Mr. Schrup, you speak for the Loup County board of county commissioners or just for yourself personally. Mr. SCHRUP. I am speaking for both, if I may. Mr. CAMP. There are two other county commissioners besides yourself? Mr. SCHRUP. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. Your next witness, Mr. Tye. Mr. TYE. Mr. Al Blessing, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF ALFRED BLESSING, OF HASTINGS, NEBR. Mr. BLESSING. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Alfred Blessing. I reside at 1125 North Kansas Avenue, Hastings, Nebr. There were some questions earlier of the witness, Mr. Geweke, concerning the downstream areas and some of the other areas which are to be watered by this particular project, and perhaps I could be helpful to the committee because, as a matter of fact, the farm that I wish to testify about is in that particular area, and so my Mr. JOHNSON. Point that out on the map, will you? Mr. BLESSING. Well, it would be near the Elba Canal, halfway between Elba and Cotesfield. Right in that area. I am familiar with the farm ground in that area. I was born on a farm 1 mile west of Elba. The land that I now own was purchased by my grandfather in about 1900. So this farm has been operated by our family for some period of time. I purchased the land 5 years ago, leveled it, and drilled five wells. So for the last-I am sorry, I drilled three wells, so for the last 5 crop years we have been operating this half section as an irrigated farm. It has approximately 310 acres of cropland. During this period of time we have found it necessary to apply about 214 acrefeet of irrigation water to the land in addition to the normal rainfall in order to secure an adequate corn crop for an economic operation. Now, this is compared with the proposed irrigation under the ditch in the project at 11⁄2 acre-feet. And so I guess the thrust of my testimony is that you may get some irrigated ground in this valley with this kind of a project but it isn't going to do the job. Mr. Geweke I think has indicated to you that he needed even a little more water up around Ord because the rainfall is somewhat less in these valleys that parallel the main valley. We get a little more rain than he did. At any rate, the ground may be irrigated under a ditch like this but there isn't going to be enough water. I also have the same problem Mr. Geweke does in that I am able to apply the water for about $6 and it would cost me about $7 per acre-foot if I would go under the ditch. I have the same kind of problems on the canals, too. The main canal is going to take out one of my wells and perhaps another one. The supply laterals will run across the center of the irrigated half section which would create some difficulty, of course. So I think you can readily see that I am opposed to the project. One of the things that troubles me about this is the fact that these cost benefit studies and things of that nature continually talk about the benefits based upon conversion of dry lands to irrigated ground, and Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I might say that they give a lot of benefits to the supplemental supply. Mr. BLESSING. Certainly that is a part of it, Mr. Chairman. but we have experienced no difficulty in this area, no problem after this pumping. In other areas-my father-in-law happens to operate a couple of irrigation wells in another county but it is just as close to this area as Fullerton is to Elyria, so I think it has some merits. He has been operating one of those since 1947 and the other one since the middle fifties and has experienced no difficulties at all. While the specter of water supply is important to us. I guess maybe our problem is that we really haven't experienced this difficulty and so it is something-a goblin might jump out at us some day. Mr. JOHNSON. In your case, you have been there about 100 years, or will be before too long. You have 72 years in now. I imagine there was someone there probably before you or your grandfather arrived. But on the amount of water that would be used you say in the study of an acre and a half Mr. BLESSING. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON (continuing). Acre foot and a half of water, you claim that you are using better than—— Mr. BLESSING. Two and a quarter has been the average for the past 5 years. That is correct. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the expertise that is within the Bureau, and I presume within the State of Nebraska, must have been used to arrive at that one and a half acre-foot per acre as being the water requirement for land. You people probably you have a good supply of water. Probably you use it more than the other people. Whether it is necessary or not, that is something else I don't know too much about it. Mr. BLESSING. Well, I am sure that you could irrigate ground. You would not fertilize as heavily. You wouldn't plant quite as closely and instead of your irrigated ground producing 100 to 150 bushels of corn it would probably produce 100 bushels of corn. Certainly you could do this, but it would not be an effective irrigation operation if we look at it this way and if we are really trying to bring good, strong irrigation in, then the use of the additional, in this case, at least, 75/100 of a foot of water would produce half again as much corn. So you get a better return for the water put into the ground by applying this additional water and that is why we feel our well operations are economically feasible. Mr. JOHNSON. What is a good yield of Nebraskan land in the way of corn per acre? Mr. BLESSING. Well, you can probably get quite a divergence of answers. I would say, though, that most of your operators feel that they have to have around 125 to 130 bushels and, of course, you shoot at 150, 160, or 170. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you figure that in order to prove feasibility they must have had to consider that great yield from the lands that are involved in this project? If the farmer is going to have a successful operation, he certainly is going to have to get an average yield along with others in order to stay in business. Mr. BLESSING. I certainly agree. All I can say is I don't know how they came up with their study but I do know how many gallons of water were put on that ground during the last 5 years and I know how much corn we raised and I am fortunate in that the tenant operators are good, careful farmers. They are doing a fine job and I would like to see, too, that they have the water so they can continue to do a good job. Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. No questions. Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Blessing, what does it cost to drill a well? Mr. BLESSING. As per my written statement-$6.37 an acre-foot. Mr. BLESSING. It depends upon how deep. I drilled the three wells for $17,500. One of these wells pumps about 600 gallons, another one 750 gallons, and another one a little over a thousand gallons. Mr. CAMP. And that is on 310 acres of farmland? Mr. BLESSING. Yes, sir. Mr. CAMP. Well, you are fortunate enough, then, that you have an opportunity to use water from wells that you have been able to drill when maybe the man across the road from you had a crop burn up last summer, that we saw out there, that maybe wouldn't have happened if he had had water. Maybe where he could afford to pay so many dollars per acre-foot to irrigate, when he couldn't afford to put $17,000 of money in wells to irrigate 310 acres. Mr. BLESSING. Sir, I think in this area you will find the boys have been able to afford it and they are doing it. In the area I am talking about it is somewhere around 80 percent irrigated and the only pieces of ground that aren't irrigated are those that have a draw cutting through them or not feasible for another reason. My well isn't near as good as the next one north of that or the next one north of that, or the next one north of that. So the people in this area have found Mr. CAMP. If you are putting two and a half acre-feet of water on that land and getting 140, 150 or 160 bushels you have got a pretty good well. Mr. BLESSING. Yes, sir. Mr. CAMP. You may not need as much water as the one up north of you, the one away from you. They may have more water but again if I understand the testimony right from the rest of the gentlemen, you have still got some 100-odd feet, 135 feet I believe one gentleman said, that still is where he is getting his water from. Mr. BLESSING. Well, he is speaking of a different area and he was speaking of the area south of Ord. I am speaking of the Greeley County and Howard County area, so I do wish to make it clear to the committee that I am limiting my testimony to that, I wouldn't want to try to tell you something about that area because I think Mr. Geweke is better qualified than I. Mr. CAMP. I walked your cornfields and wheatfields I think for the first time in 1929 and did it for some 20-odd years and I saw what happened all up and down your Platte River. I wish we could have taken it back to western Oklahoma. I am like the chairman. It is kind of hard for me to believe that as much as we need water through the midwestern part of the country and the responsibilities we are going to have to feed people in this country, which is going to be our responsibility, that we would want to be using or conserving or planning water for years to come so that we can fulfill this responsibility and after, as I said, the experience I had up there, was tremendous, and what you have done, what it has meant to the economy of the country, it is hard for me as one individual to be convinced that a project such as this isn't good for everyone concerned in the whole area. Mr. BLESSING. Well, I can speak only for myself, sir, and I do appreciate the opportunity to do that. Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Mr. BLESSING. It just does not seem feasible to me based upon my experience, and I am sure there are others with the same experience that might reach a different conclusion, but we appreciate the opportunity to be heard. Mr. CAMP. Glad to have you. Mr. BLESSING. At this time I would like to respectfully request furthur action on this project for the reason it is not economically sound, or in the alternative, requiring further study which will give a more accurate reflection of the actual number of irrigated acres which would result from the funding of this project because I have done a little study myself, surveying the area, and I came up with 58 percent of the total project already irrigated. I believe that Mr. Armstrong testified 55 percent earlier in the day-today. I will accept his figure. In any event, this means that we are not talking about irrigating 52,000 acres, gentlemen. We are talking about irrigating 20,000 acres. That is what bothers me a little. Mr. JOHNSON. Any further questions? (Mr. Blessing's statement follows:) MARCH 19, 1972. Chairman and Members of Subcommittee, Calamus River Dam Project. DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS: My name is Alfred Blessing; I reside at 1125 North Kansas Avenue, Hastings, Nebraska. I was born in 1930 on a farm about one mile west of Elba, Nebraska; at