BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

4

B!1

GOVERNMENT

Storage KSU LIBRARIES 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

Lr1 

ru UNITED STATES SENATE

co

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

0 SECOND SESSION

ON

S.308

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN THE UPPER

DIVISION OF THE BAKER FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

APRIL 5, 1962

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

83815 WASHINGTON : 1962

luvERs.

fi>

.3

11 JUN 5 19 62

4 YTial ,
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

LEE METCALF, Montana

J. J. HICKEY, Wyoming

Dakota

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. VERELER, Chief Clerk

STEWART FRENCH, Chief Counsel

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

J. J. HICKEY, Wyoming

II

THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

JACK R. MILLER, Iowa
CONTENTS

Page

S.308 1

Agency reports on S. 308:

Budget Bureau 5

Interior Department 2

STATEMENTS

Baker County court, Oregon, presented by Hon. Lloyd Rea, county judge_ 17

Colton, Charles M., Baker County rancher, Baker, Oreg 18

Hesketh, John C., county extension agent, Baker, Oreg 20

McBroom, James T., Chief, Division of Technical Services, Bureau of

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior 23

Morse, Hon. Wayne, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon 12

Neuberger, Hon. Maurine B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon 16

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 6, 24

Peyron, Henry, Baker County rancher, Baker, Oreg 19

Powder River Sportsmen's Club of Baker, Oreg., by Byron C. Brinton,

chairman, water resources board 22

Ward, Alvin, rancher and chairman, Baker Valley Irrigation District,

Baker, Oreg 18

COMMUNICATIONS

Allen, Conrad: Letter, dated February 22, 1961, to Senator Clinton P.

Anderson 36

Basche, F. C., Basche-Sage Hardware Co., Baker, Oreg.: Letter, dated

April 5, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 38

Boyd, Arthur S.: Letter to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 32

Brinton, Byron C., editor-publisher, the Record-Courier, Baker, Oreg.:

Letter, dated March 14, 1962, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 31

Britton, Charles H., Britton Equipment Co.: Letter, dated March 14,

1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 37

Carr, James K., Under Secretary of the Interior: Letter dated February

23, 1962, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 2

Davis, Carl, president, Pioneer Savings & Loan Association, Baker, Oreg.:

Letter, dated April 5, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 37

Fortner, P. T., president, Fortner Supply Co., Baker, Oreg.: Letter dated

August 14, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 34

Frost, Jack, secretary-treasurer, Commercial Welding Co., Inc.: Letter,

dated April 13, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 36

Gray, L. G., district manager, California-Pacific Utilities Co.: Letter,

dated December 13, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 36

Hansen, Lester D., assistant vice president and manager, Baker branch,

U.S. National Bank: Letter, dated August 14, 1961, to Senator Clinton

P. Anderson 34

Haynes, Dick: Letter, dated August 14, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 35

Heizer, Earl, secretary-treasurer, Baker Production Credit Association:

Letter, dated March 6, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 30

Henry, T. D., president, Baker Mill & Grain Co.: Letter, dated April 10,

1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 30

Hughes, Phillip S., Assistant Director for Legislative Reference, Bureau

of the Budget: Letter, dated February 5, 1962, to Senator Clinton P.

Anderson 5

IEI
IV CONTENTS

Hursh, Harold, president, Oregon Reclamation Congress: Letter, dated Page

IM*February 1, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 29

Jones, Howard H.: Letter, dated April 5, 1961, to Senator Clinton P.

Anderson 37

Phillips, Wayne, Sr., Baker, Oreg.: Letter, dated March 20, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 31

Schaan, William: Letter, dated February 14, 1961, to Senator Clinton P.

Anderson 33

Sheehy, Thomas W., master, Durkee Grange No. 653: Letter, dated

March 27, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 32

Staggs, Ira D., president, Baker Chamber of Commerce, Baker, Oreg.:

Letter, dated March 1, 1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 29

Steward, Robert J.: Letter, dated March 29, 1961, to Senator Clinton P.

Anderson 33

Udall, Hon. Stewart L., Secretary of the Interior: Letter dated May 1,

1961, to Senator Clinton P. Anderson 2

Waller, Rives: Letter, dated February 9, 1961, to Senator Clinton P.

Anderson 30

Warner, Fred J.: Letter, dated March 28, 1961, to Senator Clinton P.

Anderson 35

Widman, William: Letter, dated March 14, 1961, to Senator Clinton P.

Anderson 35

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

Precedents for acreage limitation based on land class productivity 27
UNIYEArli).

,4

GD

;1. JUN 5 19 62

BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGO

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1962

14TTAN, *ik

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.

Present: Senators Anderson and Burdick.

Also present: Roy Whitacre, professional staff member; Jerry

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

Senator BURDICK (presiding). The meeting of the Subcommittee on

Irrigation and Reclamation will come to order.

S. 308 authorizes the construction of the Baker project in Oregon

at a cost , of $6,168,000. Cost allocations of this multipurpose dam

include flood control, fish and wildlife, recreation, and irrigation. As

in the Mann Creek project, a substantial share of the costs allocated

to irrigation will be repaid 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. 308, 87TH Cong 1st sess.]

A BILL to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the upper division of

the Baker Federal reclamation project, Oregon, 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,

controlling floods, 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 upper division of the Baker Federal reclamation project,

Oregon. The principal works of the project shall consist of a dam and reservoir,

pumping plants, and related facilities.

SEC. 2. The period provided in subsection (d), section 9, of the Reclamation

Project Act of 1939, as amended (43 U.S.C. 485h), 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 or to as near that number of

years as is consistent with the adoption and operation of a variable repayment

plan as is provided therein. Costs allocated to irrigation in excess of the amount

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

to repay within the repayment period determined under the provisions of this

section shall be returned to the reclamation fund from net revenues derived by

the Secretary from the disposition of power marketed through the Bonneville

Power Administration, which are over and above those required to meet any

present obligations assigned for repayment from such net revenues.

1
2 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

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

upper division of the Baker project, to construct minimum basic public recreation

facilities and to arrange for the operation and maintenance of the same by an

appropriate State or local agency or organization. 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. 661-666c, inclusive), and the

portion of the construction costs allocated to these purposes and to flood control,

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 user's organization for care, operation

and maintenance, the organization shall have agreed to operate them in a manner

satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior with respect to achieving the fish and

wildlife benefits, and to return the works to the United States for care, operation,

and maintenance in the event of failure to comply with the requirements to achieve

such benefits.

(c) The works authorized in this Act shall be operated for flood control in

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army pursuant

to section 7 of the Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887).

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.

HOD. 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. 308, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct,

operate, and maintain the upper division of the Baker Federal reclamation

project, Oregon, and for other purposes.

This Department cannot now recommend that any action be taken with

respect to this measure.

A final planning report on the economic and engineering feasibility of the proposed Baker project has not yet been completed. Until a planning report is

adopted by the Department, reviewed by the affected States and interested

Federal agencies under the provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1944, other

applicable laws and interagency agreements, and submitted to the President

and to the Congress as required by law, we are unable to make any recommendations with respect to the enactment or provisions of the bill. It is suggested

that your committee may wish to defer action on authorizing legislation until

a planning report is submitted to the Congress.

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,

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

Department on S. 308, a bill to authorize the Secretary of

struct, operate, and maintain the upper division of the Baker

project, Oregon, and for other purposes.

We recommend the enactment of this bill if it is amended

after.

U.S. Department of the Interior,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., May I, 1961.

STEWART L. UDALL,

Secretary of the Interior.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., February 23, 1962.

for the views of this

the Interior to conFederal reclamation

as suggested herein-
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 3

The proposed development of the upper division of the Baker Federal reclamation project, Oregon, would be a multipurpose project, including the functions of

irrigation, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation. Project works would

consist of the earth and rock filled Mason Dam and 100,000 acre-foot reservoir on

the Powder River some 18 miles upstream from the city of Baker, the Lilley

pumping plant and relift pumping plant, minimum recreation facilities, and a

hydrologic network consisting of precipitation gages and snow courses to predict

runoff from the drainage basin above the reservoir. The irrigators contemplate

rehabilitating and extending the present distribution systems so no new diversion

structures, canals, or laterals would be constructed as part of the potential Federal

development.

Approximately 13,990 acres of the project lands now receive a partial water

supply, primarily by flooding the lands during the spring runoff. After July 1

of most years, there is little natural streamflow and, except for a small amount of

pumping from wells, the irrigation season is at an end. The water that would be

stored in Mason Reservoir would provide a reasonably firm water supply to the

13,990 acres over the entire irrigation season as well as a full water supply to 4,010

acreas that are not now irrigated.

Of the total of 18,000 acres, 3,080 are located in the Lilley pump tracts at the

north end of Baker Valley and would be irrigated mainly from return flows getting back into the main stream channel from irrigated lands at higher elevations.

Some 1,380 acres of these lands now receive a partial water supply by pumning.

However, the present works would be abandoned, and a full water supply would be

furnished through new pumping plants which would be constructed as a part of

the proposed works of the division, and which would more efficiently serve the

existing irrigated lands. Thus, for repayment purposes, these lands are considered

to receive the same benefits from the project as the lands not now irrigated. In

essence then, the works of the potential development would provide a full water

supply to 5,390 acres and a supplemental supply to 12,610 acres.

Each year floodflows during the spring cause some damage in Baker Valley.

The channel capacity of the Powder River through the city of Baker is 1,500 cubic

feet per second and floods of higher magnitude do considerable. damage to residential, municipal, and commercial property. Much of Baker was inundated

during the flood of February 1957, which reached a peak flow of 2,350 cubic feet

per second. Total damages in the valley were estimated at $250,000 with $200,000

of this amount occurring within the city limits of Baker.

Mason Reservoir would provide 17,000 acre-feet of space exclusively for floodwater storage and in addition 21,000 acre-feet of space, to be used jointly with

irrigation, would be made available on a forecast basis to store floodflows. It is

estimated that with this storage capacity, $40,000 in average annual flood damages would be prevented.

The construction and operation of Mason Reservoir would result in an annual

benefit to fishery resources of $17,700. Of this total amount, $2,900 in benefits

would result from the reservoir, and $14,800 would result from minimum releases

of 10 cubic feet per second to Powder River at Mason Dam under agreements

wherein storage would be operated for this purpose in addition to irrigation. No

diversions from this flow between Mason Dam and Smith Dam are contemplated

in the project plan. Reduction in releases below this desired minimum would

be allowed proportional to irrigation shortages.

Development of only basic recreation facilities is proposed at the reservoir.

Additional recreation facilities not appropriated for Federal construction will be

provided by a State or local agency. The Department has under consideration

the acquisition and development of additional lands and improved facilities for

recreation development, as proposed in our planning report of July 26, 1961. We

suggest that authorization for such additional facilities be delayed pending further

study.

The total estimated cost of the potential development is $6,168,000 based on

October 1958 prices, which are substantially the same as at the present time. Of

this amount there is tentatively allocated 84,354,600 for irrigation, $1,056,400

for flood control, $632,000 for fish and wildlife, and $125,000 for recreation facilities. The total annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and pumping power

costs allocated to irrigation, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation are

$50,450, $7,000, $150, and $8,000, respectively.

The farm budget studies indicate that the irrigators probably could repay

$1,127,500 of the Federal investment allocated to irrigation in a 50-year period

following a 10-year development period. During the development period, the

water users would meet the annual operating costs of their existing systems and

of the development recommended herein, and would incur the necessary expenses
4 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

to rehabilitate and extend the existing distribution systems to efficiently utilize the additional water to be made available by the potential Federal development.

The remaining $3,227,100 reimbursable cost in excess of the irrigators' repayment ability during the 50-pear repayment period would be returned to the reclamation

fund 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.

It is recommended that the capital and annual operating costs allocated to flood control and fish and wildlife be nonreimbursable in accordance with existing

law. It is further recommended that the capital cost of minimum recreation

facilities also be nonreimbursable.

The plan of development was evolved in close cooperation with the local people.

It meets their immediate requirements and lends itself for incorporation in a more

comprehensive plan of development for Baker Valley as the need might arise at

a later date. The persons to benefit from the development have on various occasions expressed their desire for the development and have formed the Baker

Valley Irrigation District for the purpose of contracting with the Federal

Government.

The proposed plan of development is engineeringly feasible. A comparison of

the benefits and costs indicates that the development is economically justified having a favorable benefit-cost ratio of 1.28 to 1. For a 50-year period of analysis,

the direct benefits have been recomputed to recognize the effects of modern farm

management, and the ratio of direct benefits to annual equivalent costs is estimated to be about 1.2 to 1.

