If people are wanting irrigation let them irrigate from their own rivers as the people in the Calamus Valley are irrigating from the Calamus River; instead of sending it across Nebraska into another water shed. People from all over Nebraska and surrounding states come here to camp. hunt and fish. They all go home with the satisfaction of enjoying mother nature at its best and not something man has tried and failed. How many of you have had the privilege to see a hen pheasant with her babies, a quail and her family, the deer, turkeys with their little ones, or cows with baby calves lying in the tall grass? This is quite a satisfaction to any rancher who lives in the Calamus Valley or surrounding areas. Every farm paper or news paper you pick up reads, "Keep the family sized ranch and farm going; we need more of them." I'm sure such a construction as this is no way of keeping them. Lets not ruin mother nature and Gods great creations by such a man made project. ELDON AND DARLENE LARSEN. ORD, NEBR. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation: I am a 33 year old farmer and cattle feeder. I am interested in this project because it will affect the community and future of my family. After spending two years in the army, 18 months in Germany, I came to this community as a hired man for a cattle feeder. I chose this community because it is productive and progressive, with the latest equipment and methods being used. This area is very well kept with neat and very modern farms, buildings, and equipment. I wanted a fine up-and-coming place to raise a family. Eleven years ago, I had an opportunity to buy a farm. I found that with the low prices of farm crops, I would have to supplement farming with something else. I started feeding cattle and hogs. I now feed my crops to cattle and this operation has kept me in the farming business. I own 860 acres. I operate 1380 acres. 800 of this is pasture and 580 acres are farm land. 520 acres of this land are within the district. The land description is as follows: 160 acres NW of Sec. 8-18-14; 160 acres, with irrigation well on it, NW of Sec. 7, 18-14 and 200 acres with irrigation well and pivot system, SW4 of Sec. 7, 18-14 plus SS of NW of Sec. 7, 18-14 of Enterprise Township, Valley County, Nebraska. The land in this area is very productive. But it has it's problems. Very little of the land lays with a gentle slope suitable for gravity irrigation. It is a rolling land with lots of ridges and runs in many directions. Even after it has been leveled, if it is to be gravity irrigated, the rows must run in many directions. Due to the progressiveness of the area, I, like many others, started irrigating. Ten years ago, I leveled some land for gravity irrigation. It cost over $100.00 an acre. That was only the beginning of my problems. I had to use gated pipe to cross the ridges and ditches getting to the irrigated area. I also buried some underground pipe so the field wouldn't be so chopped up. The water doesn't run through evenly; some areas get more water than others. There is also loss of evaporation. It takes more labor to check the rows three times a day and then there is always some loss of water at the row ends. Farm labor is extremely hard to find. If it isn't checked often there is a tremendous loss of water. On some fields it can be seen running down the road ditch. Then, because of the land running in many directions, there are many short rows and the fields are very chopped up, making it most unsuitable for the use of the large machinery being sold and used today. I found it has taken the last 9 years to get the ground back to productivity, because I lost so much top soil leveling. It was an added expense fertilizing to regain this productivity, plus a loss in crops due to poor soil. But this still didn't take care of the problem. Mainly, and most important, after all this trouble and expense, I lost some crops in dryer years due to the fact I couldn't cover enough acres with the gravity irrigation system because it takes longer to cover the ground and it takes more water. Naturally, like many others in the community, we looked for a better method-one that was updated. We went to the sprinkler irrigation and pivot system. I can cover 133 acres by the pivot system where I could only gravity irrigate about 75 acres with the same amount of water. My labor is cut down 95%. This is especially important as farm labor is so hard to find; many farmers who have in the past employed people, must now work alone. In using gravity irrigation, it takes one person almost full time to just handle the water. Someone has to run the machinery and do the other work. You can see where this leaves the farmer who farms by himself. I find it takes about 3 acre feet of water to raise an adequate crop-and more in extremely dry years, when we used gravity. The project estimates a farm delivery requirement of 1.51 acre feet of water, which is only half the amount necessary to raise an adequate crop. My personal concern toward this project is that the canal will cross my farm and will go through under my pivot system. At the present time, with the pivot irrigation, my farm is worth about $90,000 saleable value. If the canal goes through my