The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1945-12-21
The LANCER
Continued from Page one)

from FaRe OueB
have an opportunity to make future
expenditures in the Missouri valley
dynamic, generating productivity, prog
ress and economic self-support. The
alternative is continuously to sub
sidize poverty"
Turning to agriculture, LANCER and
Mitchell hold that the Pick-Sloan pro
posals are grossly inadequate and
would bring no improvement beyond
the waters edge" The Murray bills
agricultural proposals for increasing
fertility, soil conservation, reforesta.
ton and other aids to farmers, they
hold, are the most important single
phase of the MVA bill and are "tot-
ally disregarded in the unified plan.
LANCER and Mitchell found .shock
ing, unrefuted or unexplained" revela
lions in the record of hearings show
ing the high cost of Bureau of Rec
lamation irrigation projects, compared
with costs to co-operatives and local
irrigation districts. Furthermore, they
said, the bureau had "docilely sur
rendered the real control of the Mis-
souri, river to the Army Engineers, to
whom irrigation is a secondary and
inferior purpose, by agreeing to huge
Army dams without obtaining any as
surances whatever that waters arising
in the west shall be used for irriga-
ton"
Last year, they said, the bureau had
contended there awasn't enough water
in the river to provide a navigation
channel as far up as Sioux City, Ia,
but 1t has now agreed to that project.
1--WE were either misled in 1914 or we
are being misled in 1896" they con-
Guided.
AS further evidence of the fragrant
ly contradictory testimony" presented
in the 1914 and 1915 hearings, LANCER
and Mitchell cite Reclamation Bureau
testimony in 1914 that the Fort Garri-
son dam and the Gavins Point dam,
both proposed by the Army Engineers,
were unwarranted and Army Engi-
neers testimony that the Reclamation
Bureau proposal for diversion of wa
tiers of the Souris river, a Missouri
tributary, was not desirable. All told,
these projects would cost an estimated
$3O5,000,000 and are now included in
the so-called unified plan, although
they have ''been questioned by the ex-
perts of the very agencies for which
appropriations are now sought from
congress-"
Among MVA supporters LANCER
and Mitchell list the National Farmers
Union, described as the largest gen
eral farm organization within the val
ley, the Missouri Farmers Association,
with a membership of $4,000, REA
associations and co-operatives, the |
Clio and AFL, thousands of citizens"
representing women's organizations,
banks, business houses, church groups |
and people in all walks of life who
have formed the Regional Committee
for MVA and the st. Louis Chamber
of Commerce (which is closest to IVA
of any chamber of commerce in the
valley and consequently best informed |
about the potentialities of the MVA
proposal"
Opposed to such peoples organiza
tions, they added, "are the profess
sional opponents of public resources
development and some public officials
who seem to have allowed the profess
SIGNALS to use their Names"
In this group they list the National
Association of Electric Companies, the
so-called water lobby" the U. S.
Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association and the Asso-
citation of General Contractors, whose
desire for profits out of public works
is at least candid"