In recognition of the limited payment capacity of the class 3 and class 4P lands

on the project, the Secretary should be authorized to permit delivery of project

water to units of sufficient size, considering the land classification, to support a, family and to provide the necessary payment capacity. This could be accomplished by the addition of a new section 2(b), reading as follows:

"(b) Any lands in the upper division of the Baker project, Oregon, which are

held in private ownership by a person whose holdings exceed the equivalent of

one hundred and twenty acres of class 1 land shall, to the extent they exceed

that acreage, be deemed excess lands. No water shall be furnished to such excess

lands from, through, or by means of project works unless (1) the owner's total

holdings do not exceed one hundred and sixty irrigable areas or (2) said owner

shall have executed a valid recordable contract with respect to the excess in like

manner as provided in the third sentence of section 46 of the Act of May 25, 1926

(44 Stat. 636, 649, 43 U.S.C., sec. 423e). In computing 'the equivalent of one

hundred and twenty acres of class one land' under the first sentence of this section, each acre of class 2 land shall be counted as seventy-five one-hundredths

(.75) of an acre, each acre of class 3 land shall be counted as fifty-five onehundredths (.55) of an acre, and each acre of class 4 land shall be counted as

thirty-eight one-hundredths (.38) of an acre."

In order to clarify the intent of the bill, we recommend that the second sentence

of section 2, page 2, lines 11 through 20, be amended to read as follows:

"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 power marketed through the Bonneville Power Administration."

The provisions of subsections 3(b) and 3(c) are unnecessary in that they relate

to matters which are adequately covered in reclamation law. However, we would

not object to their retention in the bill.

A statement of personnel and other requirements that enactment of this bill

may entail is attached in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 801, 84th

Congress.

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,

JAMES K. CARR,

Under Secretary of the Interior.

Enclosure.
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 5

ADDITIONAL DATA REQUIRED AUTHORIZATION UNDER PUBLIC LAW 801, 84TH

CONG.

Executiv

Adm

Subs

Total est

E xpendi

Total est

Total est

Proje

All o

To

Baker project, Oregon, upper division

1st year 1 2d year 3d year 4th year 5th year

, direction:

thistrative services and support:

dministrative officer 1 1 1 1

'lerical and stenographic 1 1 1 1

Subtotal, administrative 2 2 2 2

;antive (program):

ngineering aids and technicians 7 7 7 7

ngineers 5 5 5 5

ispectors 

ither (field office head and right-of-way

agent) 

1

2

5

2

5

2

5

1

Subtotal, substantive 15 19 19 18

Total positions 17 21 21 20

mated additional man-years 2 3.3 4.0 4.0 3.0

ure for additional man-years' $13, 285 $16, 580 $17, 000 $13, 130

mated man-years of civilian employment

mated expenditures:

13. 8 19. 5 21. 0 14.0

et personal services $91, 000 $131, 000 $143, 000 $98, 000

her, ' 209, 000 1, 825, 000 3,009, 000 319, 000

al estimated expenditure 300,000 1, 956, 000 3, 152, 000 417, 000

1 1st year will initiate D PR activity, utilizing GI personnel and details from other offices. Establishment

of permanent staff not anticipated until 2d year.

2 Experience indicates that, for projects of this size, non-Bureau recruitment is necessary only for the lowgrade engineering positions (GS 3 and 4) and occasionally for clerical or stenographic positions.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., February 5, 1962.

HOD. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

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

requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 308, a bill to authorize

the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the upper

division of the Baker Federal reclamation project, Oregon, 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 upper division,

Baker 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 Baker 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. 308.

Sincerely yours,

PHILLIP S. HUGHES,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

Senator BURDICK. We will hear from the Bureau of Reclamation

first. Mr. Palmer, you may proceed.

83815-62 2
6 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

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 also to have Harold Nelson regional

director of region 1, Boise, Idaho, and Donald Burnett, Chief of the

Division of Project Development, with me.

Mr. Chairman, again, I have a statement which I would be glad to

submit for the record or to read for the record, as you see fit. There

are some generalizations that perhaps should be made in addition to

the statement. At your pleasure, I will either read it or submit it for

the record.

Senator BURDICK. Your statement will be received, but if you can

make some generalizations that will be very fine, too.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ON UPPER DIVISION, BAKER PROJECT,

OREGON

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to appear before you today to recommend the

enactment of S. 307 to authorize the construction of the upper division, Baker

project, Oregon. Our planning report on this proposed project was transmitted

to the Congress on November 30, 1961, and printed as House Document No. 302,

87th Congress. On February 23, 1962, the legislative report of the Department

of the Interior on S. 308 was sent to the committee, recommending enactment

of the bill with amendments.

The upper division, Baker project, would be a multiple-purpose development,

providing benefits to irrigation, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation.

The lands are in Baker and Bowen Valleys on the Powder River in northeastern

Oregon.

The proposed 100,000 acre-foot Mason Dam and Reservoir would regulate the

Powder River to provide a full irrigation water supply to 4,010 acres of presently

dry lands, and supplemental water would be provided for 13,990 acres now irrigated. Presently irrigated lands now receive only a partial irrigation water

supply, primarily by flooding during the heavy spring runoff. After the early

part of July, in most years, these lands are without water except for a relatively

small supply for some acres obtained by pumping from wells.

The storage capacity of Mason Reservoir would be allocated as follows: 17,000

acre-feet for exclusive flood control use, 21,000 acre-feet for joint use of flood

control and irrigation, 57,000 acre-feet for irrigation use and maintenance of

flows below the dam for fish, and 5,000 acre-feet for inactive storage for fish and

recreation purposes. The proposed project works also include replacing the

existing Lilley pumping plant and a relift pumping plant.

The irrigation water users would rehabilitate and extend the diversion and

distribution facilities during the development period, using their own funds.

Applications for additional water and storage rights will be filed with the State

prior to starting construction.

Spring floodflows cause damage in Baker Valley in most years. With Mason

Reservoir and the proposed hydrologic network for flood forecasting in operation,

it is estimated that the average annual flood control benefits would amount to

$40,000.

Annual benefits to the fishery resources from use of the reservoir and maintenance of a sustained flow in the reach of the river below Mason Dam would

total $17,700.

Mason Reservoir would become a popular recreation area because of its scenic

setting, easy access, and shortage of alternative opportunities for the type of

recreation it would provide. Minimum basic recreation facilities to cost about

$125,000 are included in the proposed plan of development. Although the

acquisition and development of additional lands and improved facilities for

recreation were outlined in our planning report of July 26, 1961, we suggest that

action be delayed on these additional facilities pending further study.
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 7

The total estimated cost of the proposed development is $6,168,000. The cost is

allocated to the various functions as follows: irrigation, $4,354,600; flood control,

$1,056,400; fish and wildlife, $632,000; and recreation, $125,000.

The specific cost for recreation and the capital and annual operating costs

allocated to flood control and fish and wildlife are considered as nonreimbursable.

The recreation facilities would be constructed only if some qualified agency agrees

to operate and maintain them at no cost to the Federal Government. The cost

allocated to irrigation would be reimbursable without interest in accordance with

reclamation law.

The payment capacity analysis indicates that the irrigators could repay

$1,127,500 of the Federal investment allocated to irrigation over a 50-year period

following a 10-year development period. The remaining $3,227,100 reimbursable

costs in excess of the irrigators' repayment ability would be returned to the

reclamation fund during 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.

The presently irrigated lands and surrounding rangelands are devoted predominantly to production of livestock, and the irrigable lands are best suited to

livestock feed and forage to support that economy. Alfalfa hay, feed grains, and

some row crops are grown on the better lands, while meadow hay and pasture are

the predominant uses of the poorer lands.

The project would meet the needs of the area to stabilize and improve the

existing cattle economy. The water users and other interests to benefit from the

development strongly support this proposed plan and have expressed their desire

for early authorization and construction. The Baker Valley Irrigation District

has been formed for the purpose of contracting for repayment with the Federal

Government.

A comparison of the benefits and costs indicates that the proposed project is

economically justified. The basic report, prepared in 1960, reflected a total

benefit-cost ratio of 1.28 to 1 for a 100-year period of analysis and a ratio of 0.79

to 1 for direct benefits and a 50-year period of analysis. The direct benefits have

been recomputed to recognize the effects of modern farm management, and the

ratio of direct benefits to costs over a 50-year period is now estimated to be about

1.2 to 1.0.

We proposed an amendment to clarify the language and intent of section 2 of

the bill with regard to use of power revenues derived from Bonneville Power

Administration operations. The alternative language suggested has been worked

out by our Bureau and the Bonneville Power Administration jointly as the best

language to accomplish these purposes.

The farm budget studies demonstrate that farm units which include a sizable

percentage of class 3 and 4P lands should be larger than 160 acres if they are to

meet the goal of providing an adequate level of living for the farm family. We

have suggested a formula for equitable relief from this problem, based on comparative productivity of the several land classes, similar to the formulas adopted for

the east bench unit of the Missouri River Basin project in Montana, and the

Seedskades project in Wyoming.

We believe the upper division, Baker project is a worthy proposal under Reclamation law, and we recommend enactment of the legislation with our suggested

amendments.

Mr. PALMER. I would like to point out that this project, like the

Mann Creek project, has been under investigation for a considerable

period of time. It is a project that is now old in the sense of it having been under irrigation or partial irrigation for a long, long time.

The water supply there is erratic, seasonally short, and annually

short. The project area has been subject to excessive flood damage

at times. This is a good project. It complies with all of the standards of economic feasibility and financial feasibility.

There are a number of points that perhaps should be clarified. In

the first place, the departmental report on the bill recommended two

amendments. The first of these, in lieu of the 160-acre limitation,

submits that a man should be allowed to have 120 acres of class 1

equivalent land. Then it provides a formula for determining what

class 1 equivalent means; that being an acre of class 1 land is com-
8 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

puted as 1 acre, an acre of class 2 land is computed as seventy-five

one-hundredths of an acre, an acre of class 3 land is computed as

fifty-five one-hundredths of an acre, and an acre of class 4 land is

computed as thirty-eight one-hundredths of an acre.

This is a device to recognize the difference in productive potential

in the project area. The bottom lands generally in this area through

the project in here, the bottom [pointing to map] land with heavier

soils, has limited productivity from the standpoint of irrigability and

the crops that they can produce. So this would recognize that a man

would have to have more acres of land for a family-sized operation if

his entire acreage were in the bottom lands of the project.

Senator BURDICK. What did you say that class 4 land was?

Mr. PALMER. Thirty-eight one-hundredths of an acre.

Senator BURDICK. In other words, if a man had all class 4 land, he

could have more than 160 acres?

Mr. PALMER. A water supply for upward of 400 acres of land.

Senator BURDICK. What does this do to our 160-acre limitation in

the original Reclamation Act?

Mr. PALMER. We believe it is completely consistent with the past

actions of the Congress. The 160-acre limitation was adopted because

this was provided in the Homestead Act and the concept behind that

was to provide a family sized farm. We believe, as we have stated

in our report on the bill, that this is consistent because it recognizes

it takes more than 160 acres of the heavy bottom soils that are usable

primarily for grass, hay, and that type of production, to make the

family sized farm unit.

Senator BURDICK. As I recall the 1902 act—I am just using my

recollection—the language is "acres."

Mr. PALMER. That is correct, sir; and it is also reexpressed in

various other enunciations of Congress. But bear in mind, also, this

particular type of formula has also been accepted by specific act of

Congress in the case of the East Bench unit in Montana. And there

are others. This is an attempt to recognize that all of the lands do

not have equal potential in this kind of a project. The alluvial soils,

the better soils that you find around the periphery of the valley, are

clearly within the 160-acre limitation and would be so handled.

Senator BURDICK. Do you have any opinions from the Department

lawyers or from the Attorney General that this is not in contravention

of the law?

Mr. PALMER. This, of course, would be in contravention of the

law if we attempted to apply it without a specific authorization of the

Congress. This is why it has to be a part of the authorizing act, but

there are many precedents. For example, I mentioned the east

bench unit where a similar formula was used. In the Seedskadee

project, a similar formula was used, and then on the basis of specific

acts of Congress on the Kendrick project, the Conejos Division of

the San Luis Valley project in Colorado, and several other projects

Congress, has recognized that it takes more land in certain areas to

produce a family-sized farm than it does in other areas. So this is no

attempt to breach the excess land law. It is not an attempt to avoid

the family-sized farm provisions of reclamation law. Rather it is an

attempt to bring emphasis to this family-sized concept and to recognize that a man would need more of one class of land than he would

another.
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 9

Bear in mind, also, Senator, that few if any of the farms would be

solidly in any one land classification. It would be unlikely that you

would have any farms that would be all class 4; but if it did happen,

they would need more land than would be the case if a large portion

of the farms were of class 1 land or class 2 land.

Senator BURDICK. All I was giving was an example, because I

can see where actually the number of acres you can have by many

combinations would exceed 160 acres. It would not have to be all

class 4.

Mr. PALMER. That is correct. However, it would be computed.

against 120 acres of class 1 equivalent, not 160 acres of class 1 equivalent. By the provision of the amendment proposed, if a man owned

160 acres of all class 1 land, you would not expect him to reduce his

size below 160; but if he owned 160 acres of all class 4 land, this would

not be enough to pay the operation and maintenance cost, to pay the

price of water, to pay his cost of maintaining his family at what we

hope would be a reasonable American standard of family farm life.