place, it will divide the farm in half so that it will hardly be worth dryland price, which would be about $30,000. In addition, we use the corn stocks for winter pasture. It would require extensive fencing which would make two small pastures; the question would be how to get the cattle across the canal to the other pasture. This would bring many problems to the cattle feeding situation. Then there is the problem of tax rolls. If the cattle feeding operation is cut back, it will be a loss to the personal property tax rolls of our county. You will note in the project report that total allocated cost as of the 1971 reevaluation was $74,607,000, of which $73,670,000 is reimbursable and $937,000 is nonreimbursable. This means that irrigation must pay for almost all of the project cost, and if they do not secure sufficient water users, it could mean that everyone within the district would be charged equally to reimburse the government for the cost of the project whether they receive any benefit, no matter if they use the services. This is not fair to those many farmers who cannot use gravity, or to the person who has already developed his farm. I am concerned that because of the extensive development of wells, sprinklers and pivot systems, that they will not get sufficient water users. It is not good judgment to put in a project that is not up-dated and then have to burden the already heavily burdened tax payer with more tax dollars and no benefits. I am concerned about the damaging effect this could have on the future of the community. Due to the additional tax burden, the damage from canals and ditches and lack of enough water at needed times crop losses would follow. If every farmer is forced to pay, it could cost the non-user enough money to prevent him from developing his acres that cannot be used by gravity. The above reasons could hurt the economy of this area. I would like to say that I am not against progress, and I know that progress always hurts some people. It would be easier to understand the hardships it will put on my operation if this project were feasible. I am against this out-dated project because: Gravity irrigation requires more water, covers less ground, requires more labor, has more loss to evaporation, does not water evenly. Leveling of ground causes loss of top soil and productivity. It does not allow enough water to grow crops. It will create a tax burden to the people. Hardships of the many ditches and canals. Because so much of the land is not suitable for gravity irrigation. And because this progressive area on its own has surpassed the need for this by developing itself with more modern methods and systems. I am not an isolated situation; this will happen many times over. I believe this marginal project should not be authorized beCause the system used is as out dated as the figures used to represent the project. Much of the land the project is seeking to develop is already developed by superior systems which will save water and money as the end result. Respectfully yours, ROLLIE R. STAAB. ORD, NEBR., March 17, 1972. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation: We are a farm family living near Ord, Nebraska in Valley County. We have been farming and feeding cattle for 23 years and have lived on this particular farm for 13 years. We have irrigated one way or another through all these 23 years so feel that through our experience we should know a little about irrigating. We have leased ground but gradually have been buying land so we could improve it the way we wish. Our operation now consists of 2260 acres of which 945 acres are irrigated in various different ways. At present time we are gravity irrigating 150 acres. The balance of the ground is too rolling and would require leveling. It would make small patches of farm ground and would not be feasible. We have 3 center pivot systems on 3 quarters and underground main line and tow line on the balance of the 945 acres. The remaining acres are native pasture. It is true that there are a few acres on the tow line ground and the center pivot systems that could be gravity irrigated under the Twin Loups Project. For instance, on SW quarter, Section 26, 18-14, 127 acres are said to be gravity irrigated under the Twin Loups Project. From my experience of gravity irrigating this quarter is too rolling and has too much slope. The NW quarter, Section 35, 18-14 has 76 acres of gravity irrigated acres supposedly under the Twin Loups Project. This quarter is also rolling and steep. Because of the contour of this land under the Twin Loups Project there is 1 acre off by itself to be gravity irrigated. Picture yourself running a lateral to catch this one acre, yet we will be paying for this one acre regardless. With my pivot system I can irrigate 133 acres on this quarter. On our other two quarters we have about the same situations with 100 acres on one and 59 acres on the other. With my present systems I am irrigating 133 acres on each. With the Twin Loups Plan all of these quarters are too rolling, with too much slope, and would end up with too many small Patches. So if the Twin Loups Project goes through we will be losing irrigatable acres. If a lateral or canal goes through this ground with the