The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1945-01-19

pOlulCCS. 10 Wv. W. W
Sharpe of South Dakota. This group
is sponsoring what is generally called
the Pick plan. Then there is Mr..
Ickes and his Department of Interior,
interested primarily in reclamation,
with his plan geared only to irriga-
ton. There also are proposals offered
by the Department of Agriculture, by
the War Departments Army Engi-
neers, by the partisans of flood con-
troll, the navigation interests, as well
as by other single, restricted agen-
cies.
The weakness of all of these plans
is that they cannot fail but throw the
whole problem out of balance. Let
us analyze them in the words of the
Post-Dispatch:
Governor Sharpe of South Dakota
might say, why talk of new plan
when we already have plan?" He
offers the Pick plan as the sovereign
cure for all the ills of the river. 1t
has merit. The trouble is that, first
Of all, it is less a plan than state
ment of good intentions. 1t is a rough
sketch of flood control and navigation
proposals, with blank spaces left open
for irrigation and power. In itself, it
is very good start on a unified pro-
gram of development. But the irriga-
ton interests seriously object to the
Pick plan - notably the provision in
the Rivers and Harbors bill which
would set aside for navigation virtu-
ally the entire average and annual
flow of the Missouri River on the
basis of figures for the past 10 years.
In short, the irrigation interests don't
trust the Pick plan or the Army En-
gineers, because they consider this
provision in the Rivers and Harbors
bill an attempt to steal their water.
President Roosevelt's criticism of the
Rivers and Harbors bill on the
ground that it failed to make proper
provision for irriga-
ton, shows once aSRA
again the fallacy of Oaf9-
failing to consider a GKy
river and all of its
problems as whole. And thus the con-
flict proceeds.
There are, therefore, two major OBJ
jections to the Pick plan. The first
that it is impossible politically. The
states won't support it. OBJ
viously, any legislation that covers
the whole region will have to have
the whole regions support. The Sec
ond, it is defective in an administra-
tive sense. 1t would have to be adj
ministered by the Army Engineers
Corps, and the corps is restricted by
act of Congress to navigation and
flood control and barred from the field
of irrigation. The Pick plan, as COM
as it tries to approach
the valleys problems, actually demon
strates just what is wrong. All these
problems, all the questions they raise,
travel the same old road to the same
old terminal: Where is the one big
plan?
Already sectional bitterness is evil
dent in the preoccupation of people
with the interests of their own sec
ton, to the exclusion of those out
side The power interests are con-
cerned with what use will be made of
the kilowatts generated at the pro-
posed dams. The lower states are
lest the flood control meas
ures be neglected, and there even is
talk that irrigation in the upper states
would take away some of the markets
their farmers now enjoy. There are
those who fear federal control.
Recent Congressional hearings on
river legislation brought
these sectional and economic differ
ences into sharp relief. But the Mis-
souri, Valley is predominantly agricul-
tural in character OF course, flood
control and power also concern the
farmers. Power may bring industry,
but today it is water added to the
land, that can help stabilize farm in
come in region where rainfall usual
Iy is close to or even below the mini
mum needs. Water on the land can
add production.
What develops in the Missouri Val
ley also concerns to states on the
periphery. The grain and cattle sup
ply the industries in their cities. Con-
troll of flood waters brings safety to
farmers in the Mississippi Valley. 1t
has a close effect upon navigation in