390,000 is allocated to irrigation,

$65,000 to fish and wildlife, and $35,000 to recreation.

The $100,000 for the fish and wildlife and recreation facilities

would be nonreimbursable under terms of Federal law.

Farm budget studies indicate that the irrigators could, in a payout

period of 50 years, repay $1,014,000 (or approximately one-third) of

the irrigation costs, plus full payment of the annual operating costs

of $7,600. In order to meet the remaining reimbursable cost, $2,376,-

000, S. 405 proposes that surplus power revenues from the Bonneville

Power Administration be utilized. These revenues accumulate from

individual projects within the Bonneville Power Administration only

after full repayment with interest of the commercial power investment

in those projects.

The hope for a favorable consideration of this bill has generated

considerable local interest. Not only would the small farms in this

area be enabled to produce better and more predictable yields, but

full irrigation would allow greater crop diversity. I believe this alone

justified enactment of S. 405, for economic studies show that in a

50-year period the direct cost-benefit ratio is 1.1 to 1. When all the

ends which the project would serve are considered over its full life

period (100 years), that ratio is 1.52 to 1. The construction of the

83816-62-2
6 MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

Mann Creek project has ample economic justification, and I earnestly

hope that the subcommittee will recommend enactment of the authorizing legislation.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I personally have visited the site

of this project, which seems ideal, and I know of the great local

interest in having supplemental storage water provided that extends

back over the years. The chief problem in the area has been insufficient water, which has prevented crop diversity and prevented the

farmers who are living there from enjoying the full productivity of

their lands.

I want also to say that this project would not make any significant

contribution to our surpluses, since it would permit greater diversity

and involves a very small increment of new land.

I would have one further thing to say, Mr. Chairman. There are

two Idahoans here who are scheduled to testify. They are both

farmers, Bob Stout and Herschel Jackson, and they can testify to the

longstanding interest of the farmers of the area in the effort to solve

their insufficient water supply problem. This is not a project that

generated with the Bureau. It is a project that generated with the

people.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me add this. We have seen over the

years a tremendous investment of public money in the great dams on

the Columbia River in Washington and in Oregon. Idaho taxpayers

contributed their share to the initial outlay in the construction of these

dams, and Idaho water furnishes a substantial part of the resource

that turns these generators. These dams have added immense

wealth to Oregon and to Washington, where the per capita income and

the rate of economic growth has been significantly greater than in

Idaho. About a fourth of the water turning these generators originates in my State. We are a part of the drainage basin that services

these great Federal dams in the Columbia Basin. We feel strongly

that on all the equities Idaho ought properly to share in the benefits

that the river has furnished and the wealth that the river system has

created. This bill relates to a very modest project, but it would

assist Idaho in sharing to some small degree in the great benefits

of this public investment, to which Idaho makes its proportionate

contribution.

We feel, therefore, it is on the equities a good bill and a needed bill,

and we hope the committee will favorably consider it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator CHURCH. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. It is impossible for Senator Dworshak to be here

at this time. His statement will be put in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF How. HENRY DWORSHAK, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

IDAHO

I wish to point out to the committee the benefits that will be derived to the

residents of Idaho in the vicinity of Weiser if S. 405 is approved. The principal

works are the Spangler Dam and Reservoir on Mann Creek and diversion facilities

and reservoir to the existing Joslin ditch; and, of course, drainage facilities for

the Mann Creek area of the project.

The total estimated cost of the project, based on 1961 figures, is $3,490,000.

This dam and reservoir would have 13,000 acre-feet capacity and existing distribution systems would be utilized and approved at local levels. It would give

supplemental irrigation to some 4,500 acres of land now irrigated partially, and
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO 7

approximately 600 acres of new lands. There would be fish and wildlife benefits

and some recreation facilities.

The committee should also be aware that very few, if any, surplus crops would

be produced if this project is approved. Most of the crops produced would be

used for feed. In fact, some of the lands now dry farmed under the fallow system

and planted to wheat would be diverted to other crops which are not in surplus.

The best method of conserving our valuable water in the Western States is to

conserve and build storage reservoirs as near the source as possible. In this

regard this would be a very desirable project, and I believe that more of these on

the tributaries to our larger rivers would not only be very helpful for irrigation,

recreation, and other uses, but would also help to stabilize the flows of our larger

streams such as the Weiser River, the Snake River, and, of course, the Columbia.

I am hopeful that the committee will give favorable consideration to this bill.

You have heard the testimony from two of the members of the irrigation district,

Mr. Jackson and Mr. Stout, and I am sure their statements at the grassroots level

have been helpful to you and that you will report the bill out favorably.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Palmer.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM I. PALMER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD R. BURNETT, CHIEF, DIVISION OF

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT; AND HAROLD T. NELSON, REGIONAL

DIRECTOR, BOISE, IDAHO, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Mr. PALMER. I would like to introduce Harold Nelson, regional

director of region 1, Boise, Idaho, and Don Burnett, chief of our

project development division.