pivot and tow line systems we won't be able to use any of these systems so thus less irrigatable acres and lower valuation. We are being told that we do not have to take water from this project but if my neighbor chooses to take water and in order to get water to his land a canal or lateral would have to go through my land on our pivot or tow line systems, these systems would be ruined. Because of the rolling land in this Twin Loups District, laterals and canals can not be run on section lines and fence lines so many small patches of farm ground would result which is no good for big modern equipment. We all know that we need young men to stay on our farms. The pivot system way of irrigating is a modern and simple way of irrigating so we feel that this is one big way of interesting and keeping our young people "down on the farm." We definitely feel that the Twin Loups Project would be going backwards instead of forward for us and for the many farmers that have already modernized their irrigation systems with pivots. Therefore we feel that the more modern system with the pivot system would attract more young people which is very important to the future of agriculture. A study has been made of the acres irrigated in this area and at the present time it is about the same to that which the Twin Loup Project has planned. So the Twin Loup Project can't make a very big economic impact on our community. We have had experience irrigating from the North Loup Public Power and Irrigation District. We know that the 12 acre foot of water per acre is not sufficient for gravity in this area. We hear a lot about conserving water. Much water can be saved by using sprinkler systems. Through the use of laterals and canals much water is lost through seepage and evaporation. There is also a lot of expense involved in the upkeep of the ditches. The Twin Loups Project was designed 15 years ago and now the use of open laterals and canals is obsolete. It also is not feasible for this area. The government is paying farmers about $100 per acre to have idle acres in the Feed Grain Program, so does it make sense to push a project that they say would up our production and cost the tax payer millions of dollars for very little benefit. We have stated a few of the reasons why we are opposed to the Twin Loups Project and there are more reasons in other areas that don't directly concern us. So once again we would like to ask the sub-committee to seriously reconsider this marginal project and that the project not be authorized because of the above reasons. Sincerely, BRYAN PETERSON. BURWELL, NEBR., March 17, 1972. Chairman and Members of Subcommittee, Calamus River Dam Project: DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS: I (Etta Sebesta) am a native of Loup County, having lived almost all of my life in the area. The ranch home where I spent ten years with my late husband was located two miles from the Calamus River. I still own a life estate in the ranch, so naturally, am interested in the community. At the present time, I am teaching in a school located in the river valley. If the dam materializes, this school and the home of families in the community will become non-existent. The area around the proposed dam site is of sandy soil, which, if disturbed, and the native grasses torn up, can very easily create serious erosion problems. If the reservoir is used for recreational facilities, the added traffic will, in my estimation, be likely to create problems, not only in soil erosion, but in adding to the pollution and destruction of wildlife habitat, as well. Added to the foregoing objections, some consideration should be given to the effect this project will have on property owners in Loup County. According to statistics reported in our local newspaper, 12,240 acres of land will be removed from the tax rolls. At least 18 families will have their homes either destroyed, or their farms reduced too drastically to continue in operation, with a forfeiture of $836,675 from the assessed tax valuation for Loup County. (These figures were taken from a report in the Mar. 9 issue of the Taylor Clarion.) In view of the fore-going facts, and the lack of job opportunities, I feel that we can ill afford to have this land diverted for the purpose proposed. Very respectfully, Hon. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, ETTA SEBESTA. MARCH 17, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. JOHNSON: We bought our 680 acre ranch one year ago without the knowledge that an irrigation project would take approximately 75 per cent of our land. This includes our ranch headquarters. We have added a new home, a new well and water system, new sewer, and several miles of new fence. This project would cause us considerable loss as we do not feel we could replace the investment we have made. We would sincerely appreciate your careful consideration on this matter. Yours truly, RUPERT BRISTOL. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Irrigation_and_Reclamation, House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: My brother, Joseph F. C. Snyder, of Oklahoma City, and myself are the owners of a ranch in Loup County, Nebraska, on the Calamus River legally described as follows, to-wit: All of Sections Five, Six, and Seven, and the Northwest Quarter of Section Eight, and a tract of 81.10 acres in Section Four, all in Township Twenty-two, North of Range Seventeen, West of the 6th P.M., and Section One, the North Half of Section Two, and all of Section Twelve, in Township Twenty-two, North of Range Eighteen, West, and the Southeast Quarter of Section Thirty-two, in Township Twenty-three, North of Range Seventeen, West, and the Southeast Quarter of Section Thirty-five, in Township Twenty-three, North of Range Eighteen, West of the 6th P.M., all in Loup County, Nebraska, containing 4005.44 acres, more or less. The proposed Calamus reservoir will effectively destroy the usefulness of our ranch as a ranch since it will cut the ranch into two parcels. It will destroy the more productive portion of the ranch which produces the majority of the winter feed for the livestock on the ranch, it will inundate the buildings and the extensive windbreak and shelter belt system that has been developed adjacent to the river at great expense to the landowner. The windbreak and shelter belt system adjacent to the building site and the river is a haven for wildlife such as deer, wild turkey, pheasants, prairie chickens and grouse. The destruction of this windbreak system and windbreak systems on other properties along the Calamus River will deal a crippling blow to the wildlife in this area. Our ranch has provided a ranch family with a good living and has provided my brother and myself with the major portion of our income. The inundation 77-012-726 of a portion of our ranch by the proposed reservoir will eliminate a ranch family and will substantially reduce the income from the ranch on which we depend. We respectfully call your attention to the fact that much of the area proposed to be irrigated by the proposed project is now being irrigated by irrigation wells from the vast underground water supply that is under the area that is proposed to be irrigated. If the Congress feels that more of the area involved needs to be irrigated it would be far more ecenomical for the Congress to provide low interest loans to the landowners in the area which the proposed area is supposed to serve in order to enable them to develop their own irrigation wells at a cost to the landowners involved far less than the assessments which will be charged against the landowners for the proposed project. We respectfully submit that the Congress use its money to develop irrigation projects in areas where water is not readily available under the land proposed to be irrigated. Very truly yours, VIRGINIA BANKS. ORD, NEBR., March 14, 1972. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation: My occupation is full time farming-raising corn, grain, hay and livestock. I have lived and farmed in this area since 1920 and know this area through plentiful rainfall with abundant crops, through drouth years with crop failures to the present development of well irrigation. I am in the area which is covered by the proposed Twin Loups Irrigation Project. I have four irrigation wells with sufficient water to irrigate the 640 Acres of land that I own, which is in the area of the proposed project. We irrigate with underground pipe and aluminum gated pipe and a pivot system. We have no open ditches. I object to open ditches, canals and laterals because the project would cut up and destroy our valuable irrigated land, cause problems and dangers to our livestock. It would make inconvenient access to some of the fields and make it difficult to farm land that is all cut up with ditches. Also, it would destroy our wells which have been established at considerable work and expense. Our present system is functioning very well, as is that of our neighbors. Those who are farming have already developed their land for irrigation from wells so there would no longer be any benefits to us from this project. We can do it cheaper this way that the proposed project would do. We can irrigate when crops need it, not have to wait for our turn to get water, which in some instances might be too late, or to irrigate when it is not necessary or pay for water we would not use. The government is creating additional problems by irrigating more acres, then paying farmers to raise less. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH J. BONNE. THE ALBION NATIONAL BANK, Mr. Toм TYE, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. Last summer it was my privilege to be a member of a Boy Scout group that made a five-day canoe trip down the Calamus River. It was a most enjoyable experience for all of us. We were thrilled with the natural beauty of the river and its environs. During the trip someone mentioned that it was contemplated to build a dam and inundate a very considerable portion of the lower reaches of the river. All of the scouts lamented this prospect, and hoped that something would happen to prevent it so that future generations of scouts could have the same wonderful experience that they enjoyed. I hope that your committee will weigh carefully the advantages of preserving the natural state of the Calamus against the advantages to be gained from developing it for irrigation. It is my understanding that many people who |