irrigated in the district as this canal would be irrigating, so why cut up some of this best land. It would also be taking a lot of land out of production and taxation. We feel that any farmer that wanted irrigation has already put down a well and has his land all laid out for it. If he hasn't it shows he just doesn't care to work that hard, as farming takes a lot of hard work and good management. Why, try to raise more, with these low prices on grain, then the government has to pay out a lot of money to reduce. With the high prices to be paid for machinery, a young farmer just can't start, even some that already have irrigation are selling out because they can't make a go of it. If this land gets cut up, it will only discourage more of them, many farms with pivot systems will be completely destroyed. Another thing these petitions being signed in the city, you will find most of them being signed by merchants and city folk not knowing how it will hurt many farmers, and seek only recreation, or by farmers that the canal won't be cutting through their land. Please take all of this into consideration and let's not try to do more harm than good, we are sure the good Lord won't let us down if he finds we need more water down below. Respectfully yours, CHARLES VANCURA, Jr. STATEMENT OF MIKE SHONKA, BURWELL, NEBr. I am one of the owners of a Ranch on the Calamus River in Loup County. We are not Interested in a Dam on this River and getting put out of our Cattle Industry. This is a good Cattle country Our Ranchers are not looking for Irrigation or losing their Ranches to Furnish water for a corn Country to Irrigate more acres to raise more corn. The Farmer can't get enough money for his corn to break even. We are short of grass land right now we can't find enough grass land to run our normal cattle population. I have been in the Real Estate Business for 31 years and the Rancher has been doing a good job raising the best beef cattle in the world and I hate these class of people get forced out of Business there isn't any place to go and raise more beef, I am against this Dam it won't help any one. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation: This is a letter concerning the Twin Loups Irrigation Project. We, Walter and Victoria Conner, ages 58 and 59 Respectively, own and operate 320 acres of land, which will be under the district. I, Walter have lived here all of my life. We have an irrigation well, drilled in the year of 1956, which we irrigate from by gravity and sprinkler line. This proposed Project will go diagonally through our best irrigated land. We cannot see any good in this project as we absolutely will not take any water from it and many others who now have wells think the same. The water level is not dropping any here. This is only an added cost and the ruination of land already developed for irrigation, as is nearly all the good land in the district. Why would it be feasible to ruin the good to try to irrigate what is left? WALTER CONNER, STATEMENT of Clifford Goff, BurweLL, NEBR. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, we, the Clifford Goffs, would like to voice our objection to this proposed "Twin Loup" Irrigation Project. We live on a farm on the south side of the North Loup River, three and one half miles west of Burwell. This is a good productive river-bottomland valley and is served by the North Loup irrigation project, also by irrigation wells. We have an irrigation well, and we prefer it very to the ditch water. We find we get about twice as much water out of our well as we got from the ditch, as we were served by the ditch prior to 1955. We pump with electricity and it doesn't cost as much as the water from the ditch cost. Our objection to the project is that it will cut across our irrigated farm. We already have the North Loup ditch cutting across us, also an old ditch that was put in about seventy years ago. This old ditch was never used very much as it was so poorly engineered and constructed as to be of little use. We do not feel this new "Twin Loup" project is at all practical or necessary. or feasable as we are very well acquainted with the land that is to be irrigated. The land is much too rolling hilly The water will have to be pumped to water it. There are many farms which are already watered from wells. Many farms have, by means of several wells, many more acres watered than could ever be done from a ditch. We feel this is the only practical way to irrigate. We have been irrigating for thirty-eight years, and we know that this land won't irrigate from an open ditch. We are asking you to investigate very thoroughly the merits of this project. and to have enough of this land signed under contract to secure the repayment of this loan before granting it. STATEMENT OF VALLEY VIEW LADIES CLUB We, the members of the Valley View Ladies Club, wish to go on record as being in opposition to the irrigation project. Many of us have lived in the Calamus River Valley for years and would lose our homes, our tree shelter belts farm and grazing lands; in other words our means of livelihood. It would completely destroy some homes and ranches. Some would not be able to raise enough alfalfa corn and hay for our cattle enterprises which amount to a considerably large sum each year. This would not only effect us but surrounding communities. Also our wild life such as deer, pheasants, grouse and wild turkey would disappear if such a project were realized. Why destroy this beautiful, productive and natural recreation area for a man made irrigation project? Darlene Larsen, Maxine Brown, Bernice Schrup, Leila Flowers, COUNTRYSIDE BRIARDALE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: As a Minister with Youth in a Metropolitan area such as Omaha, I find that travel and outdoor living is a valuable tool and resource for getting into their lives and their struggles. The past two years we have used the Calamus River for canoe trips with our Senior highs. Our departure point is located at a Church Camp near Burwell, Nebraska. This is a tremendous opportunity for young people to draw away from the hectic culture which they must participate in, to a place where reflection and deep meaningful relationships are developed. I find that these kinds of experiences are very much attuned to the "adventurous" spirit of youth, to the "getting back to nature" idea that young people of today exemplyfy. The different kind of beauty that they are exposed to along this area broadens their world view, as well as facilitates the learning process for them. Flooding that area will be a loss that is not measurable from an economical frame of reference, but something which is not seen. The style of relationships and personhood, the growth and development of people. I urge you to labor hard over your decisions and broaden your perspective to a far reaching range in order to make your recommendations. Sincerely, HAROLD D. YOUNGBLOOD, Minister With Youth. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: BURWELL, NEBR., March 10, 1972. We are against the Twin Loups Reclamation Project in Loup County because it would destroy the Beauty of our community and the homes of many ranchers. The Calamus River is a beautiful river; it has pure water which very few rivers in the nation has; it provides fishing hunting and canoeing for many people. Boy Scouts from different parts of the country use it for camping, canoeing and wild life observation. The water is used for irrigation and there is "No Pollution" problem. There is a wonderful "Shelter Belt" which is one of the best, if not "The Best" in Nebr. that would be destroyed. It provides a refuge for wild life, camping for Boy Scouts, protection for cattle from the cold winds besides the beauty that it adds to our community. The Valley View historical site has been here for years. There is a nice modern school house that is in use and it serves as a community center. So, if this project goes thru it would destroy one of the prettiest and productive valley in the county. It would take our home and we wouldn't be alone as there are a number of other ranchers that would be affected. We would have to find some where else to live. Yours truly, Mr. and Mrs. CYRUS WRIGHT AND SON. MARCH 9, 1972. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Leland Scherzberg. I am forty-three years old. I was born in and have lived my entire life in the area which will be directly affected by the North Loup Reclamation project. I farm and ranch on 3,700 acres in partnership with my mother. Our principal crops consist of corn and alfalfa, and the raising of feeder cattle. I am married and have three children. Over the years I have held the usual school and church offices that any responsible citizen does, including seventeen years as a member of the county Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Committee. In this capacity, which deals with all farmers, I believe I have learned to view situations affecting many people over a broad area rather than just as they affect me. It is my opinion that the North Loup project is unnecessary and unjustified for the following reasons: 1. The Reclamation Bureau tends to overstate the amount of acres which will supposedly benefit from this project and underestimate the acres that will be lost forever for the production of foodstuffs. The Bureau estimates more than 10,000 acres will be used for the Calamus reservoir alone. This is not including the hundreds of acres that will be used for the rerouting of roads around the reservoir, the borrow pits (these are not in the area to be covered by water), canals, etc. Nor does this figure include the acres lost to the diversion dam on the North Loup River and the ground covered by the water. Besides this there will be several thousand more acres lost in the hundreds of miles of main canal, laterals, and the Davis Creek Reservoir and pumping stations. All of this land loss, which would probably amount to between 15,000 and 20,000 acres and not even mentioning the enormous cost and loss of family farms, all this to irrigate an estimated 50,000 acres, including a good many acres of backs and steep side hills which the farmers themselves say are not feasible to irrigate, and of which the majority is already irrigated by the farmers through their private financial means. 2. Since such a large amount of the project is already watered by irrigation wells, the bureau thinks this project may be necessary to recharge the underground water supply of the irrigated areas. Although this sounds good there is no proof whatsoever that the project will do this. Unless or until this can be proven I believe this project is wholly unnecessary and a ridiculous, costly experiment. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: LELAND SCHERZBERG. ORD, NEBR. I moved on this farm in the spring of 1929. At that time we bought 320 acres of ground of which 160 is now in the Twin Loups Irrigation Project. Siner that time we have purchased another 480 acres adjoining this land. This land is all in the Irrigation Project. After our son married he bought another 160 acres close by which is also in the Irrigation Project. Through the years we have continued to improve the land. We now have three wells on the 960 acres in the project. On the 160 acres a short way from home we have 147 acres of farm ground. This land is all in grass which we irrigate with one of the three wells. With our tow-line we can irrigate 147 acres for a cost of $900.00 a year. This includes fuel and oil for the motor and repairs. We cross the farm 4 times putting on 8 inches of water each time. This makes 32 inches of water or a cost of $6.12 per acre. Under the Bureau's irrigation project we can irrigate 64 acres at a cost of $10.60 an acre. With this project we are to receive approximately 18 inches of water. We would not be able to leave this land in grass as it is not level enough to flood irrigate. Now, I ask you, which is the better irrigation system? The remainder of our land is irrigated by gravity and sprinkler system. We are able to plant corn in half-mile rows. We know the main canal goes through this land. We do not know where the laterals will be. We know that we will have shorter rows which will be inconvenient for large machinery. We also will lose some of the best producing ground we own. This land will go off the tax rolls. Also the grain it would raise and the cattle the grain would feed goes off the tax rolls. Is this progress? We have used one well more than 15 years and the water level has not lowered. In Valley County the proposed Twin