Mr. Chairman, I have a very short statement that I would be glad

to either read or submit, as you see fit.

The CHAIRMAN. We will just put it in the record, if you have no

objection. I have read your statement and I have several questions

to put to you now.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, MANN CREEK PROJECT, IDAHO

It is a pleasure to appear before this committee to recommend enactment of

legislation to authorize the construction of the proposed Mann Creek project,

Idaho.

A feasibility report on the Mann Creek project was transmitted to the Congress on June 30, 1960, and was printed as House Document 433, 86th Congress.

By letter of January 22, 1962, to the chairman, the Department recommended

enactment of S. 405, with two clarifying amendments.

The proposed Mann Creek project is primarily an irrigation project, consisting

of 5,060 irrigable acres located in the Mann and Monroe Creek Valleys in western

Idaho. Mann and Monroe Creeks flow into the Weiser River, which is a tributary of the Snake River. The principal project feature is the proposed Spangler

Dam and Reservoir, of 13,000 acre-foot capacity, to regulate the flows of Mann

Creek. Fish and wildlife and recreation functions would also be served by the

project.

Of the total project acreage, 4,270 acres are located within the Mann Creek Irrigation District and 790 acres are within the Monroe Creek Irrigation District.

Existing distribution systems of both irrigation districts are generally satisfactory

for project purposes. Existing water rights now held by each district will not be

affected.

The effect of the plan on fish and wildlife resources has been evaluated by the

Fish and Wildlife Service, and provision for mitigation of losses are included in

the plan.

As recommended by the National Park Service, the plan also calls for the

construction of recreation facilities, such as picnic and parking areas and a boat

ramp. A small acreage at the upper end of the reservoir would be acquired for

recreational purposes since it contains the only shade in the general reservoir area.

Irrigated land producing livestock feed provides the economic base for the

farms in the project area. Because of the shortages of late-season irrigation
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

water, only small acreages have been devoted to row crops and orchards. With a

more plentiful water supply the economy of the area will be enhanced by more

stabilized production of alfalfa and grain as livestock feed and by increases in

row crops and orchard fruits.

The total estimated cost of the project, based on January 1961 prices, is

$3,490,000. Total annual operating costs are estimated at $10,700.

The project costs allocated to irrigation are reimbursable without interest under

reclamation law. The specific costs allocated to fish and wildlife would be nonreimbursable as a result of findings made pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act. The capital costs of the recreation lands and facilities are

proposed to be nonreimbursable, and will not be incurred unless a responsible local

agency agrees to operate and maintain those facilities without cost to the United

States.

Farm budget studies demonstrate that the irrigators could pay the annual

operating costs and, in a 50-year period, probably repay $1,013,500 of the

$3,390,000 of the capital cost allocated to irrigation. The $2,376,500 in excess of

the repayment ability of the irrigators would be returned to the reclamation fund

within the 50-year repayment period from revenues derived by the Secretary of

the Interior from the disposition of power marketed through the Bonneville

Power Administration.

Economic justification studies in the report, which was prepared in 1959, show

that the overall benefit-cost ratio for a 100-year period of analysis is 1.52 to 1

and the ratio for direct benefits only on a 50-year period is 0.72 to 1. Since that

time, criteria for calculating direct irrigation benefits have been updated and

now result in a direct benefit-cost ratio, on a 50-year period of analysis, of 1.11 to 1.

The existing Mann Creek and Monroe Creek Irrigation Districts are suitable

organizations under reclamation law to contract for water service and repayment.

Those districts have expressed their approval of the project plan and their

willingness to assume their obligation.

The Department's legislative report to the chairman sets forth our recommendation that the pending bill be enacted, with amendments designed to clarify

the language and intent with regard to financial assistance from Bonneville

Power Administration revenues and with regard to fish and wildlife and recreation

aspects of the project. As indicated in that letter, the Bureau ot the Budget has

advised that there is no objection to the submission of our report on the pending

legislation to the Congress. We recommend that this committee take favorable

action on the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this. Is there any feeling that

the money derived from these projects ought to come back into the

Treasury, or should it all go into these other projects as they come

along? I ask that question because we continue to have these projects like we had a few days ago, a project that involves the Missouri

River Basin fund.

While the project itself is not feasible, if you can dip into the Missouri River Basin fund, then you make this project look feasible. Is

somebody going to say this is the same sort of story, that this by

itself could not possibly pay out, so you dip into the funds for several

million dollars that might normally return to the Treasury?

Mr. PALMER. No, sir, Senator. This project is both financially

feasible and economically feasible.

The CHAIRMAN. Only by taking three-fourths of the money and

paying it from Bonneville power?

Mr. PALMER. This, of course, is not a new concept. This is the

same basic philosophy that has characterized the development of the

Columbia Basin project, for example, and the Colorado storage project. The participating projects of that project as authorized by Congress do participate in the power revenues made available by others.