If he were on the poor class land, he could not meet all these expenses

and survive.

Senator BURDICK. I understand the purpose of it very clearly.

My only question is, Are we breaking a precedent of any kind?

Mr. PALMER. This is why I indicated to you, Senator, that the

Congress, has seen fit on various previous occasions to subscribe to

and to enunciate a similar formula in some cases or to spell out a top

limit in others. There is considerable legislative history on this.

Senator BURDICK. In other words, this legislation takes the form

of an amendment of the 1902 act as it applies to this project?

Mr. PALMER. It would be an amendment to the 1902 act as it

applies to this project; that is correct, sir.

Mr. NELSON. If I may add, sir, most of these farms are operated

by married couples and they are entitled to 160 acres per ownership,

or 320, since Oregon is a community property State. So I do not

think there would be too many instances where he would be past

160, but it could happen.

Senator BURDICK. In that case, with a man and wife, 316 times 2

would be 632 acres, would it not?

Mr. NELSON. That is right.

Senator BURDICK. One couple could have nearly a section of land

under irrigation.

Mr. NELSON. We estimate there are 150 ownerships now for the

14,000 acres irrigated, and for the 18,000 that would be in the survey

project we estimate a few more ownerships, to give you a rough idea

of the number of farms.

Senator BURDICK. From the technical aspect, is it feasible to irrigate

this, say, class 4 land?

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir. One of the points I wanted to mention

also—I indicated I had two or three that I wanted to make—has to

do with this very point. This proposal calls for the construction of

Mason Dam and Reservoir, and for the construction of the pumping

plant and relift pumping plant. All the existing canals and distribution systems and diversion dams, all of the existing distribution

facilities would be used. So there is nothing in this bill that would

call for the construction with Federal funds of distribution systems

or diversion dams. So actually, in specific answer to your question,

A
10 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

most of the land is being irrigated now. It is within the realm of

economic feasibility to irrigate all the lands proposed for irrigation.

Senator BURDICK. And the farmer is paying his cost?

Mr. PALMER. To the extent that he can. The same problem

arises here that was described to the committee by the gentlemen

from the Mann Creek area. In a short water supply situation it is

most difficult to keep lands in a high state of productivity.

Senator BURDICK. I notice that the cost-benefit ratio in this project

is 1.28 to 1 over a period of 100 years. What is the ratio on the basis

of 50 years, direct benefits?

Mr. PALMER. In my statement, on page 4, the paragraph says:

A comparison of the benefits and costs indicates that the proposed project is

economically justified. The basic report, prepared in 1960, reflected a total

benefit-cost ratio of 1.28 to 1 for a 100-year period of analysis and a ratio of

0.79 to 1 for direct benefits and a 50-year period of analysis. The direct benefits

have been recomputed to recognize the effects of modern farm management, and

the ratio of direct benefits to costs over a 50-year period is now estimated to be

about 1.2 to 1.

This, Senator, I thought you would find interesting. This was

another one of the points I wanted to mention; that after the Garrison

reevaluation that we ran through, and that you are thoroughly familiar

with, we have now adopted the technique used there as standard

Bureau procedure and it has been prescribed on all projects. In

applying that procedure to this project, it netted out a more favorable

benefit-cost ratio on a 50-year direct benefit basis than under the old

standard Bureau procedure.

Senator BURDICK. I am glad to hear you restate the fact that the

Garrison project has a favorable cost-benefit ratio.

Mr. PALMER. I would be honored to state that fact anywhere.

I think that is a good project.

Senator BURDICK. I can't agree with you more.

Mr. PALMER. There are two or three other minor points that I

think you would find interesting. One is, this is a fine project when

considered from the point of view of the State and water users and

the Federal Government all working together. If you will note the

location of the highway above Mason Dam and Reservoir, it has been

located by the State where it will not be in conflict with the construction of the dam and reservoir at a later date. Frequently highways

are constructed without regard to future development, and the costs

of dams and reservoirs are skyrocketed by having to relocate a highway

that is built on the bottom of the canyon where it is cheaper to build

than on the side where it is more expensive to build. But these people

have been working with their State and with their local officials, and

they have done many things like this.

The State has located this highway. Part of it is now above the

reservoir area. It goes down into the canyon below the damsite here

and is on permanent location at the bottom of the canyon. But

anticipating that Mason Dam and Reservoir would be 'built, the

people have been instrumental in having the Highway Commission

locate the road on the side of the valley at the reservoir site rather

than the bottom of the valley.

Senator BURDICK. That is advance planning, is it?

Mr. PALMER. Yes; it is. I call the attention of the committee to

it because I think it is a fine example of advance planning. One

other thing I think worth noting is the fact that—this at least is my
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 11

belief, and I am sure it is shared by Mr. Nelson and all of his people

and all the people who know this project—I think this would be a

tremendous recreation area. It is a beautiful area, beautiful setting;

and with water there, in this section of Oregon it will be a priceless

recreation development.

Mr. Nelson would like to tell you something about the project

and add some of the details, if you wish.

Senator BURDICK. I believe, Mr. Palmer, that your filed statement

includes the details of repayment and manner of repayment, does it

not, from the Bonneville revenues?

Mr. PALMER. That is right. That also is, incidentally, one of the

other proposed amendments to the bill, simply to clarify that question;

and this covers the two major additions to the bill. The water users

in this instance would pay back 26 percent of the costs on the basis

of direct repayment with the Bonneville revenues being made available

for the source of additional revenue.

Senator BURDICK. Is this project entirely reimbursable?

Mr. PALMER. Consistent with the will of Congress, the flood control

allocation, of course, would not be reimbursable, nor would the allocations to recreation or fish and wildlife. These three, consonant with

the rules and regulations governing, are recommended to be nonreimbursable. The remaining item, the allocation to irrigation, is fully

reimbursable under the provisions of the bill with the recommended

amendment, with 26 percent paid back by the water users directly,

and the remaining to be reimbursed by Bonneville revenues.

In terms of the total cost, the total repayables as compared to the

total reimbursement, it is about 70 percent repayable, with recreation,

flood control, and fish and wildlife making up the remainder, as nonreimbursable.

Senator BURDICK. Making up 30 percent?

MT. PALMER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a variation of the acreage limit?

MT. PALMER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. From 160?

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In which State is this? What is the variation?

Mr. PALMER. In this instance, Senator, the Department has proposed the application of a formula similar to that which has been

adopted by the Congress on the east bench unit of the Missouri

Basin project in Montana and on the Seedskadee project in Wyoming.

It is fully consonant with the aims and objectives of maintaining an

adequate base for family farming operations.

In calculating the family size farm, it would say that 120 acres of

class 1 equivalent equal a family-sized operation and that in the

application of the formula 1 acre of class 1 land would be computed

as an acre. An acre of class 2 would be computed as three-fourths of

an acre.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to put that into operation generally?

Mr. PALMER. Wherever the circumstances warrant, as you well

know, we have tried for quite a number of years to compute ability

to pay consonant with the 1939 act.

The CHAIRMAN. I see that Senator Morse is now with us. I know

that he has other commitments this morning so I would like to hear

from him now. You may proceed, Senator.
12 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE MORSE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OREGON

Senator MORSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My statement will

be very brief.

Senator Anderson and Senator Burdick, I want to very quickly read

into the record a letter of March 23 because it is a proper introduction

of my testimony. The letter addressed to the Honorable Clinton P.

Anderson, reads as follows:

Enclosed are several copies of the statement I would have made to the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation on March 22, had the committee been

permitted to hold hearings on that date.

Also enclosed are copies of the statements of the proponents of the project as

well as a number of letters expressing local support. I would appreciate your

including these items in the hearing record.

I regret very much that the subcommittee was not able to receive the testimony

of the Oregon witnesses who were here but I know that this project will be given

thorough consideration by your subcommittee and the full committee.

In addition, the Oregon witnesses testified on the House side so you will have

the benefit of the House hearings when my bill is scheduled for consideration.

The upper division, Baker Federal reclamation project as envisaged in S. 308

is of great importance to Oregon and to the Baker area. I would be most grateful

if the subcommittee and the committee could take prompt and favorable action

on this bill.

With best personal regards,

WAYNE MORSE.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the record show that this subcommittee was very desirous of having hearings on this bill when

these witnesses were here, but we were faced with a situation on the

floor of the Senate during the poll tax debate which made it necessary,

and proper, for our majority leader to take the position that no committees of the Senate should meet while that parliamentary situation

existed, and that is why these witnesses had to go back home, unable

to testify, and left their statements with me.

I have a letter, Mr. Chairman, of March 28, from Alvin Ward,

president of the Baker Valley Irrigation District.

He states:

We thank you for your wire advising us of Senate committee hearings on your

bill, S. 308, on April 5.

Our district would very much like to have local representation at this hearing.

To send another delegation to Washington at this time, however, would be extremely difficult. We are, therefore, hopeful that arrangements may be made

whereby testimony left with you last week can be made available to committee

members, and that personal appearances will not be necessary. We will, however, do everything possible to get done whatever you may deem necessary in

this regard.

Those of us who were in Washington last week wish also to convey again our

sincere appreciation to you, your gracious wife, and your office staff, for all the

help and hospitalities extended us during our visit.

My statement, itself, Mr. Chairman, is very brief.

It is a pleasure to appear before this subcommittee as I have on

many occasions, to testify on the importance of authorizations to

advance the conservation of our natural resources, particularly in

the field of reclamation in the Western United States. This subcommittee has repeatedly demonstrated its understanding of our conservation responsibility and I am deeply appreciative of its cooperation.

This morning I am asking your approval of my bill, S. 308 to authorize the construction of the project designated as "upper division,
ad

BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 13

Baker Federal reclamation project," otherwise known as the Mason

Dam project.

This project has been under study for many years. In recent years

I have received convincing evidence of the tremendous local interest

and support it enjoys. It is the type, of project which will provide

benefits for present and future generations of Americans.

The project is located on the Powder River in the vicinity of Baker,

Oreg., and is estimated to cost a total of $6,168,000. According to

the latest information available to me, $4,354,600 would be allocated

to irrigation, $1,056,000 to flood control, $632,000 to fish and wildlife,

and $125,000 to recreation. It will bring supplemental water to

approximately 14,000 acres of land now under irrigation and will

provide new irrigation for approximately 4,000 acres.

In addition to irrigation, the project would also supply 100,000

acre-feet of storage and 10 second-feet of water the year around to

assure a streamflow which would be of great benefit to those interested

in the fishery of the Powder River.

The construction of Mason Dam will contribute substantially to

the reduction of flood losses. Such losses can be very severe in this

area, as demonstrated by the flood of 1957.

On that occasion, $200,000 of flood damage occurred within the

city limits of Baker and $50,000 of damage along the Powder River.

The Bureau of Reclamation estimates $40,000 annual flood control

benefits through the construction of the dam.

The recreational facilities of this project are of great importance.

We live in an age of automation and tension. Our people are turning

to recreational activities to provide the antidote for our speeded up

basis of life.

Mr. Chairman, I could deal at length on the merits of this project.

However, there are available for the record statements in this field

from those who have very valuable information to give to the committee because they are experts. I shall not take additional time

because I wish to give our Oregon witnesses the opportunity to supply

the full facts.

On behalf of Senator Neuberger and myself, I am pleased to present

to the committee the written testimony of several outstanding Oregon

residents who will give you the facts in support of this project. They

have already testified on the House side.

It is a privilege and a pleasure to introduce the statements of the

following witnesses:

The Honorable Lloyd Rea, county judge, Baker County Court,

Baker, Oreg.

Mr. Alvin Ward, chairman, Baker Valley Irrigation District,

Baker, Oreg.

Mr. Charles M. Colton, director, Baker Valley Irrigation District,

Baker, Oreg.

Mr. Henry Peyron, director, Baker Valley Irrigation District,

Baker, Oreg.

Mr. John C. Hesketh, county extension agent and representative

of the Baker County Chamber of Commerce, Baker, Oreg.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that these statements be included in the record of this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection this will be done.

83815-62-3
14 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I am also in receipt of a statement

submitted by Mr. Byron C. Brinton, chairman of the water resources

committee of the Powder River Sportsmen's Club, Baker, Oreg., and

a series of letters addressed to the committee by local individuals. All

of these items strongly support the project and I ask that they be included in the record of the hearings on S. 308.'

My colleague, Senator Neuberger, is out of the city on official

business today and I am pleased to submit here her statement for

inclusion in the record and I ask the committee for permission to have

her statement included in the record at the conclusion of my testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done.

Senator MORSE. In closing, I wish to thank the subcommittee for

scheduling your hearing and for giving so generously of your valuable

time to the statements of our Oregon witnesses. I am sure that

upon reviewing their testimony and the report of the interested

Government agencies, you will feel as I do, that S. 308 has great merit.

