advise that for the first time in Nebraska, at least, an agreement has been reached with upper Loup River interests, so that this project has a scope broad enough to cover all lower stream interests because the Loup River system is, as stated above, the principal source of water both above and below ground for the Lower Platte. We are not here merely to testify that we agree to the reauthorization, but to also establish a record that as to this and any and all other projects in the Loup or even Upper Platte, that we citizens of Nebraska cities on the lower Platte have a vital and direct interest in upstream projects which must be protected when upper stream projects are designed. One principal problem at Fremont is floods. We did have a problem in 1960, at which time I was Mayor and did become very deeply involved in a major flood by directing disposition of personnel and sand bags to heighten our flood dike. Attached is Exhibit No. 2 which is the Fremont newspaper study of that 1960 flood. We had to sandbag the top of the dike to keep the waters from inundating the major portions of the City of Fremont. Fortunately about 1910, before federal aid, this dike was built to keep the Platte from covering lower portions of Fremont every spring flood. This dike is a considerable distance from the river edge and is purely a flood dike designed to allow spring flood waters to pass on the wet side of the dike. Of course, on the wet side of the dike, there are now many homes, lakes and recreation areas. This dike in the Fremont area has been raised, as a result of the 1960 flood, so it may handle Fremont flood problems, so long as there is a reasonably decent channel in the Platte River, which will accommodate not only the usual flows but the flood flows. But if the Platte River is to be dry due to irrigation projects, then it becomes nothing but a forest of willows and trees as is the Platte in areas west of Columbus. This, of course, enhances flood risk. The usual flow of flood waters is forced upon the dikes in the manner that we have not provided for. We do not believe the Platte River should become a forest of willow trees through the lack of a scouring flow of water. It is our basic contention that the piece-meal dam projects on the Upper Loup which are designed only for irrigation purposes are and will be a source of problem to the Lower Loup-Platte Water interests. We admit in Fremont and lower areas that we have been johnny-come-latelies in this matter of protecting our water rights. This comes about because we were not aware of the effect of the piece-meal irrigation projects cutting off the flow of the Loup River. We didn't know that "our" interests in the underground streams were being subtly taken by others. It was pointed out to us in Fremont about 10 years ago that one more major project on the North Loup and Calamus was going to cut off the water, so the Platte River would be dry in the summer time. This, of course, alarmed the officials of Fremont and other Platte interests and as a result of that, the Lower Loup-Platte Water Association Inc. was formed, its purpose being not solely to stop projects but to bring about comprehensive utilization of the Loup and Lower Platte Waters so that all share equitably and not just those in the Upper Loup. The net effect of these various upper projects is to dry the Lower Platte and make the domestic wells and irrigation wells already existing in the Lower Platte River, worse than they were before. The Bureau of Reclamation came to recognize the need of providing for lower stream interests which resulted in the inclusion of the Senate Bill 2350 the following paragraph: "SEC. 5. The North Loup Division shall be so constructed and operated that no water shall be diverted from either the Calamus or the North Loup Rivers for any use by the Division during the months of July and August each year; and no water shall be diverted from said rivers during the month of September each year whenever during said month there is sufficient water available in the Division storage reservoirs to deliver the design capacity of the canals receiving water from said reservoirs." I am not skilled enough to know what the direct effect of this July and August release of waters will be. We have been assured by the Bureau engineers that it will be sufficient to keep a flowing Platte: scour the Platte so that there is a perculation of waters from the sandy bed of the Platte to the underground aquifers below, and thus prevent a forest of willows down the middle of the Lower Platte. We want the flow to permeate as it does now, through the Platte River sands in sufficient amount to recharge city wells that use. are along the Platte and put there to obtain underground waters for urban We attach as Exhibit No. 3 a study by Mr. Adolph Meyer, a noted hydrologist now deceased, as to the effects of a dry Loup-Platte. To justify our claim of the cities with water wells on or near the Platte, we submit as Exhibit No. 4, a photocopy of E. Bruce Meier's paper presented to a meeting of Engineers in 