The same is true in the Missouri River Basin and other projects.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what .I want you to testify to; that this is

not different from the other types of participating projects that are

scattered around this Nation under various basin programs.
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO 9

Mr. PALMER. Senator, you are correct. This is a similar situation

to those prevailing under past acts of Congress in that in this instance

the irrigators will pay back approximately 30 percent of the cost,

which makes it a good, feasible project in terms of other Bureau and

other Department experience in this type of participating project.

For example, it is a far higher percentage than will be paid back by

the water users on the Columbia Basin project.

The CHAIRMAN. Irrigators will pay back $1,013,500 of $3,490,000?

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir; that is correct. It is also worth noticing,

I believe, in this connection that these figures in and of themselves

have been rendered with high fidelity, in accordance with the policies

of government as enunciated by the Congress, and the Bureau of the

Budget, and elsewhere. But there is one great big void in the benefit

analysis. We do not measure the benefits that accrue to the other

people of society from the creation of the reclamation project.

For example, recreation in this instanceris computed only at the

specific cost of the recreation works. Recreation does not share in

the joint works costs. This is true also of the stimulation of local

business. The druggist in the closest town has a direct interest in

the project, because it will stimulate his income and his earnings; but

he bears none of the allocation or none of the direct repayment.

The CHAIRMAN. This reservoir is going to be rather small. Will

there be boating and fishing on it?

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir; there will be.

The CHAIRMAN. What types of crops will grow there?

Mr. PALMER. This is a general farming area. Mr. Harold Nelson,

the regional director at Boise, is here. I would like to have him tell

you more about the details of the project.

The CHAIRMAN. We have been putting in all this legislation recently a provision that for 10 years after its completion no crop should

be produced that is then in surplus, like barley, wheat and oats, and

corn. I guess you don't have to worry about it being cotton.

Mr. PALMER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But what will you put on this land?

Mr. NELSON. I would not worry about that provision.

The CHAIRMAN. What will you produce?

Mr. NELSON. This is largely pasture, alfalfa, some grass seed and

some small local truck crops for the local market. There are no sugarbeets. There possibly would be some feed grain for local feeding, the

feed for cattle and hogs, but they are very limited in ability to do that,

because of course they run out of late season water. So this will

enable them to expand their land base with some grazing rights they

have outside of the project, but it would largely be small grains for

feed, though mostly alfalfa, irrigated pastures, some clover seed, and

so on.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Any questions?

Senator BURDICK. No. I am sure you have carried on the crossexamination very well.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further statement you want to make

on this, then? What is your experience? Do you strongly endorse

the project?

Mr. NELSON. I certainly do, sir; and I would make one other

addition to what Mr. Palmer said about the relationship of irrigation
10 MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

development as a part of a multipurpose power concept. Irrigators

heretofore upstream in Idaho have developed storage reservoirs and

built up the minimum flow of the stream largely at their own expense.

That has had the effect on Snake River of building up the low winter

flow. As you well know, sir, about half of the water applied to the

land comes back in the form of a return flow during the balance of the

year, and about two-thirds of that returns to the river during the

winter months when the natural river flows are at the lowest. Just

the efforts of the irrigators upstream have increased the power capacity

of the Federal power system downstream—I mean by that the Bonneville , Dam, McNary Dam, and so on—by about 80,000 kilowatts,

which is now salable. And, of course, those funds return to the

Treasury.

The CHAIRMAN. What does it do about building up power loads on

these privately owned ones up there in the Hells Canyon area?

Mr. NELSON. It has the same effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Are two of them finished now?

Mr. NELSON. Yes. Brownlee is finished and on the line; Oxbow

is finished and on the line. And the small Hells Canyon site remaining

has not been developed. I understand an access road is under construction.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any statement, Mr. Burnett, that

you want to make?

Mr. BURNETT. No, sir; I think the subject has been well covered.

Mr. PALMER. I might add in conclusion, Senator, that this project

has been carefully examined by the Department. It is thought to be

an excellent project. It is supported by the Department, and has

also been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. More important,

it is supported by the local people.

In specific answer to your earlier question, I have looked up the

data on crop production, and one of the interesting things to note is

that wheat and barley are grown in the area now. Wheat, for

example, makes up 26 percent of the total acreage now. After the

project, when they have a reliable water supply and can diversify

and move into other crops, it is estimated that this will drop appreciably and be less than 20 percent of the total acreage, and perhaps

even below that. They have enough moisture in that area to produce

dryland wheat or wheat with just a partial irrigation, but with the

full water supply they will have a wider latitude in their plantings.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. PALMER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jackson, will you state your name and the

irrigation district you represent, for the record?