However, I would be less than honest and frank, Mr. Chairman, if

I did not tell you that there is one part of this record at which I hope

the committee will take a good long hard look at. I refer to the proposed amendment which would modify the 160-acre-limitation proposal. All I can say in support of the people of my State who wish to

have some modification of the 160-acre limitation proposal in respect to

this bill, is the following.

1. They point out that they do fix a definite limit and that this is

going to refer only to the so-called high mountain area where the

growing season is reduced each year by a good number of days in

comparison with the growing season in the lowlands.

They point out, in their view at least, that the purpose of the 160-

acre limitation is still retained in that they take into account what a

family farm has to be in the high mountain area in order to accomplish

the same economic values for the owner thereof that a family farm of

160 acres in the lowland would accomplish.

However, Mr. Chairman, I happen to hold the point of view that

if we are going to modify the 160-acre-limitation program it ought

to be on a national policy basis. Although it will not be too pleasing

to my constituents, I want to say that the senior Senator from

Oregon would take the position that, unless we can have a policy

statement that would be applicable generally, I would have no

objections to this proposed amendment being rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator BURDICK. I am pleased that you touched on that subject

because Mr. Palmer of the Department testified that this would

amount to amendment of the 1902 act as applied to this project.

Senator MORSE. I think we ought to do it on a general policy basis.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I don't agree with the strict interpretation

of the 160-acre limitation because we found out in the Riverton

project, for example, they put in some class 6 land.

I don't think it should ever have been in the project, if the best

you can do for them is have a little poor pasture. A man doesn't

make a living on 160 acres of poor pasture.

Furthermore, we have a project in New Mexico where there is a

relatively short growing season, at an elevation of about 7,000 feet; 

160 acres there is not quite equal to 160 acres in the Salinas Valley,

1 The statements submitted are printed beginning on p. 17 of this hearing record and the letters are printed in the appendix beginning on p. 29.
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 15

not by about 1,000 percent or 10,000 percent, and those things

have to be taken into consideration and modified, and I think we

might be able to overcome this by some general language which would

be useful to the Bureau of Reclamation and other projects.

Senator MORSE. I know the intention of the project's proponents and

I know what the Bureau of Reclamation's view is as to the result of

an amendment such as this.

As the members of this committee know, I am a very direct fellow.

I believe in meeting these things directly and if a 160-acre-limitation

problem is involved, I think we ought to face up to it in connection

with this bill and we ought to consider it only from the standpoint of

establishing a policy in regard to it.

I am not opposed to a policy that determines what a family-sized

farm has to be, taking into account the soil that is involved in this

particular area.

As the chairman has just said, at times we find low quality land

involved in some projects that is good only for pasture. We know

160 acres isn't going to suffice for that type of land, but what I would

regret seeing us do is try to modify the 160-acre limitation by a bill

in the Senate unless you have a general policy in regard to the modification. In such cases we should use the criterion of a family-sized

farm in that particular area, and t12.at means, to me at least, the

amount of land that is necessary, in accordance with the findings of

the experts, to support a family, in the sense that we have used that

concept in relation to a family-sized farm.

My own constituents know my view on this, Mr. Chairman and

Senator Burdick. I don't quarrel with the physical fact that they

present to me. They simply say, "But, Senator, up in that high

mountain area with that short growing season, you can't do the job

with 160 acres."

My point is that I think we ought to take a look at this policy

question and have a formula which this committee can apply uniformly. That policy should take into consideration the physical

acreage facts that are presented to you in each project. Then you

are protected, may I say, as far as the policy is concerned.

We are all protected in the Senate where we can't be charged with

trying to subvert the 1902 act.

I think the objective of the 1902 act is as sound today as when it

was, passed. Agriculture has changed since 1902. New land has

developed since 1902. Irrigation has gone forward at terrific leaps

and bounds since 1902, and all those facts bear on this policy question

of how much land in a certain area ought to be considered to be a

requirement for a family farm.

Whatever that figure is, I think you could have a policy. Whatever that figure is, the committee would be free, with due notice and

the facts supporting it, to recommend that for those special physical

situations the 160 acres is modified.

The CHAIRMAN. There is also the fact that the easy and natural

*dam locations are getting rapidly used up.

Senator MORSE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. We go to the second stage instead of the first stage.

I got a hold, some years ago, of the proceedings of one of the National

Reclamation Congresses prior to 1910. I can't tell you which one

it was. I started reading it and it involved projects that were all
16 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

extremely good projects with very good land behind them. They

weren't bothering with a lot of the marginal projects, and on that I

can understand the 160-acre limitation being universally applied.

Senator MORSE. Yes; I could too.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator MORSE. I only close with this, if I may again. I know this

project. I have worked in support of this project. I know how

important it is to the flood control of this part of my statement. If

the only value of this project were flood control, I would say we ought

to build this dam, but in addition to the flood control come these recreational and irrigation values, and I just think it is a project that

I come before you and give you my word, that you will not waste a

single cent of the taxpayers' money in support of this project.

Thank you very much.

(The statements and letter submitted by Senator Morse are as

follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE

OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Powder River, on which the

Mason Dam and Reservoir will be located under S. 308, meanders through

saucer-shaped Baker Valley in one of the most scenic plateau areas of eastern

Oregon. Timbered and rugged slopes form the south and west borders of the

valley and sage-covered hills the east and north boundaries. Construction of the

irrigation facilities authorized by the legislation now before you will add to the

economic stability of the Baker area without detracting from pastoral physical

features.

Because of relatively high elevation, the Baker Valley farmers are faced with a

shortened growing season. The average period between killing frosts is 137 days.

Also, water shortages normally confront farmers for about half of the growing

season. Water stored in Mason Dam reservoir will provide supplemental irrigation water for approximately 13,990 acres now receiving a partial supply and

would give a full supply to 4,010 acres not now irrigated. The project would also provide important flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation benefits.

Principal project works would include Mason Dam, the Lilley pumping plant,

and a relift pumping plant. Mason Dam is designed as a 185-foot-high, earth,

and rock-fill structure, forming a 100,000 acre foot reservoir on the Powder River in Lower Sumpter Valley, about 18 miles upstream from Baker. Land now irrigated is generally flooded during the spring runoff to make maximum use of

natural flows.

Storage in Mason Reservoir will permit more effective use of regulated flows

for higher production of hay and other forage crops essential to this cattle-raising

area. Thirty-eight thousand acre-feet of the space in Mason Reservoir will be

used to store floodflows which periodically damage residential, commercial, and agricultural property in the Baker Valley.

Operation of the project also will preserve and enhance the fishery resources

of Powder River by establishing lake fishing in the reservoir and by maintaining

a live stream below the dam, through releases of water specifically for this purpose.

The reservoir area would be particularly attractive for recreation purposes, and provision is being made for facilities to accommodate visitors. Studies also are continuing on the possible acquisition of additional land around the reservoir,

specifically for recreation, to implement the President's directive to realize maximum recreation benefits for future generations.

The benefit-cost ratio of this project is about 1.28 to 1. Officials of the State

of Oregon have strongly endorsed authorization of the project and have recommended appropriation of funds for its construction at an early date. I urge the committee's favorable consideration of S. 308 as a means of furthering the progress of water resource development in our State.
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 17

STATEMENT BY THE BAKER COUNTY COURT ON BEHALF OF THE UPPER DIVISION,

BAKER PROJECT, HON. LLOYD REA, COUNTY JUDGE

The Baker County court urges the Congress to authorize the development of

the Baker Valley project, upper division, as a necessary facility for the agricultural interests involved and for the general welfare of the public.

The interest of valley farmers and ranchers in the development of supplemental

water dates back many years. The present project enthusiasm is the culmination of thorough study and discussion at the grassroots. It was brought to a

formal position September 4, 1956, when the court officially declared the Baker

Valley Irrigation District organized. This action was taken by Judge Lloyd Rea

(myself) and Commissioners R. M. Phipps and Gill C. Wright after public petition

by 53 landowners followed by the formal public hearing and election at which

the vote on behalf of the districts was 47 yes and 1 no.

The county court feels that there is solid support by the residents of this

irrigation district for the project as envisioned in the present Baker Valley report

and we are pleased to represent Baker County in support of these people.

The lower Powder division project works at the Thief Valley, providing supplemental water to our lower Powder Valley has been beneficial and the contribution

of this area to the stability of the county has been notable. The fine project on

Burnt River with a storage facility at Unity likewise has been a major factoe

through the years in providing a backbone to the great livestock economy around

which the entire southern portion of the county is built. We want to commend

the ranchers and farmers who had the vision and energy to bring these projects

into being, and the Congress and agencies who developed and authorized these

beneficial public works.

On behalf of the county court I want to commend, to the Congress, the officers

of the Baker Valley Irrigation District who are submitting statements and providing this committee with information in urging authorization of the Baker Valley

project. These men are successful ranchers and farmers, representing all phases

of valley agriculture. Skilled farmers, vigorous men, with long years of ranching

ahead of them, they have been delegated by the fellow residents of the district

to see the Baker project through to fruition. Their faith in the project and the

authority by which they speak for their neighbors is certainly the most experienced

testimony one could wish for that the project will be beneficial to the agriculture

of Baker Valley, that the plan is sound, and the water development to implement

their operations is necessary. •

As a county court we are close to the economy of this area. Throughout a

period of years we have seen a change in many phases of this economy that makes

it more important than ever to strengthen the agricultural segment upon which so

much of the burden of government and our social and community life falls. As

you know, historically, even up till several years after the last war, dredge mining

for gold in the upper reaches of Sumpter Valley on Powder River gradually reduced

farming acres to waste. Much of this tremendous acreage is now in county

ownership, foreclosed for taxes. If we can in part make up for this depreciation

of our economy it is important that we do so. The Baker project will in fact tend

to do this on the same Powder River.

The economy of this county has been further strained by the gradual reduction

in the volume of lumber industry activity. The narrow-gage logging railroad that

at one time extended from Baker, up Powder River through the very reservoir

land of the proposed Mason Dam under this Baker project, was abandoned after

the war and its passing is testimony that our economy now must depend upon

other things. We as public officials know that much of this dependence is now on

agriculture.

We are particularly impressed that under the proposed Baker project the county

court will not be burdened with the necessity of building new roads and serving

new communities. This project will supplement the existing ranches and the

existing lands which are already served by adequate county roads and highways,

by existing fine new schools and by present utilities and public services. It will

not disrupt the community in any way.

The proposed reservoir area is served by a fine paved State highway, making it

possible for its multiple benefits in the way of recreation to be enjoyed without

major access problems. The proposed acreages to be served by the supplemental

and additional water are already adjacent to a modern system of county roads

that network Baker Valley from north to south and from east to west. School

buses already serve the entire district affected, as does a mail route. Likewise,

the county already assures winter access by snow removal in these areas when

weather makes this necessary.
18 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

Rather than expanding our problems and those of agriculture, we of the county court are certain that the proposed project will strengthen and stabilize these ranching and farming operations which are so vital in the maintenance of our

economy.

STATEMENT OF ALVIN WARD, RANCHER, AND CHAIRMAN, BAKER VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, BAKER, OREG.

I am chairman of the Baker Valley Irrigation District on the Powder River in Baker, Oreg. My occupation and entire livelihood is derived as a farmer.

Irrigation in this area started around 1870 by simple diversions from Powder River to improve the native wild hay meadows. The Union Pacific Railroad was built through the valley in 1884 and served as an impetus to the expansion of the first and still surviving industries, agriculture, lumbering, and mining. However,

the level of settlement and development, except for the variation resulting from the change from the horse to machinery, has remained nearly constant since the turn of the century. One of the greatest factors contributing to this is the com- plete lack of irrigation water after July 1 and in many years June 15. This is an

area with only an average annual precipitation of 11.73 inches. Our county had

a population of 16,175 in 1950, a drop of 2,122 from 1940.

Baker Valley Irrigation District was organized in 1956 by water users interested in fulfilling a 32-year vision of providing a full or supplemental water supply to approximately 18,000 acres of land within the district.

Investigations for the present project report were undertaken in 1957 to update

the report so as to conform to the needs of the legally formed district and to reflect present conditions. The vote tally for our district election was 47 to 1.

It is not felt that application of this supplemental water after July 1 will result in any additions to our Nation's so-called surpluses. In fact, I feel it will reduce

the acreage of cereal grains, and particularly wheat. Wheat is grown now pri- marily because it is one of the few crops that can be produced with only one irri- gation. Our farm income at the present is based almost solely on pastures, livestock, and livestock products. One-half of 1 percent of the district acreage is in row crops and only 10 percent in small grains.

We are capable of irrigating properly as the existing distribution system is established. Some rehabilitation will be necessary. We are prepared to do what is necessary at our own expense.

Mason Dam will enhance the fishing and recreation of this area and has the wholehearted support and endorsement of the Powder River Sportsmens Club of Baker, Oreg. The club has 1,607 members. We expect 50,000 people yearly to visit our reservoir for fishing and boating and picnicking as it is only 16 miles from

U.S. highway 30 at Baker, Oreg. with a paved highway the entire distance. The entire reservoir area is surrounded by a beautifully timbered ponderosa pine stand with level benches affording excellent recreation development opportunities.

