The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1945-01-26
Statement by Chairman of the Montana
MVA Assn. Filed at the Public Hearing
On Joint Memorial Opposing the MVA

is my purpose to limit myself to a
posed memorial which unqualifiedly
endorses the so-called Sloan or Rec
lamation bureau plan and the so-called
Pick plan or Engineers plan as the
latter may have been to some extent
modified in principle by the Flood
Control Bill enacted by the last con-
gress.
| am convinced that the authors of
the memorial were not fully CONVEX
SAINT with all of the details of these
two plans when they wrote into the
joint memorial the blanket endorse
ment of them 1t is difficult for me
to believe that any one in Montana
who is familiar with these plans could
approve them in toto as has been
done in this proposed memorial.
First let us look at the Reclamation
plan 1t has many good features. It's
proposal to irrigate more than mil
| lion additional acres in Montana is, of
course, excellent. All of us in Mon
tana believe that in any plan, so far
as Montana is concerned, irrigation
should have first consideration. That
| is provided for no matter what plan
is eventually enacted by the amend
ments to the flood control bill.
Our basic objection to the Reclama-
ton plan of course is that it is
single purpose plan. The develop
ment of the waters of the Missouri
alone without including the develop
ment of all of the basins resources
is not sufficient to meet Montana's
problems in our view. The Reclama-
ton plan is not only insufficient be-
cause it deals only with water devel-
opment but also because it deals al
most exclusively with only one phase
of water development. While some
hydro-electric power will be installed
as an adjunct to irrigation develop
ment the plan admittedly hardly
scratches the surface of the hydro
electric possibilities of the stream
There are other shortcomings too in
the plan because of its devotion to
but one phase of the basin develop
ment that will be discussed by others.
Not only is the Reclamation plan
Objectionable because it is a single
phase plan whose adoption would not
solve our problems, but it has in it
provisions that affirmatively are OBJ |
jectionable in my opinion. Chief of
these provisions to which | should
like to call your attention is the one
which proposes to divert from the
Missouri river at Fort Peck by a sys-
tenn of enormous pumps, reservoirs
and canals, sufficient water to irri-
gate million acres in the Souris
river basin in the Hudson bay drain
age, and entirely outside the Mis-
souri, watershed.
| would suggest that the committee
examine the maps contained in the |
Reclamation plan found in Senate |
Document 191. The size of the canal |
its length, the power needed to con- |
vey the water, the seepage, the evap- |
Grafton and the drainage required for |
this vast project staggers the imagi- |
nation. AS an engineering feat this |
portion of the plan might be feasible |
but as a practical matter the ques- |
tons raised are so great it is in |
credible to me that the Montana legis-
lature would endorse a plan calling
for this huge diversion without long
and serious study That project will |
take more water from the Missouri
than is now being used for irrigation
in the whole state. The loss by seep-
age, and evaporation, on system of
canals running, in many cases on high |
benches would be tremendous and in
view of what has already been said
by the Reclamation department it
seems to me that there could not
possibly be enough water in the Mis-
souri, to allow doubling our irrigated
area; to allow irrigating more than a
million acres in North Dakota and in
addition to allow a nine-foot channeH
as provided in the Engineers plan.
This ambitious plan is not only sub
ject to the objection / have just made
but the authors of the plan admit that
it exhausts all possibilities for future
irrigation of any consequence in Mon
tana. Everyone who has studied the
plan can call to mind many other
feasible projects not included in the