STATEMENT OF HERSCHEL JACKSON, SECRETARY OF BOARD OF

DIRECTORS, MANN CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, IDAHO

Mr. JACKSON. I am Herschel Jackson, and I am before this committee today to represent the Mann Creek Irrigation District near

Weiser, Idaho. I am secretary of the board of directors at present,

and have been a member of that board since about 1939. The

district was formed many years previous (July 27, 1920). To show

that the need for Mann Creek project is of long standing, among the

items in the "Forty Years Ago' section of the local newspaper pub-
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO 11

lished at Weiser was one relating that a local lawyer, engineer, and

three of the prominent landowners at that time were inspecting

possible sites for a dam and reservoir on Mann Creek.

I have lived on my present farm since 1908 and some of my earliest

memories are of eneral conversations and special meetings concerning

means of obtaining storage water. Friction among the water users

and the resultant litigation over water rights, which frequently occur

where demand is greater than the available water, brought about some

accord for the construction of a reservoir in about 1938. An application for a PWA loan was submitted and $80,000 in bonds was voted

for the project. A lack of Government funds caused abandonment

of this plan, and soon after the Bureau of Reclamation was contacted

and a complete investigation of the area was made.

A storage filing was made in 1940 by the United States for. 10,000

acre-feet, which is still on file with the State reclamation engineer.

Investigation results were drawn up in a report entitled "Mann

Creek Project, October 1940." This project was approved for construction under the Water Conservation and Utilization Act. However, the repayment contract failed by two votes of approval, mainly

because under the proposed plan a large block of land under the Joslyn

ditch would have had an uncertain supply of water after about the

1st of July most years. The Nation's involvement in World War II

precluded any further consideration of this contract.

In December 1956, after more than a year of spadework by farmers

and members of the local farm bureau, the Mann Creek Irrigation

District was formally reactivated, indicating a continuino•

6

desire to

solve the water supply problem and this resulted in the Bureau of

Reclamation making a resurvey of the project and consequent recommendation for construction. At this hearing, we hope to justify

this construction.

There are 3,675 acres presently irrigated on Mann Creek and 790

acres on Monroe Creek. None of this land has more than a 60-percent

supply in normal years, and most on Mann Creek has less than a

40-percent supply with some as low as about 20 percent, while plenty

of water in the great majority of years runs past the land in the early

spring when it cannot be used and is destructive to them and adds

to lower country floods. The 595 acres of new lands in the project

plan are scattered throughout the project area, are included in present

farms and are now being dry-farmed. My thinking is that this land

will be taken out of surplus crops production if it is irrigated Nearly

all is the same class of soil as most of the presently irrigated land.

Under the present type of irrigation, landowners have no choice of

crop, no room to maneuver as prices change, but must stay with a

grain-hay system whether it is desirable or not. There is no chance to

set up a suitable rotation program. The Mann Creek area has an

ideal climate for growing seed, but a stand cannot be maintained because of lack of adequate water supply. The climate and soil are suitable for growing fruit and berries, tomatoes and melons, but only small

plots can be cultivated where either a well can be found or some other

land can be robbed of water. There is a ready market for all of these

crops.

The CHAIRMAN. What type of seed are you talking about?

Mr. JACKSON. Grass seed, clover seed, and vegetable seed broom

hybrid corn grown in the area, and that sort of thing; onion seed, carrot
12 MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

seed, and that sort of thing. It seems to be a good place for that sort

of seed.

Although the Army Engineers were unable to recommend flood control assistance, they recognized considerable erosion and some damage

to improvements. Since most of this occurs during a comparatively

few days of the big runoff, it is entirely possible that in most years the

dam could be utilized to minimize this damage and benefits might

well be much more than anyone can foresee.

Land within the project area at the present time sells for less than

half that in neighboring districts where the water supply is sufficient.

Several families have moved to other communities for no other reason

than dissatisfaction with the irrigation setup here. This has caused

the land to be formed into larger units with fewer people. One of

the best measures of productivity is land value, and we have a good

comparison since nearby land has an adequate water supply. This

land, much of it of lesser fertility, of late years has been selling for

upward of $600 an acre, some for as high as $1,000, while the land in

this area sells for under $300 an acre. Potential buyers are constantly

being discouraged by the present water supply situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you nave some sort of a pattern of landownership? How many tracts of land are there that are over 160 acres?

Mr. JACKSON. Over 160 acres?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JACKSON. I would not know the number on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Palmer, do you have any information on that?

Mr. NELSON. There are 71 ownerships.

The CHAIRMAN. What size?

Mr. NELSON. There would not be any in excess of the 160-acre

limit per owner.

The CHAIRMAN. How many in excess of 160 acres?

Mr. NELSON. There are none that would be in excess of 160 acres

per ownership.

The CHAIRMAN. You say this has caused the land to be formed into

larger units.

Mr. JACKSON. They were fairly small to start with.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you say the size of a family farm

would be under irrigation for production of vegetables?