Due to the short distance from Baker, excellent boating, fishing, water skiing,

swimming, picnicking, camping, and hunting would all be available, accessible,

and popular activities.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I believe we are asking for a

project worthy of your consideration.

There is a competent irrigation district organized to contract with the Government. We have the land and we have the water, but the water must be stored to enable full season use. Our farmers and ranchers want, and will pay for, this project in accordance with their ability.

Thank you for your courteous time and attention.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. COLTON, BAKER COUNTY RANCHER, BAKER, OREG.

I represent the livestock and farming industries of the Baker Valley Irrigation District. I have lived my entire lifetime on the ranch I now own and operate. It is located in the lower end of the district in an area that is mostly wild meadow hay and pasturelands.

The use of these lands is restricted to such crops because of spring floods which make any tillage of the soil impossible. Any attempts to improve the quality of the existing hay and pasture crops have largely failed because of the almost annual floods which kill the legume plants. The grasses are of poor quality and produce only about 1 ton of hay per acre. During years of worst flooding considerable
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 19

damage is done by the washing in of sediment and debris which makes harvesting

operations difficult and costly.

Almost without exception the irrigation water is gone by the 1st of July leaving

almost 4 months of excellent growing season and inadequate water supply. The

rainfall during this period is very little.

This area is very much the same as I first remember it and I can see no way to

make much improvement without protection from floods and the usage of stored

water. The soils and climate are good and under the right moisture conditions

will produce abundantly.

The upper end of the project area is not flooded except by unusually large

runoffs.

The usage of this land is more diversified but restricted because of the lack of

irrigation water after July 1.

Some grain is grown because such crops do not require late irrigation. With

sufficient water available more of this land would be used for hay and pasture

as this is an excellent livestock producing area if adequate feed is available.

Restrictions upon the usage of Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest

Service rangelands are also making irrigated pasture more in demand. I have

never seen enough irrigated pasture in Baker Valley during the late summer and

fall months to provide adequately for the existing livestock population.

Irrigated pasture would improve the quality of cattle by making possible ft

program of artificial breeding which is not practical under existing range conditions.

Water would help many people with fewer acres to have gardens and dairy

farms.

Almost all of the farms of the district now have buildings, fences and the equipment necessary for farming. The people that live on the land are accustomed to

the climate and soils and market conditions. The increased population would

create no particular problems for them.

Baker County has lost about 15 percent of its peak population because of the

decline in the mining and lumbering industries. A sound agricultural industry

can be made by the building of Mason Dam and is needed to stabilize the economy.

I am sure the landowners are willing and able to assume the costs of supplemental irrigation water.

STATEMENT OF HENRY PEYRON, RAKER COUNTY RANCHER, RAKER, OREG.

I am one of the ranchers in the Baker Valley Irrigation District. My father,

brother, and I operate a family owned hay, grain, and livestock ranch. We have

operated this ranch continually for 44 years during which time water has always

been our number one problem. There have been short water years and long

water years but regardless of the year, no water is available in the best growing

months of July and August.

Under the present flow of Powder River we never know from one water season

to the next just what to expect in the way of irrigation water. Some years we

are able to get over all our land with one irrigation. There have even been years

when two irrigations were possible but then there have also been years when there

has been no irrigation water.

Mason Dam will eliminate the possibility of crop failures and add much to the

stability of our operation. With a reliable source of water, the quantity and

quality of all our production would be greatly improved. Since our principal

operation is livestock, this production improvement will be utilized primarily in

the livestock phase of our operation. Although farm benefits will be important

results of Mason Dam, there are others that may be equally beneficial to the area.

Flood control and recreation are important among these.

Floods have been one of the ravages of mankind since the beginning of history

and continue so today where rivers go unchecked. Our comparatively small

Powder River is no exception. Floodflows in Powder River are caused by a

combination of snowmelts and rains. Snowmelt is the principal cause. High

flows usually begin in March and in normal years cause inundation of farmlands

bordering the river for approximately 5 miles. In abnormal years higher flows

cause inundations of farmland for approximately 12 miles. During these highflow years the city of Baker does receive considerable damage from the river

overflowing its banks. This damage is to municipal, commercial, and residential

properties. The most recent flood occurred in February 1957. This flood

inundated approximately 16,750 acres, most of which was farmland and developed
20 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

properties in the city of Baker. During this flood the city of Baker suffered

damages of some $200,000 including cost of $55,000 from flood-fight activities.

In the farmland areas outside the city of Baker, damages amounted to some

$50,000.

Damage to farmland downstream from Baker occurs each year, and in the

high-flow years, this damage is more pronounced. This downstream damage

includes the loss of use of pasture due to prolonged inundation and silt deposition,

damage to farm roads, bridges, fences, and irrigation structures and induced

growth of noxious weeds and unpalatable grasses.

Since hay and pasture are basic to our agricultural economy flooded farmland

takes away our very existence. Hay meadows are the principal type of land

flooded. This flooding causes late growth, lowers the quantity and quality of,

hay, and results in a reduced recovery rate on pastures. These lands along the

river then which have the better soils and should be superior producers, are the

ones that are suffering most from flooding. The construction of Mason Dam will

prevent the hazards caused by floods and store this much needed water for use

through the summer growing season when and where it will do the most good.

This writer feels that the ranchers under the project have the factors necessary,

including the ability and willingness to reimburse the Government for the reimbursable costs of the project.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. HESKETH, COUNTY EXTENSION AGENT, BAKER, OREG.

In the hope that a general understanding of the setting of this project—its

location, its geography, its economy, and its people, will be helpful to members

of this committee in their deliberations regarding merits of the upper division,

Baker project, this statement is presented.

Baker County is located in the northeastern part of the State of Oregon. It

is bordered on the north by the Wallowa Mountains

'

on the west and south by

the Blue Mountains, and on the east by the Snake River on the Oregon-Idaho

boundary.

• Within the county are some 1,972,660 acres of land, more than half of which is

publicly owned. Of the total 961,882 acres in private ownership, 807,580 acres

are used for pasture and 154,302 acres are devoted to crops. Of this cropland,

142,000 acres are irrigated to some extent. There are 757 farms averaging

1,173.5 acres in size.

Soil, moisture, and climatic conditions vary greatly within the area of Baker

County. Land is tilled at elevations ranging from 1,500 to 5,000 feet. Annual

precipitation varies from less than 10 inches to some 40 inches at one location.

In most cropland areas it averages somewhere between 11 and 15 inches annually.

The length of the growing season, too, shows much variation and is closely related to elevation end proximity to the higher mountains. Because of this great

diversity in conditions, there are very few crops grown anywhere in Oregon that

cannot be produced somewhere within Baker County.

The economy of Baker County is based almost entirely upon production of the

land—mining, forestry, and agriculture. Of these, forestry and agriculture are

the most important and contribute about equally to the economy. The gross

annual sale of lumber amounts to more than $10 million. Industrial payroll of

the lumber industry has been in excess of $3 million. The estimated gross income from agricultural marketings within the county in 1961 was $13,410,500.

Of this, nearly $10 million was from the sale of livestock and livestock products.

Cropland of Baker County is located primarily in a number of large fertile

valleys surrounded by timbered mountains or sage brush range. In the case of

the rangeland, livestock grazing often affords the only possible use. Livestock

production is, therefore, the principle agricultural enterprise of the county. Of

the 757 operating units, 600 are classified as beef cattle operations. Typically

these livestock producers utilize private or public grazing land throughout the

summer and use their cropland for the production of winter feed. Since most

cattle sales (35,000 to 45,000 head annually) involve weaner calves marketed in

the fall or winter, very little fattening is done and the feed needed is principally

hay. Very little grain is produced anywhere in the county and this, for the most

part, only in forage crop rotation programs or on land where irrigation water

supplies are such as to permit only early irrigation and thus only one cutting of

hay per season. Grain is produced on these lands because it can be grown with

one irrigation and under these conditions is a relatively high return crop.

Agricultural production, even upon the cropland within the various valleys,

absolutely depends upon the artificial application of irrigation water. The
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 21

difference between native grazing land producing several hundred pounds of

forage per acre per season, and cropland producing several tons, on.the same basis,

is the availability pf irrigation water. Often there is nothing more than a barbed

wire fence separating one such field from the other. Perhaps as great and important as these differences in volume of production, are differences in quality of

production. Laboratory analysis of both types of forage made by Oregon State

University show actual differences in crude protein contents of as much as 12.2

percent.

It is estimated that there are 400,000 acre-feet of water originating annually

within the boundaries of Baker County. In spite of the very obvious need and

active demand for this water, less than 30 percent of the supply is utilized. This

is because of the early seasonal runoff which leaves 2 to 3 months of the most productive growing season without adequate supplies for irrigation. The economic

consequence of this waste has long been recognized and a great deal of effort and

expense have been devoted toward preservation and effective use of this valuable

resource. The 16,429 acres below Unity Reservoir on Burnt River and 7,320

acres below Thief Valley Reservoir on Powder River provide vivid proof of what

storage for late season use can mean to the development and economic well-being

of an area. Efforts have been directed toward construction of similar storage

facilities on the Powder River above Baker and Bowen Valleys for nearly 30 years.

The balance and stability of Baker County's economy is evident in its population statistics. In 1960, total population of the county was 17,180. About onethird of this (5,431) was rural. In 1920, total population was 17,929. Over this

entire 40-year period these figures have varied by less than 2,500 persons and the

balance between urban residents and the rural population these serve, has remained nearly the same. This population stability and the relative isolation of

many areas does not, however, imply any degree of backwardness. The general

educational level of residents throughout the county is high and their progressiveness is evident in all phases of civic, educational, and vocational endeavor. Baker

County was one of the first four Oregon counties to voluntarily achieve complete

reorganization and consolidation of its public schools. It is 1 of 8 of Oregon's 36

counties to have yet achieved this objective under the State's most recent reorganization enabling laws. This has resulted in a reduction from 87 school districts in 1930 to 4 districts in 1961.

In the field of agriculture the progessiveness of Baker County farmers and

ranchers is also evident. Records show that in the 5-year period, 1956 through

1960, 892 producers participated in the agricultural stabilization and conservation

program. During this period vegetative cover was established or improved on

more than 15,000 acres, and more than 81,000 acres have benefited from the

establishment or improvement of irrigation and drainage facilities. These improvements have all been made on privately owned land.

Baker Valley, the area most immediately affected by the project proposal under

consideration, is the most nearly geographically centered of all crop-producing

valley areas of the county. More than half of the county's population is also

concentrated in this area. The city of Baker, located at the southern end of the

valley with a population in excess of 10,000 serves a wholesale trade area approximately 125 miles in radius. About 40 percent of the labor force is employed in

the extractive industries of agriculture, forestry, and mining. Trade and service

industries employ most of the remaining 60 percent.

Transportation facilities in Baker Valley are excellent. The main line of the

Union Pacific Railroad traverses the entire valley from southeast to northwest.

U.S. Highway No. 30 follows the Old Oregon Trail throughout the length of the

valley and connects with several State highways. West Coast Airlines also serves

the area and connects with transcontinental airlines at Boise, Pendleton, and

Spokane.

The type of irrigating established in Baker Valley by the first settlers in the

1870's has been continued to the present time. At the turn of the century farmers

began to improve the native hay meadows by seeding improved grass and legume

varieties on the better drained slopes. Except for this trend toward increased

production of forage per acre there has been little change in the general land-use

pattern.

The land is irrigated by flooding during the spring runoff through numerous

individual and partnership ditches diverting water from Powder River, its west

side tributaries, and several sloughs. Distribution of this water is administered

by the county water master. Until 1956 there were no organized irrigation districts. Since no adequate storage facilities exist, the amount of water applied
22 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

and the length of the irrigation season depend entirely upon the extent of the

natural runoff. The season of this natural runoff usually ends by early July.

This irratic irrigation water supply pattern has resulted in water use practices

which have limited the agricultural development of much of the valley area.

Correction of this situation is entirely dependent upon the obtainance of adequate

water supplies and distribution control.

It is felt that the multipurpose facility proposed in the Baker project upper

division report will materially benefit the population and entire economy in a

large area of the Pacific Northwest.

STATEMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER SPORTSMEN'S CLUB OF BAKER, OREG.

Powder River Sportsmen's Club is one of the largest and most active sports,

conservation, and wildlife clubs in the Northwest. Its major functions in the

areas of big game, fish, public lands, water resources, conservation, and recreation

are accomplished by local committees; but it is also affiliated with the Oregon

Wildlife Federation.

Local membership in 1961 reached 1,411 and it has been growing at the rate of

about 200 to 300 per year.

Interest by the club in Mason Dam project dates back many years but was

stimulated following release of the present multiple-use project report by the

Bureau. The club's water resources committee was assigned the task of cooperating with landowners and agencies in promoting and supporting this development.