that time the farm was a livestock-feed grain and small grain operation owned by my grandfather Elijah Welsh and operated by my father Alfred Welsh. After the death of my father in 1933 I lived with my grandparents in Elba, Nebraska, a small farming community, and continued to reside in the North Loup Valley until entering the U.S. Army in 1955. In 1966 I purchased the S' 32 16 11, commonly known as the "Towar's Land," from other members of the Welsh family, this land being a part of the farm where I was born. The "Towar's Land" is comprised of about 310 A. of reasonably level cropland located on the first bench of the North Loup River midway between Elba and Cotesfield, Nebraska, and in the approximate center of the farming area which would be served by the Elba Canal of the Calamus Dam Project. The Towar's Land was leveled in the fall of 1966, three irriga tion wells were drilled and during the intervening crop years of 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 it has been operated as an irrigated farm. In this five-year period we have found it necessary to apply an average of 2.25 acre feet of irrigation water in addition to our normal rainfall in order to secure satisfactory results. Our cost in applying this irrigation water to the Towar's land during the same period has averaged $6.31 per acre foot as compared with a projected cost of $7.07 per acre foot from the Elba Canal of the proposed Calamus Dam Project. Thus, the existing irrigation practices now utilized on the "Towar's Land" provide water at substantially less actual cost than the proposed cost suggested by advocates of the Calamus Dam Project. Of course, everyone knows that it is far more desirable to use well water than ditch water in a farming operation, e.g., greater availability of water, more flexibility in time of application, less weed control problems, use of center pivots, reduced leveling costs, reduced labor costs, etc., are all factors which dictate the use of well water whenever a choice is available. Certainly a 73 million dollar Irrigation Project must be financed to a large extent by the water charge imposed per irrigable acre. According to the 1958 study of the Twin Loups Irrigation District there were 34,603 irrigable acres in the District. During the past few weeks I have surveyed the District lands located in Howard, Nance, Greeley, and Valley Counties (which lands comprise over three fourths of the irrigable acres in the district) and found a remarkable shrinkage in the irrigable acres in the District. Assuming that the percentage figures computed from these counties also prevail in Nancy County, it would appear that there are now only 21,592 irrigable acres in the District instead of the 34,603 irrigable acres available in 1958. It is reasonable to assume that this trend will continue (and even perhaps accelerate in view of the development of the center pivot systems) in the future and thus at the time that water might be available from the proposed project the irrigable acres will no doubt have shrunk to about 13,472 irrigable acres. With the smaller number of irrigable acres available the proposed water charge would have to be increased to such a high figure that the use of ditch water for irrigation in this Project would be absolutely prohibitive. There have been some rather interesting developments in other ditch irrigation projects in the state of Nebraska during the past few years. Several of the farmers who formerly utilized water from the Tri County Irrigation District in south central Nebraska have terminated such water use as being impractical. The management of both the Farwell Project and the Mid-State Project in central Nebraska require farmers to sign extended commitments for water use, e.g., a 50-year contract in the Mid-State Project, thereby recognized that terminations by water users present serious problems and therefore the requirement of such long-term commitments by proposed water users is an admission by Project management that a substantial number of farmers often terminate ditch irrigation once they have tried it a few years. A recent award by the District Court in Hamilton County, Nebraska in an eminent domain proceeding appears significant and we believe should cause an upward revision of easement acquisition costs in this Project. The owner operator of a half section of irrigated cropland suitable for either a center-pivot system or gravity type irrigation was awarded the sum of $60,000 for a power line easement across his property, which merely prohibited the use of a pivot system but still allowed use of gravity irrigation. In the Calamus Dam Project there are several center-pivot irrigation systems now in place and operating which will be cut diagonally by Project canals and more of these systems are being installed every year along the proposed canal routes. The impact of this decision must be weighed and new acquisition costs computed before an accurate cost benefit ratio can be submitted to this Committee. Gentlemen, in light of the increased costs of this project and the tremendous shrinkage of irrigable acres we urge you to give serious consideration to suspending any further action on this project for the reason it is not economically sound or, in the alternative, requiring further study which will give a more accurate reflection of the actual number of irrigated acres which would result from the funding of this project. Respectfully submitted. ALFRED BLESSING. Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you, Mr. Tye, or do you have something further Mr. TYE. Just one last comment. |