Mr. JACKSON. Oh, 80 acres would probably be the average farm.

The CHAIRMAN. For the production of vegetables?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Eleven acres is a good-sized farm in the Santa Fe

Valley for production of vegetables. I was just curious.

Mr. JACKSON. I would not say the whole farm would be in production of vegetables. It is a diversified thing.

The CHAIRMAN. The point I am trying to get to is, the 160-acre

limitation is no problem on this project?

Mr. JACKSON. Oh, no.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. JACKSON. When the farmsteads of the western valley were

formed and first irrigated, the need for an efficient operation was not

great; but as the investment in improvements and tools grew, it has

become more imperative to make a farmed acre produce more efficiently. Thus, a full supply of water is a must in modern times. A

farmer cannot afford to work land with expensive machinery, pay
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO 13

high overhead and taxes, and have a part or full failure of a c •

because of lack of water if water can be obtained reasonably. 

slATE

Since water is one resource we have no substitute for and are

dependent on the elements for, we need to support any effort

feasible development, conservation, and the like.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator BuRDicic. Yes; I just have one question.

How does the community feel about this project now? Apparent

you have had some division of opinion in the past.

Mr. JACKSON. We have, yes; but at the present time it is almost

unanimous in favor of it by the landowners.

Senator BURDICK. Any differences have been resolved by this time?

Mr. JACKSON. That is correct. I have some statements and letters

here from people in the Mann Creek area that I would like to place in

the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stout, I apologize. I have to run off for just

a minute.

Senator BURDICK (presiding). The various statements will appear

in the record.

(The statements referred to follow:)

4*. .,.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT TARTER, WEISER, IDAHO

I am Herbert Tarter, of Weiser, Idaho. I have lived on Mann Creek for 45

years and have been farming on my own since 1938. Prior to that time I lived

with my parents on an adjoining ranch which they purchased in 1917.

My operation is raising cattle and hogs and the feed to feed them. My operation is limited by the amount of feed I can raise with the present water supply.

My crops consist of hay, grain, and ensilage. Most of my grain is raised on dry

land, except for crop rotation on the irrigated ground.

In 1961, which I consider was close to an average year, my first crop of hay

yielded 3,600 bales of hay averaging 71 pounds per bale on 50 acres with one

irrigation. The second cutting, which had no water, yielded 450 bales of 65

pounds. My ensilage crop was about 60 percent of what it would have been

with plenty of water, even though I robbed other land to irrigate it.

From this and past experience, I feel I could, with the increase in second cutting,

-a third cutting, and irrigated pasture, afford to pay the proposed assessment.

STATEMENT OF C. J. WILLIAMSON, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MANN

CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT

I am C. J. Williamson, chairman of the board of directors for the Mann Creek

Irrigation District. I have been a member of that board since about 1955. I

was on the Farm Bureau committee for about 3 years before that. The sole

purpose of this committee was to inquire into ways and means of reactivating

the district and contacting the Bureau of Reclamation for reinvestigating the

project. In this purpose we were successful.

I have lived on Mann Creek all my life and have lived on my present farm since

1927. During this time, I have farmed about 85 acres of land with one of the

poorest water rights in the valley. The rest of the farm was dry farmed. In

order to try to raise the family income, we purchased an adjoining farm, which

has about 15 acres of orchard and one of the best water rights. The return from

the land with the poor water right is not much better than that on the dry land.

We have water for only one crop of hay and possibly some pasture and the grain

crop is not much, if any, better than that on the dry land. On the orchard land

we have enough water to mature a fruit crop but don't have enough to maintain

the trees unless we use clean cultivation, which is not good for most varieties of

fruit. This is important as Mann Creek is considered a very good fruit-producing

area and ready market is close by, and I have never known a complete crop failure

due to frost.

The Mann Creek Irrigation District was formed for only one purpose—to get

a full water supply.
14 MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

STATEMENT OF EVERETT D. GUNN, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MANN CREEK

IRRIGATION DISTRICT

I am Everett D. Gunn, a dirt farmer, and one of the three-member board of

directors of the Mann Creek Irrigation f)istrict. Herschel Jackson, an associate

director of the same board, has given you a summary of the history and development of the Mann Creek community. My wife and I came into the picture

originally 15 years ago while we were looking for a small ranch for our recently

Navy-discharged son-in-law who wished to benefit from the GI bill of rights and

start into farming.

I own 205 acres of cropland, of which 140 acres is now partially irrigated.

I would like to give a list of the advantages of the Mann Creek Reservoir project.

However, first, I would like to say that this whole program does not seem to savor

of a boom or speculative development which sometimes tends to defeat its own

purpose or plan. This fact is demonstrated by the large number of holdings on

the two creeks. The advantages are as follows:

1. It would begin to restabilize what was once a very stable and strong community and which at the present time is beginning to decline.

2. It would strengthen the winter base for livestock, and thus contribute to

maximum quality development of our livestock on the public range of the Federal

reserve.