Pressures from all sides in our Nation demand that water resource developments

be given high priority wherever a potential development and a feasible plan can

be brought together. The yield and flow characteristics of the Powder River

dictate a need for water storage upon this stream. Eighty-four percent of the

runoff floods away in the few spring months and from the standpoint of the fishery

and recreation, Powder River's present value is nil. Under the Mason Dam

project these resources would be tremendously valuable. This sportsmen's club

believes the evaluations contained in the report are very conservative.

Baker is headquarters for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The report

by this forest just released shows recreation use reached 243,000 visitations in

1961, an increase of 30 percent in 1 year alone.

Only by properly preparing for the impact of this rate of increase in recreation

can the demands be met and conservation measures be taken. Estimates of

recreation values under the Baker Valley project are currently conservative, we

feel. By the time the reservoir is a reality under the most expeditious of schedules

its recreation use will far surpass all present forecasts.

Features that make the proposed reservoir attractive to recreation are: (1) Its

proximity to the county's population center for local patronage; its relative

location as a seasonal retreat close to the hotter districts of southeastern Oregon,

eastern Washington, and Idaho; (2) its location upon a hard-surfaced State

highway; (3) its moderate elevation assuring long-season advantages; (4) its

topography and physical setting of great attractiveness, located in sight of the

high peaks of the southeastern end of the Elkhorn Range of the Blue Mountains,

well sheltered from winds and providing forested cover upon adjacent slopes; (5)

its proximity to interesting back country having big game resources and considerable pioneer lore in old gold-mining camps; (6) its location immediately

below many thousands of acres of gold-dredged lands, most of it in public title

with great wildlife and recreation-use potential; and (7) its size which will provide

ideal boating and water skiing conditions.

Fishery people have told this club that the trout potential of Mason Dam pool

is such that the fishery will be fabulous. Water temperatures are expected to be

ideal for maximum growth of this species and, based upon public expressions by

Oregon fishery people, sportsmen look forward to the creation of this pool with

great anticipation.

The project report and subsequent negotiations relative to the fishery and

recreation have been accomplished with an awareness of this sportsmen's club.

The agreement relative to minimum flows in sharing critical-year storage deficiencies between the fishery and the agricultural purposes of the project is an

example. Furthermore, recreation and agriculture have worked together in

citing in this pending legislation the expectation that long-range recreation policy

regarding land acquisitions at the reservoir can be worked out.

It is the opinion of this club that the project is a fine example of a multiplepurpose plan and that the effort behind its authorization and construction exemplifies the close cooperation that can exist between major economic purposes of
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 23

such water developments and the essential conservation, fishery, recreation, and

flood control purposes which are public responsibilities.

This club hopes that the Congress can authorize the Baker project (upper

division) early and that final planning can go forward immediately.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McBroom, may I ask you a question?

STATEMENT OF JAMES T. MeBROOM, CHIEF, DIVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. McBRoom. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. On the Mann Creek project there is allocated

$632,000 to fish and wildlife and $125,000 to recreation.

On the first project there was a total of $100,000 on the two.

Mr. McBRoom. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why is there eight times as much in this when the

acreage is not very much greater?

Mr. McBRoom. You are speaking of the Mann Creek project, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. McBRoom. On the Mann Creek project the total allocation to

fish and wildlife consisted of the specific costs only. In that case there

is planned to have a fishery at the reservoir and a fishtrap below the

reservoir. No part of the other costs of the project are allocated to

fish and wildlife because the benefits are not sufficient to justify it.

There are certain losses to fish and wildlife in comparison to the

present situation which would result from a project and in these the

benefits are small.

The CHAIRMAN. What about this one?

Mr. McBRoom. In this one, the benefits are there. In this case

the benefits are all to the fishery, not to the wildlife. There is this

very small fishery there now, very unimportant, but with the construction of this reservoir and the improvement of conditions in the stream

below it, there will be sufficient benefits to justify this kind of an

allocation.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a large reservoir to be constructed here?

Mr. McBRoom. Yes, sir; it will be about 630 acres, I believe, a

minimum average area. Then there will be 12 or 13 miles of stream

below.

The CHAIRMAN. How much larger than the one on the Mann Creek

project in order of magnitude? Several times as large, four or five

times, two or three times?

Mr. McBRoom. I think it is similar, but the difference is that the

Mann Creek project now has a good fishery on the reservoir site and

where the stream or reservoir will be big on this project the fishery will

not be as good. It doesn't amount to as much.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Palmer, if we can get you back again,

tell us about this formula for the acreage limitation which would vary

from 160-acre limitation.

t.1/1 I Y.F.4.44.

JUN 5 19 62 "

411-AN
24 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

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 RECREATION—Resumed

Mr. PALMER. I mentioned, I believe, while you were out, Mr. Chairman, that this is recommended as a departmental amendment to the

Senate bill.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not in the bill.

Mr. PALMER. No. As I recall it comes up as an amendment to

the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. It is in your report?

Mr. PALMER. It is in our report. It is on page 4 of the report.

The CHAIRMAN. Just briefly, what do you propose doing?

Mr. PALMER. We propose computing the size of the farm with

120 acres of class 1 equivalent, then adjusting the other land classes

by seventy-five hundredths of an acre for class 2, fifty-five hundredths

for class 3, and thirty-eight hundredths of an acre for class 4.

The CHAIRMAN. How much class 4 land is in this project?

Mr. PALMER. A good bit of the heavy bottom land is.

The CHAIRMAN. That green?

Mr. PALMER. No, that is the land that is irrigated, but the bottom

land along the river in that particular area. It is very heavy soil,

Senator, and it is used primarily for grass and hay production.

The CHAIRMAN. So we could have more than twice as much, three

times as much?

Mr. PALMER. In terms of acres. Stating it a little bit differently,

an acre of class 1 land would be an acre. For an acre of class 2 land,

you would have to have 1.33 of surface acres to have the production

potential after class 1, 1.82 of class 3, and 2.64 of class 4.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true in a great many irrigation projects,

isn't it?

Mr. PALMER. This is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What are you doing about those? Take the

Garrison project of the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. PALMER. This is one of the things, if it is agreeable, I would like

to back into a little bit.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's take his project up there in North Dakota.

Isn't there a good deal of land that is other than class 1 land in that?

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir; there is, and this is why I have to give you

this explanation.

The CHAIRMAN. DO you propose that for his project?

Mr. PALMER. We would propose that for his project.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you?

Mr. PALMER. I don't think SO.

The CHAIRMAN. The Garrison project is on the Senate Calendar.

Mr. PALMER. May I give you a little explanation? I think we will

clarify this.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. PALMER. I do not disagree with what Senator Morse said, nor

with what I am sure you are trying to get at. The aim and policy

objective of the Bureau of Reclamation is to provide four things.

One is enough land in a farm unit for a man to pay the cost of producing the crop and, two, enough to pay the cost of retaining the land,
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 25

his taxes and reasonable interest on borrowing, and three, to provide a

reasonable family living, and then, four, to pay the project operation

of maintenance cost and anything that is above that is returned for

management.

If he is a better manager he makes it a little better. If this is the

long-range objective and if this is the thing for which we live, then

the suggestion that you have a general bill that would submit a

formula to the Congress that would be applicable everywhere else

would not fit, because these figures I just gave you, these percentages,

wouldn't fit, for example, in class 3 lands in California, or in class 3

lands in the lower Rio Grande.

The CHAIRMAN. You get five cuttings of alfalfa a year or six?

Mr. PALMER. This is the point exactly. So what we have tried to

do as we have come to Congress with these specific recommendations,

in each instance we have tried to determine what size of farm made

up by what kind of land classes will net out these objectives.

This is not a new procedure. We came to Congress in the Seedskeedee project in Wyoming with substantially the same formula.

We came to Congress with substantially the same formula on the

east bench development in Montana, and then, of course, you are

well aware of the other attempts that have been made to set an upper

limit.

The CHAIRMAN. Now about the Garrison project; it is on the

calendar. Your office gave you support on that. Do we have a

similar problem?

Mr. PALMER. No, sir. It is my belief that we have no trouble on

the Garrison project because 160 acres of any of the land that is in

the project that was termed to be irrigable would be enough land to

achieve these objectives.

That was the point, that a formula that would fit on the Riverton

project, which you asked about earlier, might not be the formula that

we would recommend for Baker or vice versa.

Maybe on the Riverton, if as a result of this analysis and view we

were going to have to run this, in all probability we will come back to

the Congress with a formula and we will support that formula on the

basis of the ability of the operations under the formula to achieve the

objectives that I just got through stressing, so the departmental

position is that we would like to be able to assure the committees

that we are not going to be back up here 10 years from now asking for

provision to amend a contract, because we have saddled on these

people alone the heaviest lands in the bottom of the valley, and an

unconscionable load that they can't bear, if we aks them to pay from

a given production basis the same amount you ask the people in the

better lands to pay from the same area basis rather than production

basis, so these then are the justifications for the amendment that we

have proposed.

In terms of specifics, you could take a farm unit, since nearly all

of these do not occur in pure class. It has variations on it. You

could take 20 acres of class 1 land, and 40 acres of class 2 land, 30

acres of class 3, and 60 acres of class 4 which would add up to 150

surface acres, but it would only net the man under this formula,

118.2 acres of class 1 equivalent land.

In other words, this isn't a frontal attack or any breach of the

long time-honored, family-size-farm concept. It is a full, recognition
26 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

of the family-size-farm concept in recognizing that you have to have a

difference in size of farm by land class to make it possible to achieve

these objectives that I have stressed.

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Palmer, do you think a project approach

is the best way to handle this?

Mr. PALMER. We have given this matter a great deal of attention,

Senator. We have pondered about it a lot.

pi We have tried all kinds of formulas. We believe that, as Senator

Anderson does, as he has expressed himself, that under modern

farming conditions the old time-honored, 160-acre limitation in and of

itself does not meet all conditions.

If you are going to adhere to the family-size concept, and this is

something which I firmly believe, I think you have to allow some

flexibility as you move from the high mountain valleys down to the

more productive coastal plains and lower valleys and as you move

from deep medium texture to alluvial profiles into highly impervious

like residuals and things of this nature.

I think you shouldn't be straitjacketed by an arbitrary limit that

is only one of the factors that controls productions and income, so we

have felt that until we get more experience on this, and until we are a

little more secure on its ourselves, we would prefer to come to Congress

on a piece-by-piece, project-by-project basis until we can devise some

formula that will fit uniformly.

The CHAIRMAN. It is easier, but it isn't quite as satisfactory, is it?

Mr. PALMER. That is correct. We are also aware of the fact that

in a sense we are sharing some of our burdens and pushing them off

to you.

The CHAIRMAN. What language did you suggest for the bill?

Mr. PALMER. It says on the proposed amendment:

Any lands in the upper division of the Baker project, Oregon, which are held

in private ownership by a person whose holdings exceed the equivalent of 120

acres of class 1 land shall, to the extent that he exceed that acreage, be deemed

excess lands. No water shall be furnished to such excess lands from, through; or

by means of project works unless (1) the owner's total holdings do not exceed

160 irrigable acres or (2) said owner shall have executed a valid recordable contract

with respect to the excess in like manner as provided in the third sentence of

section 46 of the Act of May 25, 1926. In computing the equivalent of 120 acres

of class 1 land under the first sentence of this section, each acre of class 2 land

shall be counted as 0.75 of an acre, each acre of class 3 land shall be counted as

0.55 of an acre, and each acre of class 4 land shall be counted as 0.38 of an acre.

I have eliminated the references to the United States Code.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the land ownership pattern in this? How

many farms are there?

Mr. NELSON. Sir, there are 148 ownerships now averaging 118

acres and of that there are 27, in 1938, that are in excess of 160 acres.

Of that 27 there are 13 that are in excess of 320.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this a community property State?

Mr. NELSON. Yes, it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you are only concerned with a few, aren't

you?

Mr. PALMER. That is correct. It is not a massive program.

The CHAIRMAN. How many in excess of 320?

Mr. PALMER. Thirteen.

Mr. NELSON. I believe you asked a little earlier about how much of

the land was in lower classes. Over half, about 9,700 acres of the
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 27

whole project area is class 4. Another 3,400 acres is class 3, so you

have about 12,000 out of the 18,000 that are in the lower classes.

The CHAIRMAN. If a man could own 320 acres and still stay within

the normal limit by taking class 4 land, he would get up to a thousand

acres or more, couldn't he?

Mr. PALMER. 632, sir.

Senator BURDICK. 632.

Mr. NELSON. Correct.

The CHAIRMAN. What was that statement-38 percent, isn't it?

Senator BURDICK. A limit of 120 acres, though.

The CHAIRMAN. 632. I would be happy if you would try to come

in with some general language that would make it possible for all

these things to be approved, including Garrison.

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, we reduced the acreage so much

in Garrison that we now just have the better land left.

