Mr. JOHNSON. We are about to call a recess. We have a vote pending overthere on a bill that concerns the increased price of gold and the devaluing of our dollar abroad. We have got to be recorded on it. Whether it means too much or not remains to be seen. Mr. TYE. The only thing I had, Mr. Chairman, was to offer for the committee's consideration the proposed amendment which is attached to my written statement in light of what my witnesses here have testified to. Mr. JOHNSON. Fine. We are very glad to have this testimony because you people are the more affluent farmers in the area, the larger ones, and you have your opinion of all of this. You have developed your places over the years. You are not in need of any water, at the present time at least. But the State and the other people in the area seem to favor it. So we are glad to have this bit of testimony in the record. We give you all a chance to state your piece and insert your written proposals. They will be placed in the record. Mr. CASEY. Could I ask one technical question, Mr. Chairman, of Mr. Geweke? You testified, I believe, sir, that your two wells produced 3 and 3.1 acre-feet respectively? Mr. GEWEKE. That is right. Mr. CASEY. Last year? Mr. GEWEKE. Yes. Mr. CASEY. Now, how was last year from a rainfall standpoint? Was it an average year or a dry year? Mr. GEWEKE. I am afraid it would be below average. During the irrigation season especially, which is July and August primarily. I think we pumped 70 days last year, if I remember the figures correctly. Mr. CASEY. What would you consider to be an average regimen for an average year if there is such a thing in Nebraska. I used to live there and hunted for the average, but I never did find it. Mr. GEWEKE. I think that you will find that through the years that would be pretty close to an average as to what we need for gravity irrigation. Mr. BLESSING. I might be of a little assistance on that. Mine was over a 5-year period. The average was 2.25. The low was 1.7. The high was 2.5. And in every year, but that single year, it was over 2. Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, the reason I ask this question is I want to put this figure of a foot and a half in perspective. The Secretary's original planning establishes a consumptive use requirement for water of 2.4 feet. On the average it allows something for the use of effective precipitation and it comes out with a figure of 1.9. Now, there has been a lot of testimony that it was 1.5 and maybe we shouldn't get uptight over 0.4 of a foot, but just so that the record will be accurate, our information is that the consumptive use requirement for irrigation water is indeed 1.9 acre-feet instead of 1.5. That tends to lower this gap just a little bit. Mr. TYE. Mr. Chairman, our information as to 1.51 acre-feet to be supplied comes from the February 1971 reevaluation study. And this is what these fellows are talking about. In further answer to Mr. Casey's question, I have personal knowledge of some 1,300 farmers in the mid-state area and their average water they put on their grounds is 3 acre-feet in addition to the rainfall. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, they have not had any of those rainfalls that Houston had last night when they had 12 inches and found out they had 5 to 12 feet on the surface this morning. We want to thank you for your testimoney and we will stand in recess for about 15 minutes. (Recess.) Mr. JOHNSON. The Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation will come to order. We have two witnesses yet to be heard from and we want to close the meeting by 4 o'clock as I stated earlier today, for various reasons that we are confronted with. We did hope to be through by that time. We will try now. Our next witness will be Mr. Larry Holcomb, Quality Environment Council for Nebraska and Western Iowa, Omaha, Nebr. Mr. Holcomb. STATEMENT OF LARRY HOLCOMB, QUALITY ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL FOR NEBRASKA AND WESTERN IOWA, OMAHA, NEBR. Mr. HOLCOMB. Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as possible, summarizing my statement. Mr. JOHNSON. Your statement will be placed in the record and the letter addressed to Mr. Armstrong will be made a part of the record at this point. Mr. HOLCOMB. Thank you. (The letter signed by Mr. Hajinian follows:) Mr. ELLIS L. ARMSTRONG, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Department of the Interior, DEAR MR. ARMSTRONG: In response to your letter of February 8, 1972, we are submitting our comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed North Loup Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. The North Loup Division lies in central Nebraska at the eastern edge of the Sandhills. The project is designed to provide water to irrigate 52,600 acres of agricultural land and it includes construction of the following structures: 1. Calamus Reservoir on the Calamus River. 2. Kent Diversion Dam on the North Loup River. 3. Davis Creek Reservoir, a regulatory reservoir on a tributary of Davis Creek. 4. A system of five canals totaling 62 miles in length. 5. One major and nine small pumping plants. 6. Approximately 212 miles of lateral systems. The Environmental Impact Statement should be a concise and objective environmental assessment of the proposed project. In order to achieve the spirit and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we feel that the following comments should be incorporated into the final Environmental Impact Statement. Under the section, "Nature of Activity," further description of the project should be included. 