3. It would strengthen the educational and cultural development of our community. (As it is now, we are sending practically all of our youth elsewhere—in

many instances to places with less potential resources.)

4. We do not object to educating and training our youth for positions needed

elsewhere, but we should keep more at home and not bankrupt our community by

leaving older operators. Many of our youth would love to stay on the farm if

they could.

5. The Mann Creek project would contribute most by giving stability to

existing local enterprises such as stable supply of alfalfa, feed grains, and silage

crops for better quality production of livestock.

6. Make possible for some small supplementary cash income in the production

of perishable fruits, vegetables, and melons for which there is a tremendous local

demand, especially in the upper country. This would be such crops as peaches,

cherries, strawberries, and melons, and other vegetables.

7. By having all-season irrigation, it would make possible the use of interruptible hydropower for irrigation pumping, which power is largely useless for anyother purpose. In this development, we see a revival and continuation of our

wholesome community life with a maximum contribution of good citizenship,

cultural and economic well-being, with a minimum negative contribution to

migrant or unemployed population. This project is well received by all segments of our overall Weiser community.

At all rural area development (RAD) meetings led by the extension division

of the University of Idaho, a land-grant institution, water projects, such as the

Mann Creek Reservoir project, have been given priority in all discussions. These

discussions and planning groups are made up of leaders of all segments of each

community such as chamber of commerce, farm bureau, farmers' union, cattlemen's association, beet growers, wool growers, fruit growers, industries, et al.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we appreciate your attention in

considering our relatively small project and hope that it might receive favorable

consideration.

SIGNAL-AMERICAN PRINTERS,

Weiser, Idaho, March 24, 1962.

Senator FRANK CHURCH,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: Your good work in bringing the Mann Creek project bill before

Congress is appreciated and we want to assure you that the people of this region

are most eager for the project. Federal investment in this project will pay off

for this State, the Northwest, and th,, Nation.

As you have pointed out, Bonneville Power Administration is justified in helping

finance the project because Snake River and its tributaries, of which Mann Creek

is one, furnish an important part of the water used to generate the power there;
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO 15

also the dam was built with public money. We fail to see any logic in the contention that BPA profits be used only in the BPA distribution area.

If you know of anything that we or anyone here can do to help get a favorable

vote for Mann Creek project, do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

HARRY N. NELSON, Publisher.

SIGNAL-AMERICAN PRINTERS,

Weiser, Idaho, March 24, 1962.

Senator HENRY DWORSHAK,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: We are concerned about the outcome of the Senate subcommittee hearing on Mann Creek project on April 5 and want to assure you that the

people of this region are solidly behind the project. It is felt that the Federal

investment in this project will pay off for this State, the Northwest, and the

Nation.

The question about Bonnevile Power Administration helping to finance the

project should not be hard to decide, in our opinion. Bonneville Dam was feasible

because Snake River and its tributaries, of which Mann Creek is one, furnished an

important part of the water used to generate the power there, also the dam was

built with public money. Therefore, how can there be any justification for the

contention that BPA profits be used only in BPA distribution area?

Your good work in bringing the Mann Creek project bill before Congress is

appreciated and if you know of anything that we or anyone here can do to help

get a favorable vote, do not hestitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

HARRY N. NELSON, Publisher.

THE CONSUMERS' COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Weiser, Idaho, March 29, 1960.

Senator FRANK CHURCH,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: For many years the ranchers of Mann Creek and Monroe

Creek have been interested in the storage of water to help them in all-season

irrigation. We feel this a very important project for stabilizing the operations

in those two valleys as well as indirect benefits to our community as a whole and

important in the normal development in this part of our State. We therefore

give our urgent support to the project.

Yours very truly,

G. L. ROBERTS, Manager.

RESOLUTION OF THE WEISER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Whereas the Weiser River is the only major river in southwest Idaho that is

not controlled with dams; and

Whereas floods on the Weiser River have been growing in frequency, due undoubtedly to logging, grazing, and farming, reducing natural cover so that some

years there are two floods; and

Whereas there is land in the Weiser Valley that needs supplemental water and

new land that is suitable for irrigation; and

Whereas the need for flood storage is vividly apparent; and

Whereas we, the members of this communitywide organization, will devote our

best efforts toward encouraging landowners involved to realize the importance of

feasible projects;

We hereby, therefore, urge that the Bureau and Army Engineers carry out the

surveys and planning they have started as fast as it's possible and ask, if at all

possible, to have the feasibility reports on the potential projects listed in the preliminary summary report completed by the spring of 1963, in the hope of securing

authorization of feasible projects before the election of 1964; and

We further ask that the Bureau and engineers cooperate in any way possible

to help secure authorization and appropriation for the building of the Mann Creek
16 MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

project, as bills for its authorization will be reintroduced in Congress early in the

coming session.