Mr. PALMER. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. You don't anticipate that is going to be a permanent situation?

Senator BURDICK. In my lifetime, I guess.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Are there additional questions? Have

you any additional witnesses?

Thank you very much.

Mr. PALMER. Senator, if you would like, here is the similar language.

The CHAIRMAN. Before we close the record, I will just say, in order

that there may be complete information available to the committee

members, two precedents for acreage limitations, based on land class

productivity detailing with the east bench unit of the Missouri

River Basin and the Seedskadee project in Wyoming will be put in

the record at this point.

(The exhibit follows:)

PRECEDENTS FOR ACREAGE LIMITATION BASED ON LAND CLASS PRODUCTIVITY

EAST BENCH UNIT, MRBP

SEC. 2. Any lands of the East Bench unit which are held in private ownership

by a person whose holdings of bench lands alone or of bench and valley lands

combined exceed the equivalent of one hundred and thirty acres of class 1 lands

shall, to the extent they exceed that acreage, be deemed excess lands. No water

shall be furnished to such excess lands from, through, or by means of East Bench

unit works unless (1) the owner's total holdings do not exceed one hundred and

sixty irrigable acres or (2) said owner shall have executed a valid recordable contract with respect to the excess in like manner as provided in the third sentence

of section 46 of the Act of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 636, 649, 43 U.S.C., sec. 423e).

In computing "the equivalent of one hundred and thirty acres of class 1 land"

under the first sentence of this section, each acre of class 2 land shall be counted

as thirteen-fourteenths of an acre if in the valley and as thirteen-sixteenths of

an acre if on the bench, each acre of class 3 land shall be counted as thirteenseventeenths of an acre if in the valley and as thirteen twenty-seconds of an acre

if on the bench, and each acre of class 4—P land shall be counted as thirteen

forty-fourths of an acre (S. 977 (H.R. 4410, H. Rept. 783), Public Law 112, 85th

Cong., 1st sess.).

SEEDSKADEE PROJECT, WYOMING

SEC. 4. Irrigation water.—No water shall be furnished from, through, or by

means of project works to lands which are held in private ownership by any

one owner in excess of the equivalent of one hundred and sixty acres of class 1

lands unless the owner thereof shall have executed a valid recordable contract
28 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

with respect to the excess in like manner as is provided in the third sentence of section 46 of the Act of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 636, 649) [43 U.S.C. 423e]. In computing "the equivalent of one hundred and sixty acres of class 1 lands" under this section, each acre of class 2 land shall be counted as eighty-eight one hundredths of an acre, each acre of class 3 land shall be counted as seventy-one

one-hundredths of an acre, and each acre of class 4 land shall be counted as forty-three one-hundredths of an acre (S. 3448, Public Law 797, 85th Cong., 2d sess.).

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will adjourn.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to call.)
APPENDIX

(The following communications were ordered printed in this hearing

record:)

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We would like to bring to your attention the

recreational potential that could be developed at the proposed Mason Dam site,

located 16 miles southwest of Baker on State Highway No. 220.

This dam would be built across Powder River where there is now good trout

fishing early in the spring and until late summer, at which time the water gets

too low for good fishing.

The State game commission has made traffic counts of from 300 to 500 fishermen using this water from the city limits of Baker to the proposed site.

If this project is approved it will greatly improve the fishing in this area as

there would be a constant level flow of water in the river below the dam. In

addition to backing up water into a pool which would be zW miles in length and

to 1 mile wide, this pool would make an excellent recreational spot for many

types of fishing, boating, water skiing, swimming, and other water sports.

Due to the paved highway and the short time that it requires for people from

Baker to reach this area, many business men and women are already inquiring

into possible locations for weekend and summer homesites.

As this dam would be located in a beautiful, undeveloped area with pine and

fir timber surrounding it, we feel it would be the most desirable family recreational

area in eastern Oregon.

Sincerely,

BAKER COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

Baker, Oreg., March 1, 1961.

IRA D. STAGGS, President.

OREGON RECLAMATION CONGRESS,

Huntington, Oreg., February 1, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR: The Baker Valley Irrigation District embraces an area in a

mountain valley adjoining the city of Baker. The agricultural economy of the

area is in process of a transitory change from wild meadow hay and feed grain

crops to potato, beef, and tame grass pasture and hay production.

Restrictions of public domain and private range in the area have created

interest in crops that will provide year around forage for the large livestock industry of the valley. Favorable cost-to-benefit ratio shown in the investigation

firmly support the urgent need for the proposed Mason Dam project.

Oregon Reclamation Congress unanimously approves authorization of its

construction.

Respectfully submitted.

HAROLD HURSH, President.

29
30 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR MR. ANDERSON: I sincerely hope that your committee will give favorable

consideration to the proposed Mason Dam on Powder River. It is generally

conceded in this section that such a dam would be of material benefit and will

bring into production considerable land that should be in production and will

give late water rights to farms that are handicapped by the lack of moisture in

the last months of summer and the first months of fall.

Yours very truly,

FEBRUARY 9, 1961.

RIVES WALLER.

BAKER PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION,

Baker, Oreg., March 6, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We endorse the construction of Mason Dam as

being a very worthwhile project to store 100,000 acre-feet of water from Powder

River, and control floods and furnish supplemental water for 18,000 acres of land

under the Baker Valley Irrigation District.

During spring and early summer the flood water covers large portions of the

project land from 1 to 3 feet deep for a period of 2 to 4 weeks. The cold snow

water shortens the growing season, and does great damage to the lands, killing all

legumes in the meadows.

The dam will recover the most valuable national resources in our area, as this

water cannot be used elsewhere. The floodwaters flow into the Snake and on

into the Columbia and then into the ocean and are wasted.

By July 1 each year water in Powder River is all gone leaving 70 days of our

best growing season without water for irrigation. Construction of this project

would add 40 percent to production of the valley and would add greatly to the

economy of the landowners, as well as to the county as a whole.

The reservoir created by the dam would make a beautiful recreational area, the

best in all eastern Oregon, being entirely surrounded by pine and fir forests, on a

paved highway only 18 miles from Baker and the Old Oregon Trail Highway.

We have financed a large percentage of farmers and livestock operators in

Baker County on a year-round basis for the past 27 years, ever since we were

organized under the Farm Credit Act. For the last few years the financing has

amounted to several million dollars annually without a loss or foreclosure.

If this project is constructed the water users will be amply able to pay all charges

as we understand will be specified in the contract between the water users and the

Government.

Thanking you in advance for your early consideration of the project, I am,

Yours very truly,

EARL HEIZER, Manager.

Re Mason Dam project.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: For more than 40 years our firm has been doing business with

Baker County farmers and ranchers and we naturally maintain a keen interest in

their problems and welfare. Therefore, we are most pleased to learn that the

Mason Dam proposal is coming before your committee for consideration.

Aside from the flood control and recreational benefits, we feel that the irrigational water from this project is the key to general prosperity in this valley. A

longer, more dependable supply of irrigational water is the difference between

success and failure for our cattleman, hay producer, grain grower, and row-crop

men, operating on marginal land.

We sincerely hope that your committee will endorse this project as proposed.

Very truly yours,

BAKER MILL & GRAIN CO.,

Baker, Oreg., April 10, 1961.

T. D. HENRY, President.
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 31

WAYNE PHILLIPS SE SONS,

Baker, Oreg., March 20, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Being a landowner under both the Baker Valley

project and the Thief Valley Irrigation District, I hope you will look with favor

toward the Baker project as it is a district which produces hay and pasture for the

growing of beef cattle which is the principal source of income of the county.

We do not grow crops which are in surplus, such as wheat and corn.

The runoff of spring waters which would be stored is very valuable for the

middle and late summer for irrigation purposes. Our streamflow is diminished

by late June or early July, leaving the best part of our growing season without

irrigation water, causing our crops and pastures to dry up in the early fall. Also,

the spring runoff causes excessive damage to the lands, both in the Baker Valley

and downstream in what is known as the Lower Powder Valley. By storing the

spring flow it would alleviate great damage which causes crop failures of the

meadows and hay grown in the lower Powder Valley.

Thanking you for your favorable report on the project, I am,

Very truly yours,

WAYNE PHILLIPS, SR.

THE RECORD-COURIER,

Baker, Oreg., March 14, 1962.

To the Honorable Committee:

This newspaper, the local paper to the county and area concerned in the

Baker project, favors authorization of this reclamation facility.

The editor has served as a member of the Oregon Water Resources Board and

feels that the Baker Valley development proposed to fully utilized the waters of

the upper reaches of Powder River would be one of the stronger links in the whole

reclamation picture of our State.

Baker Valley agriculture is predominantly livestock, and always will be. The

changing livestock production picture is placing increased emphasis upon the

interrelationship of valley ranches and the high wild ranges and upon overall

efficiency. The stability that full water supplies can render irrigated agriculture

is vital to our local livestock economy, to the full utilization of the higher lands

and to our whole economic community.

Our experience shows that the project is economically sound, based upon costs

and benefits as determined in the amended report. After working a number of

years with landowners in developing a supplemental water plan and.the district

organization, I feel the landowners are wholeheartedly behind the program in the

district. Experience of the last few short-water years has more than ever convinced them it is futile to continually face the exigencies of critically deficient

natural-flow water supplies. The project will be a great boon to the district

landowners and I can foresee no detrimental effect upon any other, whose water

rights naturally will not be affected. The taking area of the reservoir is a very

minor factor, indeed, in the overall picture.

From the standpoint of flood control and recreation, it is certain that the

project report is very conservative. The Mason Dam facility will be real flood

insurance. It will provide one of the area's best trout fisheries and some of the

finest recreation water. Project operation is such that it will be compatible

with all these values and maximum water utilization.

Presently, the community, because of depressed lumber industry tendencies,

needs the stimulus of such a project as Mason Dam. We look forward to early

authorization and prompt planning and fulfillment of the Baker Valley district's

project.

Respectfully submitted.

BYRON C. BRINTON,

Editor-Publisher.
32 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SIR: For years many of we stockmen have been interested in the building

of the Mason Dam, for the purpose of reservoiring the early run of high waters

of Powder River which often floods a large portion of our Baker Valley rendering

much of this fertile area unfit for the production of anything but a poor quality of wild hay or slough grass.

In recent years much of our national forest has been closed to the grazing of

livestock, other areas closed to grazing for military purposes, hydroelectric projects on Snake River, recreation parks, and watersheds for city water supplies. This all results in quite a shortage of grazing land and pasture and leaves us with

an overproduction of hay. If it were possible to reservoir this early run of water,

preventing this early flooding of our valley, and the water made available later in the summer, much of this land growing wild hay could be developed to produce

good long-season pasture.

We have been in the livestock business in Baker Valley for over 40 years and

have never seen or heard tell of a surplus of irrigated pasture.

It has been my observation that all good irrigated pasture countries such as

the Long Valley or McCall Districts of Idaho and most of the Ladino clover

areas of California are prosperous districts with cheap production costs.

Beef or lamb can be produced on such pastures for a cost not to exceed 12

cents per pound; in the feedlots it costs 18 cents or more to put on a pound, with

the average above 20 cents per pound. Nearly all cattle and lambs raised in our

Western States are in the feeder class and are sold to be finished in the various

feeding areas or States. Beef, lamb, and wool are being imported so we evidently have room to expand in the production of these commodities.

It is my understanding that our committee from Baker Valley will be in Washington soon. Your careful consideration of this project will be appreciated by

me and almost all the citizens of this area.

Thank you for this consideration.

Yours truly,

A. S. BOYD & CO.,

Baker, Oreg.

ARTHUR T. BOYD, President.

DURKEE, OREG., March 27, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SIR: This letter is written to bring to your attention the necessity of

the proposed Mason Dam, and the Baker Valley Irrigation District on the

Powder River.

Most of my life has been spent in the ranching business in Durkee Valley on

the Burnt River, a sister stream to the Powder River on which the Mason Dam

is proposed to be built.

Let me take you back to the days before our storage reservoir was built, when

the Burnt River went on a rampage every spring. The spring runoff went by

in a week or two of turbulent muddy water washing out roads and fences and

carrying down trees, dead cows, and other debris to deposit on our fields in

exchange for an acre or two of good land that it gouged out at every bend.

We watched the river closely and as soon as it subsided to its regular channel,

we put in our dams and started irrigating as we must "get wet" while there was

water in the river for it would soon be dry. By the end of June it was down to

a trickle and later in the summer only a series of stagnant, moss-covered pools

too foul for a horse to drink.

How much better it is now with the stored water. No need now to irrigate

too early when the ground is still cold or to irrigate too heavily hoping to store

precious water in the soil against the day when there would be no more water.

No more floods followed by drought but a steady, dependable, controlled flow

of clear, clean water.

And so it will be in the Baker Valley when the Mason Dam is built.

Please give this project every consideration.