1. The brief description of the two reservoirs, Calamus and Davis Creek, is inadequate. Additional description should include outlet elevations and water surface elevations. Operational plans, especially fluctuations caused by irrigation drawdown, should be discussed. This discussion should include the effects of these fluctuations on fish, wildlife, and recreation. 2. Since irrigation techniques are directly related to the quality and quantity of return flows, the methods used for applying irrigation water should be discussed. 3. Further description should be given to the 62 miles of canals. This should mention the type of lining of the canals and the percentage of time throughout the year that the canals will contain water. 4. The types of chemicals, application techniques, and environmental effects associated with measures to control mosquitoes and algae should be discussed. 5. The final Environmental Impact Statement should discuss estimated recreation visitor days, sanitary facilities, effects of sanitary facilities on the water quality of the reservoirs, and the disposal of solid wastes generated by recreational use. The section entitled "Adverse Environmental Effects" should include the following comments. The statement should discuss: 1. The adverse environmental effects upon the ecosystems below the Calamus Reservoir on the Calamus River during periods when natural flows are reduced. Although avoiding diversions in summer months will benefit the stream ecosystems, the benefit is only incidental. It is obvious that the summer stream flow regime was developed at the request of downstream water users with prior water rights. The statement should reflect this situation to avoid giving a distorted perspective to summer releases. 2. The statement mentions that consideration will be given to make additional water available during the month of September in the interests of water quality control as suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency, Water Program's Office. Since the Bureau of Reclamation has given this consideration to water quality control, we feel that the Environmental Impact Statement should discuss the operational procedure in the interests of water quality and how the Bureau of Reclamation will guarantee that water released for water quality will remain in the river. 3. The draft Environmental Impact Statement provides an inadequate discussion of water quality degradation resulting from irrigation return flows. The effects of a project of this magnitude upon water quality should be studied thoroughly. Concentrations of chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids presently in the river should be documented and practical estimates of the concentrations of the above salts which will be in the irrigation return flows and in the river below the project should be stated. These expected concentrations should be compared with the Nebraska Water Quality Standards. The final Environmental Impact Statement should state that: a. The increase in salts from irrigation return flows will generate an incremental increase of salts in all waters downstream of the project. b. When the project becomes operational, pesticide and fertilizer chemical concentrations will probably increase in the North Loup River. 4. The statement should explain that increased irrigation will deplete the quantities of water available downstream of the project. The effect of depletions and the increased inorganic salt concentrations upon downstream ecosystems should be discussed. 5. The statement recognizes the following as potential adverse effects: a. Mosquito populations. b. Increased sediment production. c. Increased stream pollution from animal feedlots. d. Pesticide pollution. Furthermore, the statement maintains that such adverse effects can be prevented by proper development and management practices. We feel that in light of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Executive Order 11514, the Bureau of Reclamation should describe these practices and state if they will be adhered to during operation of the project. 6. The statement should include a discussion of the measures taken by the Bureau to promote modern irrigation scheduling techniques which would minimize some of the adverse effects of irrigation upon surface and ground water while providing a more efficient use of less water. 7. The Operational Plan calls for using water released from the Calamus Reservoir for summer flows until late summer or early fall when the Calamus Reservoir will be allowed to fill and North Loup Diversion works will bypass water to maintain a flow in the North Loup. The summer releases from the Calamus Reservoir may be colder than the diverted North Loup River water. If this occurs, and releases from Calamus Reservoir are terminated in late summer or early fall in order to fill Calamus Reservoir, the warmer North Loup River water may adversely affect downstream aquatic populations due to sudden increases in water temperature. The Bureau should acknowledge the possibility of sudden temperature changes. If the situation develops we recommend that releases from the lower levels of Calamus Reservoir be avoided by the use of multi-level outlets. Overall we feel that the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North Loup Division does not objectively meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and requires very substantial revision. Please provide this office with a copy of your final Environmental Impact Statement at the same time you submit it to the Council on Environmental Quality. Very truly yours, CHARLES H. HAJINIAN, Chief, Program Planning Branch. Mr. JOHNSON. You may summarize your statement. Mr. HOLCOMB. I have submitted the testimony for Dr. Kershaw, too, for the record. Mr. JOHNSON. That will be placed in the