Passed by unanimous vote at the December 5, 1060, meeting of the chamber

of commerce which was attended by 36 members, of which several were area

farmers.

WEISER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

By DENNIS E. SHEEHY, President.

By HELEN STUBBLEFIELD, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF LASELLE E. COLES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RECLAMATION

ASSOCIATION, PRINEVILLE, OREG.

My name is LaSelle E. Coles. I am president of the National Reclamation

Association, and reside at Prineville, Oreg.

The National Reclamation Association was organized in 1932 for the purpose

of promoting the development, control, conservation, preservation, and utilization

of the water resources of the reclamation States. About 90 percent of our

membership is composed of people living on and operating their own farms.

The Mann Creek project is a supplemental water supply project in Washington

County near Weiser, Idaho. This project is a going concern but, like a good

many projects in the West, lacks a stable water supply. This lack of water causes

a hardship on the farms, which can be eliminated by construction of the additional

storage facilities proposed in this bill.

The Mann Creek project lands consist of 5,060 acres which are divided into

71 irrigated farms with the average size farm being about 60 acres. This is a

project of homes which contribute a great deal to the economy of the State of

Idaho and the Nation. Crops which are now in surplus are not generally grown

on this land.

The project has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.31 to 1 for a 50-year period and 1.65

to 1 for a 100-year period. The total cost is $3,138,000. The farmers will be

able to repay $1,013,500 of the total cost; the balance must be charged against

net power revenues of the Columbia River power system.

The National Reclamation Association has repeatedly gone on record as favoring

a power assistance to reclamation. Power has been a paying partner with the

farmer since 1906 in the development of the arid and semiarid lands of the West.

We have precedent in the Upper Colorado River Basin project, the Missouri

River Basin project, the Central Valley of California, and many of our projects

within the Columbia River drainage area.

The Mann Creek project is in line with the policies and principles of my c.sf;•)-

,ciation; it complies with the precedents which have been established by this

committee in approving many other projects; it is noncontroversal between

States and departments; and its completion would be another step in the development of the West. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge this

committee to give favorable consideration to this project.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STOUT, RANCHER, MANN CREEK AREA,

IDAHO

Mr. STOUT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am

Robert Stout. I was born in the Mann Creek area and have lived

there all my life. I have been operating a ranch since 1939, both

irrigated and dry land, part of the dry land being grazing land.

I am acquainted with every farmer or rancher in the entire project,

some having a better water supply than others, but no one having

enough for the full growing season. There has been considerable

effort by individuals and committees ever since I can remember to

obtain a reservoir through private or Government means. We have

found it impossible to do this without assistance.

Everyone nearly is limited to hay and grain. There can be no

diversified farming without a full water supply. Much of this land,

I think, would be in the production of more livestock.
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO 17

I know in my own case I now have the limit in the conservation

reserve, which is all dry wheatland. The rest of my dry land is

devoted to grazing, part of which is native grass; the remainder was

once farmland which I now have seeded to permanent pasture. If I

could have enough water for the 160 acres of partially irrigated land

to raise the feed for cattle, I would leave the wheatland that I now

have in the conservation reserve, in grass and graze it with cattle

after the end of my contract with the Government.

I have been talking with members of the Washington County Rural

Area Development Committee and find that this project has been

placed at the head of their project list.

Gentlemen I thank you for your time in considering this project.

It has the full support of the local people, who have long sought a

solution to the problem of our insufficient water supply. I earnestly

hope the committee will act favorably on this authorization bill.

Senator BURDICK. Are you one of the farmers that relied on the

595 acres of new land?

Mr. STOUT. No, sir. Well, I have a small portion of that 595 acres

that is not irrigated now, but very small.

Senator BURDICK. Do you have some land under irrigation?

Mr. STOUT. I have 160 acres partially irrigated. I say partially

irrigated, because we have a limited supply of water. It all has water

on it now.

Senator BURDICK. You are in the present district, then?

Mr. STOUT. Yes, sir; and have been all my life.

Senator BURDICK. What kind of crops are raised in these 595 acres

that would be brought in? Is it wheat and grass?

Mr. STOUT. Mostly grain, either wheat or barley at the present

time.

' Senator BURDICK. That is all. Thank you.

Mr. STOUT. Thank you.

• Senator BURDICK. That concludes the witnesses for S. 405.

Several statements that have been submitted will be placed in the

record at this point.

(The statements referred to follow:)

STATEMENT OF KEN BILLINGTON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, WASHINGTON PUBLIC

UTILITY DISTRICTS' ASSOCIATION, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. Chairman members of the committee, I am Ken Billington, executive secretary of the Washington Public Utility Districts' Association with offices at

Seattle, Wash. Membership of the association is comprised of public utility districts serving water and electric customers throughout the State of Washington.

Practically all of the electric power which we sell our customers is secured from the

Columbia River Federal power system through the Bonneville Power Administration.