Loups Irrigation District covers land where there are now more than 140 wells. The US Dept of Agriculture ASC office in Ord, Nebr., allows each farmer 130 acres per well. At this rate there are nearly 19,000 acres of irrigated ground. Valley County has only a little over 20,000 irrigated acres in the District. It is our understanding that in the entire project there are nearly 19,000 acres in lakes, dams, canals and laterals that will be taken out of production. In other words, nearly every acre that would be irrigated in Valley County is being taken out of production somewhere. There are many pivot systems in our area with more going in. I do not know how these farmers will be able to operate them with open laterals and canals. It would be a large financial loss if the farmers have to sell these as second hand machines. Also the dealers in the area will lose business. I believe the users of water should have the final say-so of whether they want this project or not. I know many civic organizations have promoted it. I understand no farm organizations, which are made up of the farmers of the area, were in favor of the project discussed here. I think this speaks on how the farmers feel. Respectfully yours, HARRY H. FоTH. STATEMENT OF EDWIN VANCURA Mr. Chairman and members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, I am a land owner in Valley County and live in the proposed Reclamation Project. I have a 1200 gal. irrigation well and irrigate 105 acres gravity and sprinkle 30 acres. The area I live in has been developed for irrigation in the last 5 years. I would say 90% of the surrounding area that is irrigable has been, developed with wells using gravity and pivot systems. Therefore I feel with this much land developed for us there is no longer a need for an irrigation project in this area. Valley Country has 19,000 acres now being irrigated and with the project they propose to irrigate 20,500. The cost is too great for that small of an increase in acres. Most of the cost is to be paid for by the water users and I don't feel there will be enough users in Valley County to do this. We cannot afford to pay $10.60 an acre for water when we already have our own irrigation system in use now. Furthermore 18 to 20 thousand acres of land will be used for dam site and canals. The irrigable acres to be gained is not large enough to affect the loss. This project should of been put in 15 years ago before the area was already developed for irrigation. Our wells are pumping as effectively now as when they were installed several years ago. With the vast supply and recharge from the Minnesota Lakes and Rocky Mountains. I am sure we will always have enough water. The government at present is paying us $106 an acre on irrigated ground to divert it and keep us from producing crops on our land and a sizable amount less than that on dryland so the government is merely creating additional problems itself subsidize at a higher rate. So gentlemen I ask you to reconsider all the facts before making your decision. STATEMENT OF IVEN A. MAY, ASSISTANT SCOUTMASTER, TROOP 64 I would like to make a few comments on our trip down the Calamus River in June, 1965. There were five adults and 12 Boy Scouts who made this 45 mile trip with Canoes packs tents and food for 5 days and nights. The Scouts have made a number of similar trips on other Nebraska rivers, but we all felt this had to be the most enjoyable of all. My son-in-laws who live in the Burwell area and myself contacted each rancher along the river for permission to camp on their ground, and have access to water. The permission was granted by each rancher. I have met several since that time have hunted deer and quail on their property-so have very good relations whenever we meet. I would like to mention a few of high lights we enjoyed. We started out just beyond the Fish Hatchery-which I assume belongs to the State Department. This place was beautiful. We started down the river early the next morning (on Monday) and spent 5 days traveling the Calamus to Burwell-getting out in the park. Early each morning-deer was sighted the boys would watch-each trying to the see one "first." Wild life was plentiful as well as beautiful. We carried every thing to exist-except water. When we would pass near a ranch home, we would ask for permission the get necessary water-all were most accommodating. We did find several springs along the way-so could use it. Every one had a great time-swimming and enjoying the clean, clear water. So in closing, I want to say-I would enjoy another trip down the Calamus in a canoe some time in the future. BURWELL, NEBR., March 10, 1972. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Concerning the dam of the Calamus River and Twin Loups reclamation project in Loup Co: This dam would ruin our home as well as our livelihood. If this goes through it will ruin our family sized cattle operation of 200 cows and calves, plus the carry over of yearlings. Anyone who has lived on a cattle ranch and raised cattle in the sandhills of Nebraska knows hay is essential, and plenty of it, if the cattle are to survive and, of course, we know the ranches won't be here long if the cattle aren't. All of the hay for this ranch comes from valleys along this Calamus River. If these valleys, fields and meadows are covered with water in winter and sand in summer, it isn't going to be a pretty sight to view or profitably wise either. You might go back in the hills and hay but this isn't profitable when the hay won't cover the mower bars and 1/2 ton or less to the acre. This particular ranch, where we live, consists of 4,000 acres of hay meadows, fields, and pastures. We have lived here nine years and it is one of the best in the area. We lease it from Joe Snyder and Virginia Banks. The beautiful, exceptionally good shelter belts provide shelter for the cattle during the winter. Shelter is a must if cattle and ranchers survive the severe blizzards that hit this part of the country. Lots of people from Burwell and surrounding areas and, possibly including yourselves, think this will be a great asset to Nebraska and the country in general. But if they figure on storing water in winter and pumping it out in summer it will only serve as a sand beach and we already have plenty of sand blow outs. |