Your truly,

THOS. W. SHEEHY,

Master, Durkee Grange No. 658.
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 33

HOD. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Senate Office

Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We appreciate the interest of your committee in

the authorization of find the eventual development of the Mason Dam by the

Bureau of Reclamation on the upper reaches of the Powder River in Baker

County, Oreg.

There is no single development on the Powder River watershed which will yield

such meaningful returns to the entire county where 80 percent of our yearly

income derives from the basic livestock industry.

While our own operation, situated near Keating some 20 miles downstream,

does not embrace land under the Baker Valley project, we and our neighbors

expect tangible benefits from the Mason project on at least three fronts.

1. The Mason Dam will eliminate the yearly flood hazards and demonstrable

damage. Several years ago with the Army Engineers from Walla Walla, Wash.,

we arrived at a $1,000 yearly damage figure on our home ranch through which the

river flows for about 1 mile. Aside from soil losses, along the river channel, it is

impossible to hold a stand of palatable meadow grass and legume species in our

bottom lands. The elimination of flood threat could lead to farming up to the

riverbanks.

2. Irrigation of some 18,000 acres above us would stretch out our present

supplemental supply of irrigation water from the Thief Valley reclamation dam.

This will mean improved soil practices, crop-rotation potentials, and heavier

weight on our stocker and feeder animals each fall.

3. We are plagued with animal diseases which derive from spores which accompany river bottom pastures. If we could institute proper tillage, crop rotation, and other approved soil practices we should be able to achieve more effectual

animal husbandry through reduction of disease losses. I refer to such ailments

as blackleg, foot rot, lumpy jaw, liver fluke, and red water disease. True, we

vaccinate for most of these diseases and attain some protection but we can never

eradicate the threat of disease eruption and severe economic losses until our land

control circumstances improve.

There are other fringe benefits to a project of this sort. More forage means,

for example, a better crop of game birds. Clear water on a steady, reasonable

flow basis means an opportunity for expanded fish culture.

I hope your committee will not be dissuaded by the shopworn thesis advanced

by some that since we have problems of surpluses in some crops, we should not

compound those problems by developing the productive capacity of more lands.

This is a fine argument for those communities and those producers who have it

made. We know that you know that the livestock-based industry does not have

burdensome surpluses. Our commodity is not in Government-financed storage.

We are on a current production-demand basis and want to keep it that way.

We believe, however, that each community must advance through taking advantage of our natural resources and improving our potential, or, through inaction,

we will surely slip backward, while other more favored areas will progress.

Prudent water development is the key to achieving our economic and social

potential, locally and nationally.

Thank you for favorable consideration of the Mason Dam project in Baker

County.

Sincerely yours,

STEWARD & MORRISSEY,

Baker, Oreg., March 29, 1961.

ROBERT J. STEWARD.

BAKER, OREG., February 14, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

HON. CLINTON P. ANDERSON: I am merely writing this letter to express my

opinion on the irrigation project here in Baker County.

I have a farm of 380 acres that is very well located and has some of the best

soil in the country. However, it has developed into black alkali for only one

reason—we do not get enough water to irrigate and wash it down. Therefore,

I can raise only first-class alkali weeds which are of absolutely no value and

cannot be utilized in any manner. Consequently, I would say that it is high
34 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

time that we get down to business and encourage this Mason Dam to get it

developed as soon as humanly possible. Baker Valley could be the spot of the

Northwest, if proper irrigation could be arranged. I am sure it could be done

with the installation of Mason Dam. It would induce industries to this area,

and permit us to raise more extensive and varied crops. There is no need for water

to go down the drain when we have plenty of moisture in the spring of the year

and then in July, August, and September when we really need water there isn't

any. Therefore, I feel it is very urgent that we work hard to restore surplus

water to Baker Valley.

I am not just encouraging this for my own benefit, but everyone concerned.

Sincerely yours,

WM. SCHAAN.

BAKER BRANCH,

THE U.S. NATIONAL BANK OF PORTLAND, OREG.,

Baker, Oreg., August 14, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: For many, many years this bank has been interested

in the Baker Valley irrigation development project commonly known as the

Mason Dam project wherein a dam is proposed to be erected in the Sumpter

area between Sumpter and Baker, its main use being for irrigation purposes for

the Baker Valley. We have always felt that the construction of this project is

of the utmost importance to the welfare of this county, and accordingly to the

entire State of Oregon. We believe the present waste of this valuable natural

resource is inexcusable and that the benefits that will be realized from the project

will far outstrip the cost of construction.

The officers and employees of this bank all join with me in recommending the

construction of this project.

Sincerely,

LESTER D. HANSEN,

Assistant Vice President and Manager.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: As a 30-year resident of Baker County, Oreg., during half of which

time I served as Baker County agricultural agent, I am writing to urge your support of the proposed Mason Dam project for this locality.

There is no question but that the agricultural economy of Baker County has

been held down for many years due to the lack of late season irrigation water.

This is particularly true of the Baker Valley area and other sections of the county

not served by water-impounding dams such as have been provided in the Burnt

River and Lower Powder valleys of the county.

Adequate irrigation water, such as the Mason Dam would provide to the

established irrigated ranches and some new lands under it, would allow for desirable diversification and boost yields of hay and pasture in this basic livestock

area. Late pastures are particularly important in view of the limitations now

placed on range operators. The beef, dairy, and sheep producers all need the

added forage that stored late water would make possible.

Plentiful water would permit diversification on the smaller farm units and the

acreage of such crops as sugarbeets and potatoes, which do well in this area,

could be increased with benefit to all.

Yes, we need the benefits that would come to Baker County with the building

of Mason Dam. As an early advocate and worker for this project I urge you

and your committee to give a favorable report on the Mason Dam project.

Very truly yours,

P. T. FORTNER, President.

FORTNER SUPPLY CO.,

Baker, Oreg., August 14, 1961.
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I wish to express my hope that you will do everything in your power

to expedite any legislation that would make possible the construction of Mason

Dam on Powder River in Baker County, Oreg. This construction would certainly

improve the agricultural picture in this valley and I'm certain that in the near

future that we are apt to need all of the agricultural production that we can

muster.

This project is needed because at the present time there is seldom water for

irrigation after July 4. This dam would enable floodwaters to be held back and

would lessen the downstream damage from high waters.

Very truly yours,

35

BAKER, OREG., August 14, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SIR: In the near future, you will have before your committee for consideration, the authorization for the Mason Dam project on the Upper Powder

River division. As a rancher of this area, I would like to acquaint you with my

thinking about this project.

The committee, in reviewing the proposed project, will note that there is considerable acreage in the valley which is classed as No. 3 and No. 4 land. This is

the type of land which we farm in our livestock operation. I liev and farm the

land on the ranch where I was born, and over the years, I have seen this land reclaimed from alkali by washing it with river water. Production on parts of this

land has been increased by 100 percent or more, and it is an indisputable fact, I'm

sure, that if we had water for late irrigation it could be increased even more.

A problem which is always with us on our lower lands is flooding early in the

spring. Much of the land stands under water for from 4 to 12 weeks each year.

There is no way to use good farming practice unless the runoff water can be conserved for later irrigation by constructing Mason Dam.

We have neighbors who pump water from deep wells for later use and the contrast in production is obvious. The costs of pumping is prohibitive, however,

for our operation.

It is my opinion that in asking for this project we are not asking Congress for

money to further aggravate the farm problem. This water will be used on our

lands only as a supplement. The products we grow are cattle, sheep, hay, and

pasture. Supplemental water would increase the efficiency of our operation,

controlling floodwater would conserve our resources, and the two together would

benefit all our valley, our State, and logically the Nation.

I hope your committee will take a good look (approving) at our request—we

think it is sound and worthy of authorization.

Yours truly,

DICK HAYNES.

MARCH 28, 1961.

FRED J. WARNER.

BAKER, OREG., March 14, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman of Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SIR: As a livestock producer of Baker Valley I urge you to do everything

possible to gain authorization of our Mason Dam project.

I believe irrigation will greatly stabilize the livestock industry and general

economy of this area.

Yours truly,

WILLIAM E. WIDMAN.
36 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

Hon. CLINTON ANDERSON,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SIR: We urge that you do everything possible for the passing of the bill

authorizing construction of the proposed Mason Dam in this session of Congress.

This irrigation project is of grave importance to the economy of our entire area.

The waste of a natural resource so vital to our area could be eliminated by the

construction of this dam.

CALIFORNIA-PACIFIC UTILITIES CO.,

Baker, Oreg., December 13, 1961.

L. G. GRAY, District Manager.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I'111 writing this letter in behalf of the proposed

Mason Dam in Baker Valley. I feel it would be of great benefit to the ranchers

and farmers of this valley. We have floodwater from Powder River which lasts

until the first of July, then the ranchers are left with no irrigation water.

If this water could be stored in the proposed Mason Dam, it would store enough

water for a full supply of water to irrigate all the land that has now only one-half

enough water to grow the crops that could be grown with a full supply of water.

One could grow 50 to 60 percent more hay and grass, which this valley surely

needs to meet the demands for pasture and winter feed for the fine beef and dairy

cattle grown in this valley, as well as other crops that could be grown suitable to.

the soil and climate conditions of Baker Valley.

I have drilled two irrigation wells on my ranch and with the wells as a supplemental water source, I have grown good crops of potatoes and sugarbeets and

when the alfalfa hay is irrigated from wells, I get one extra good cutting of hay

and a good pasture.

The proposed dam would benefit the whole valley, the city of Baker would

benefit from the extra population that would naturally occur when the large farms

would be sold in smaller units and would be farmed in a diversified manner.

The growing of sugarbeets in Baker Valley would by their byproducts, increase

the feeding and finishing our beef cattle instead of shipping the cattle as feeders

to California and other States to be fattened and then shipped back to Oregon as

finished products.

Another reason I feel the Mason Dam, as proposed in the Powder River, should

be built is the conservation of water, something all of us are becoming conscious

of today, and at this time if we of the Baker Valley don't protect our rights to the

water of Powder River, we might lose those rights. As others also know, the

great value of the water that is running to waste down Powder River, therefore,

we ranchers and the city people need the dam on Powder River, the proposed

Mason Dam, to protect our rights to this water.

Yours truly,

BAKER, OREG., February 22, 1961.

CONRAD ALLEN.

COMMERCIAL WELDING CO., INC.,

Baker, Oreg., April 13, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR: As we are steel fabricators of ranch equipment in this area, I

am writing to ask if you would do all possible to help us in this area get the OK

for the construction of the Mason Dam here in Baker County.

We work from 25 to 30 people and we feel that building the Mason Dam would

naturally increase our work and possibly more could be employed. Also, I

would like to point out that more than 90 percent of our employees have expressed
BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON 37

a high degree of enthusiasm regarding the recreational facilities which will be

made available to them as well as to all the other people of eastern Oregon and

surrounding communities.

In closing, we want you to know that we would sincerely appreciate any effort

that you would put forth to help us on the Mason Dam project.

Very truly yours,

JACK FROST, Secretary-Treasurer.

BRITTON EQUIPMENT CO.,

Baker, Oreg., March 14, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR MR. ANDERSON: As a dealer in farm equipment and irrigation supplies,

I have very close association with the farmers and ranchers in Baker Valley.

It is a pathetic situation to see the crops dry out and burn. The alfalfa producing a spotted, skimpy, one-third yield on the second cutting and no third

cutting, due to the fact that our water goes flooding down the river in May and

the early part of June. There is no water in July, August, and September which

are our best growing months. This is a yearly disaster which must be stopped

to bolster our failing economy in Baker Valley.

Mr. Anderson, I sincerely urge you to help us gain authorization of Mason

Dam project to help us remedy this deplorable situation.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES H. BRITTON.

PIONEER FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION,

Baker, Oreg., April 5, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: It is my understanding that the Mason Dam

project on the Powder River in Baker County, Oreg., will come up very soon

before your committee. I would like to urge you on behalf of our association and

on behalf of the city of Baker and Baker County, to take affirmative action on this

measure, as we feel that it will be of great value to the economy of this area.

Yours very truly,

CARL DAVIS, President.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR: We wish to give our support to the proposed Mason Dam.

We feel that it is needed now for our present acreage and to insure the future

economy of our valley. The steady decrease in annual rainfall along with our

ever-present need for more water makes this dam of vital concern to all Baker

County folks. We give our wholehearted endorsement to this project.

Yours very truly,

HOWARD H. JONES.

JONES & SON,

Baker, Oreg., April 5, 1961.
38 BAKER RECLAMATION PROJECT, OREGON

BASCHE-SAGE HARDWARE CO.,

Baker, Oreg., April 5, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We understand that a hearing will be held concerning the building of the Mason Dam. We feel that this is a very worthy project

which will certainly strengthen the economy of our community. Both inAan

economic way and through recreation areas it will obtain.

Other factors to consider would be flood control and storage of badly needed

irrigation waters. The last few years show how badly we need an additional

supply of water when we encounter an under average snow or rainfall. Ai

We hope you will be able to help our community obtain this worthy project.

Very truly yours,

F. C. BASCHE.