We appear in opposition to that portion of S. 405 which would require that

power revenue subsidy to this reclamation project be obtained from the Bonneville Power Administration. We are in support of reclamation projects and recognize that in certain instances a subsidy over and above that amount which can

properly be reimbursed the Government by the irrigator is necessary. Normally

this subsidy is otained from power revenues when the reclamation porject is directly related to a multiple-purpose project which produces power. In past

projects the relationship has been most direct, with the actual participants in the

reclamation project also being among the users of electricity from the power

project. In any case, the adjacent or surrounding areas using the electricity and,

therefore, providing the reclamation subsidy would at least be sharing in the indirect benefits which accrue from the reclamation project. As such, it was logical to expect the subsidy for the reclamation project to originate from power rev.
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO

enues coming from the adjacent areas or those joined to the multiple-purpose or

reclamation project.

The principle in S. 405, however, of using general Bonneville Power Administration revenues for the purpose of the subsidy is much broader and deviates

from past practice and established policy. On the one hand Congress is being

asked to authorize this reclamation project as being a feasible and worthwhile

project for the overall economy of our Nation. On the other hand, however, by

this type of subsidy Congress is being asked to place the responsibility for providing the subsidy needed to make the project feasible upon a special and limited

segment of the people of the Nation. In many instances these will be people

who have no relation whatsoever to the particular reclamation project involved—

at least no more so than other general citizens and taxpayers of our Nation.

We feel a reclamation project which is not directly associated with a multiplepurpose power-producing project hut which is justified on the basis of improving

the general national economy should be underwritten by the entire national

economy instead of placing such responsibility on only the power customers using

federally produced power. To do otherwise discriminates against the electric

customer who is using federally generated power as compared to the electric

customer served by a utility which has its own power supply.

A second reason for our opposition to this type of an arrangment is that it

would establish a systemwide method for reclamation subsidy while the power

system involved does not have the benefit of using a systemwide payout procedure.

In other words, the Columbia River power system is being treated as a joint system

for the purpose of reclamation subsidy but is being denied this method for powerpayout purposes. The present payout method used for the Columbia River

system is based on an individual 50-year period for each individual project.

This increases to a considerable extent the amount of annual costs required to

amortize the entire system on an individual project accounting basis. Certainly

it appears logical that if the entire system is to be used for the purpose of reclamation subsidy, then the proper accounting and payout procedure on a systemwide

basis should apply for the purposes of power payout.

No credence should be given to the statement that this type of subsidy for

reclamation will not affect existing power rates. You simply can't get something

for nothing, and any time you add another dollar of repayment responsibility to

the power user's bill you will affect his power rates.

Normally in a constantly growing utility system the earnings from a first or

early-constructed generating plant will be used for the purpose of amortizing the

cost of a second or subsequently built generating plant once the first one is paid for.

This could automatically take place in the Columbia River power system if the

earnings from dams paid out in the early years could be used to cover costs of

dams built in later years. To add a reclamation cost, even though it is to be paid

after a 50-year period, will dilute the earnings credit in the power system which

had been paid for and built up by the power user.

A further argument against this type of an arrangement is that the Bonneville

Power Administration is not a multiple-purpose agency of the Federal Government. It is merely a power sales agency for those departments which construct

and operate multiple-purpose projects. The production and sale of power has

been a related or secondary adjunct of such projects. The proposed type of an

arrangement makes power sales a prior or first obligation of the Federal Government.

Our final argument in opposition to this type of reclamation subsidy is on the

basis that the project being considered here is not located in an area in which

Federal power sales are made. In other words, no contribution is to be made in

the form of power sales by the area which is to have the project. Certainly in

fairness it would seem that if Bonneville power revenues are to be used for a

reclamation subsidy the reclamation project should be located within the established and used Bonneville service area from which the power revenues originate.

We feel the proposed reclamation project is of value and is needed in the development of the Nation's economy. However, it should be directly related to a

particular multiple-purpose project if power revenues are going to be used for the

reclamation subsidy purpose. Otherwise the project should be authorized and

constructed on the basis of using the general credit of the Federal Government

with direct grants for the purpose of those subsidies needed in excess to the

amounts which irrigators can properly pay. General power revenues from the

Bonneville Power Administration should not be used for such a purpose.
MANN CREEK RECLAMATION PROJECT, IDAHO 19

VANCOUVER, WASH., April 4, 1962.

:Senator HENRY M. JACKSON,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Both Mann Creek and Baker project bills proposed precedents for irrigation

subsidy accounts without geographic limitations or other desirable standards.

As a compromise and pending establishment of a broader legislative solution such

as are now under study, we recommend tying Mann Creek to Anderson Ranch

Dam and tying Baker to John Day Dam, following the Chief Joseph pattern of

1952 with this amendment. We endorse both bills.

Gus NORWOOD,

Executive Secretary, Northwest Public Power Association.