record. Mr. HOLCOMB. Thank you. (The testimony of Dr. Kershaw follows:) STATEMENT OF VINCENT E. KERSHAW, Omaha, Nebr. I am against the North Loup Project because I believe it will be environmentally destructive and economically unsound. I see it as another make work project by a bureaucratic organization with a history of numerous expensive projects which have been insensitive to the actual needs of the people of this country. I believe it is environmentally destructive for the following reasons: 1. It will degrade the character of the Calamus river which is one of the unique and beautiful rivers of Nebraska. I feel that as a citizen of Nebraska that part of the Calamus river is mine. I further believe that the Loup and the Platte and the Missouri into which the Calamus flows as partly mine also. I resent the feeling of a small group of Reclamation engineers who feel they have a right to "improve" or modify these rivers and thus take something away from myself and many more like me. 2. It is my understanding that any decisions to continue this policy are in violation of the intent of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act because of incomplete environmental impact study reports. 3. Migrating waterfowl habitat would be destroyed. This is due in part to the destruction of small ponds and creeks with their associated plant life and also to lowering of the water temperature in fall and winter secondary to the storage. 4. Woodand habitat now existing along the river in the area to be inundated would be destroyed. I doubt that ecologically effective woodland in sufficient quantity will be replaced. 5. The network of canals will be a threat to both the animal and human population from the standpoint of drowning particularly to children and deer. 6. The reservoir cannot serve the functions of a natural lake because of the extreme water level functions. 7. The loss of water downstream from the dam in the Calamus, Loup, and the Platte is in violation of water rights of other landowners. 8. The use of pesticides for mosquito control will affect not only the reservoir but downstream and add to the total load draining into the Gulf of Mexico. 9. It would destroy the nesting habitat of Great Blue Herons and the Belted Kingfishers. I believe the proposed project is economically unsound for the following reasons: 1. An unrealistic interest rate of 34% has been reported to have been used in the feasibility study. The actual cost of use of the money should have been used. 2. A poll has indicated an overwhelming objection to the project by the farmers in the involved areas. 3. The need for irrigation is being met by central pivot systems in the involved area on a free enterprise system in a manner which is not destroying the land. It is in addition much less destructive to the environment. 4. It is further, it seems to me, an unseemly type of ridiculous behavior to be spending millions to increase certain food commodities at the same time that even more is being spent on taking land out of production. 5. The reservoir and related easments and canals will remove an estimated 19,000 acres from any agricultural production. In my opinion this land will be needed within the next 50 years for food production. In summary I believe the North Loup Project cannot be justified on an economic basis. If the proposal is carried out it will be the cause of significant local and downstream environmental havoc. In my opinion it will also be testimony to our inability to manage our own welfare. Mr. HOLCOMB. I feel that the Quality Environment Council has a good deal of expertise by way of its membership, its dues-paying membership, and those people whom we had asked to help us evaluate this project-some engineers and biologists, chemists. We feel that we have support of a widespread number of people in the farming areas of Nebraska, the rural areas, the urban areas, school teachers, students, housewives, laborers, and a very broadly based support. There are several things that the BOR, the Bureau of Reclamation, has failed to put in the cost-benefit ratio and for the record in summary we feel that there will be loss of 18 different windbreaks to ranchers. Now, in this part of the country, those windbreaks are of tremendous value. Many of these fellows don't have big outbuildings to house 400, 500 head of cows. You just don't usually build that big of an outbuilding. You don't need to because you have got the influence of a windbreak to break the wind and the blizzard effects. We are claiming at least a $75,000 cost on each of those 18 windbreaks that could be inundated directly by the reservoir, for a total cost of $1,350,000. Now, the Calamus River and Greasy Creek stay open all winter long and because of that, because there are some 5,300 head of livestock depending on that area, and because this project was evaluated over a 100-year period, we feel that the effects of damming that particular portion of the valley will incur as a result some $5,300,000 over a 100-year period, even at today's costs, just as the Bureau of Reclamation has assessed its costs. We feel, further, the acreage that is in the inundated reservoir region that is now subirrigated by the river itself, and by the waters flowing out of the sand hills will lead to a decrease of winter forage for the ranchers directly affected, and thus there will be a loss of some $29,700,000 over a 100-year period. In addition to that, we believe that the glutting of the corn market, as you will note under item 11, will result in at least a cost to the entire Nation of $200 million over a 100-year period. It may be as much as that in 1 single year if we continue to have the surpluses that we have in the last years. |