1953 relative to the determination of the percentage of induced infiltration from the Platte River to water wells at Ashland operated by the City of Lincoln. His conclusion at Page 25 is that 80% of the water in Lincoln's wells comes by induced flow from the Platte River surface flow. This study was done when he was a professor at the University and long before most of the projects on the Loup were constructed, and thus can provide you with an independent basis for "our" interest in under ground waters of the Platte. I wish to re-emphasize the interests of Fremont and the Lower Loup Platte Water Association are that we approve irrigation dams if they take into consideration in their construction, design and their operation the lower river interests. We say this boils down to a simple matter of allowing and permitting a controlled ample flow of water in the Lower Loup-Platte. Our experts tell us that a dry Platte means dry wells or deeper wells to be dug. Deeper wells in the Fremont area will require us to dig wells through shale into another strata which in effect becomes a mining of water. A study of mining of water has been done by Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers of Kansas City for the City of Grand Island. The chemical content of the water at subshale levels changed so much in Grand Island that certain industries cannot rely or use the Grand Island well sources for industrial purposes. We don't believe that the upper river interests have the legal or equitable right to force Fremont into mining water, or increasing our costs of obtaining water in the lower river areas. We can in court prove, if necessary, that we in Fremont were using these underground waters first and thus appropriated them to our use for domestic purposes, which under the Nebraska law is the highest use preference. We are not interested in lawsuits. We are interested in practical solutions to utilization of water and have repeatedly stated we want improvements on the Loup Rivers to be designed with interests of lower stream protected. We are here to make another record of the reasons for our long objection and indicate we are now in agreement with North Loup project, because the Bureau of Reclamation and other engineers have assured us that the above paragraph in the above bill will give us reasonable protection. Obviously, this paragraph has increased the size and cost of the project, but we think this is necessary if the Senate and House are to have broad scope concern in all interests along the Loup and Lower Platte. Small, virtually single purpose damages, i.e., irrigation that store only enough water for the limited purpose, do not protect lower river interests. They store insufficient waters to be of flood protective device at high water time, i.e. spring, and do not have enough water for keeping a channel open in lower water time, i.e., July, August and September. We insist that any reservoirs built in the future upon any of the Loup Rivers be designed with downstream interest considered. The Bureau of Reclamation has indicated there was not a great risk of a dry Platte by completion of all the Upper Loup River system dams. The Bureau of Reclamation, of course, would not give us a guarantee to open the gates on these projects to provide flow in the Lower Platte River, so that we will have the same kind of flow that historically the average rain fall has granted us in the past; thus, we have to insist on higher and bigger dams and paragraphs such as the above to assure flows. The difference in approach to the utilization of Loup-Platte waters is generally well presented in the Lincoln Journal by Ellis Rall, which is attached as Exhibit No. 5 and by Woodson Howe in the Omaha World Herald, also attached as Exhibit No. 6. These series indicate there is a real problem of diverse interests in the water resources of the Loup-Platte system. We hope the agreement with the North Loup people and the wording in the above paragraph is a fair solution to all river interests. It is interesting to note that one of the basic reasons for the Mid-State Project (multi-purposed) sponsored by the Bureau of Reclamation is to help Tom recharge underground flows along the Platte River near Grand Island. MidState advertising shown by Exhibit No. 7 attached shows how Mid-State will add depth to the ground water. We believe this same approach should be taken as to the Lower Loup-Platte. There is also the effect of a dry Platte on subsoil moisture for existing cropland in the Platte River valley. Eason, a North Bend, Nebraska, farmer who is to testify, may expand on this. The Platte Valley in natural state has good subsoil moisture, which is recharged by the surface flows over the sandy bottom of the Platte. We are hopeful that "our" agreement based on the above paragraph in the law will protect the water of farms in the valley also, because our cities in Nebraska are directly connected to the economy of the farms. Thus, Fremont wanted to make a separate urban presentation and thus support Senate Bill 2350 with the paragraph quoted above. Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness will be Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebraska State Director, National Water Resources Association. Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith asked that his statement in support of the project be placed in the record. Mr. JOHNSON. We are sorry Judge Smith missed his 34th appearance. He had appeared before this committee 32 times over the years and yesterday was the 33d time and today he is filing a statement. I know his statement is in support of the project. We miss him not being here in person, but we will accept his statement for the record unless there is objection. Hearing none, so ordered. (Judge Smith's statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY WILLIAM C. SMITH, JR., ONE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mr. Chairman, my name is Judge William C. Smith, Jr., of Ainsworth, Nebraska. I am Nebraska's representative on the Board of Directors of the National Water Resources Association. Our Association is proud to support the two projects in Nebraska, namely, the North Loup Division and the O'Neill Unit who are presently seeking authorization. The North Loup Division, sponsored by the Twin Loups Reclamation District and the Twin Loups Irrigation District, is a multiple purpose project that will enhance the social and economic well being of a large part of Central Nebraska. The National Water Resources Association believes that development and construction of this multiple purpose project is necessary to strengthen the economy of the entire nation, while enhancing the human environment of a seven county area, in Central Nebraska. I am sure you realize that my appearing here before you indicates my complete support of this project. The National Water Resources Association and I are pleased that you gentlemen have granted the local sponsors of the project this time to be heard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and if there are any questions, I shall be glad to answer them. Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Thomas Tye, an attorney from Kearney, Nebr., representing a very large law firm-Tye, Worlock, Tye, Jacobsen & Orr. I understand he has a number of people here from the local area that wish to testify. If you will all take chairs, as soon as Mr. Tye has completed his statement, we will gladly start from the left side here and go right around and hear all of your comments. STATEMENT OF THOMAS TYE, ATTORNEY, OF TYE, WORLOCK, TYE, JACOBSEN & ORR, KEARNEY, NEBR.; ACCOMPANIED BY LLOYD GEWEKE, GAYLORD WALLACE, JOHN KOLL, ROBERT SCHRUP, AND ALFRED BLESSING Mr. JOHNSON. You may proceed, Mr. Tye. Mr. TYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank the Chair very much for allowing these individuals to make a very brief comment to the committee. I realize this is an imposition and we shall try to limit our comments as much as possible. Mr. Chairman, I have with me, and rather than naming each individual, I would like to submit to the committee for insertion in the record not only our statements which have been prepared and submitted to the clerk but also letters and statements from other individuals within the district or who are affected thereby including the individuals here present. There are approximately 29 individuals who wish to be heard or their statements filed with this committee. I have copies of them here which I would like placed in the record. Mr. JOHNSON. They will be made a part of the record at this point as well as your complete statement and you may summarize it. (The statements referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF E. R. HORNER, COX & HORNER DRILLING & IRRIGATION CO., INC., ORD AND NORTH LOUP, NEBR. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Sub-Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, I, E. R. Horner, a Water Well Driller by trade, have been in the Well Drilling business in this area for over 40 years. I have drilled domestic as well as irrigation type wells. We have our home as well as 480 acres of land which is pump irrigated, plus other real estate. We have drilled wells all over this area, ranging in capacity from 600 to 5,000 gallons per minute. We have, I think, the best underground water supply of any state in the union. This state has been very active in cooperating with the Well Drillers Association in logging and recording water levels and geological information for the past 40 years. Consequently, our state has some of the best records of geological data kept anywhere. A Mr. Condra, Doctor of Geology, was State Geologist for many years, and he used to tell the Drillers our main water supply came from the north country— Minnesota and on west. It came under the shales and hard pans of the Dakotas, under the Missouri River, where the shale is 2000 feet or more thick. Then, as the shale breaks off in the northern part of this state, the water comes back up to fill the large gravel beds in the so-called sand hill area of the state. We know it is under terrific pressure in the sands under the shale cap. Drill down through the shale into it and you get artesian flows 1800 to 2000 feet deep. These shale are almost waterproof. There's no seepage, even to let the water through, until they break off at the northern border of the state. These sand and gravel beds then filter the water on south to come out and make up our rivers, the North Loup, Middle Loup, and Calamus. As you know, the Loup River has the most even year round flow of any river in this nation. Is this from rain or snow recharge? No, this is from underground recharge. We have some fluctuations during heavy pumping at irrigation time, but it is right back to normal again after the season shut off. State readings, year after year, do not vary more than a few inches. The land that would come under this project is mostly rolling land. It is very difficult to gravity irrigate it. The level land that came under the project years ago, when it was first planned, has now been mostly developed by pump irrigation and ninety percent or more of that is watered with a dual purpose system a combination of part gravity and part sprinkler system so the acreage to be watered has been substantially reduced. It is being reduced more and more as farmers are putting in more pump irrigation every year. I doubt very much if there is a full 160 acres under the whole project that could be irrigated gravity type, so a farmer would still have his sprinkler system to maintain. He would have to pick the water up from his canal and pump it to the rolling ground. Feasibility of payoff? With the terrific cutback on acres left to pick up for irrigation, I can't possibly see it. With the loss of acreage by canals, laterals. dam site, etc., and the extra acres still being cut off by pump irrigation, it seems about fifteen years late. Wherein the plans call for 1.51 feet of water, it takes 2.50 to 3.00 to produce a corn crop. That was, and still is, the trouble with the present North Loup Irrigation Canal. They started with 1.50 acre feet of water, lost half their crop from drouth. Many of them supplemented with pumps and wells, then cancelled out their water contract with the North Loup Irrigation Canal. These that did not were able to purchase another 1.00 acre foot of water at additional cost to produce their crop. The North Loup Canal was a choice strip of land along the river valley, and it did not pay off. The land owners are buying it back now for .15¢ on the dollar. Mismanagement? Not necessarily. It was due more to competition, pump irrigation, low prices on farm produce, etc. Had they been getting a fair price for their produce, they could have paid more for the water and at least have kept the interest paid on the canal. It is true that their yield went up, but their overhead and costs of equipment increased so much more, and they received no more for their corn than they had twenty years ago. I do know that some of the farmers that were in favor of the project signed up for it, but do not want the water when the project is completed. The reason they signed up was because they were told that if they didn't take it, it would be diverted down into Oklahoma or even Texas. Recreation spot? Yes, but only for a few. Not for the people who would be taxed for it. With the fluctuation on water level in the dam, I can't see too much fishing and boating from a dry dock. You may feel that I am opposed to this project in a business way, due to being a well driller, but I am not as it is a very small area of our drilling operations. I just can't see throwing good tax money away when it can't possibly pay its way. Due to above reasons, I make a plea that the SubCommittee turn down proposed project. BURWELL, NEBR Chairman and Members of Subcommittee, DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS: We are not for the diversion dam on the Calamus River for the following reasons: 1. We do not think that the water from the North Loup Valley should be diverted to other areas until a thorough check has been made of the Valley to determine if it is possible to use more water farther down the Valley: possibly by use of storage Reservoirs, which could be filled in off-season for Irrigation. 2. We have been short on our annual precipitation now for several years; this may in time lower our water level and cut down the out-put of some wells in the Valley. We do not believe there's no such thing as these wells "not" going dry: we feel there is more water being pumped from the ground than there is going back in to it. 3. The 900+ acres that the Reservoir will cover is good wild life area; and a Blue Heron Herony: and a real nice Ranch Home: and other home sites: plus good Bottom-land will be destroyed; also quite a few large trees that takes a life-time to grow. We feel this area should be preserved. Mr. and Mrs. ERNEST SEWELL. ORD, NEBR., March 11, 1972. To Chairman and Members of Subcommittee: First of all it will damage more valuable land that is already being irrigated by wells, than it would benefit. We also find there is already as much land |