signed up twenty years ago in support of the irrigation project have since then developed satisfactory underground sources of irrigation water. On a national scale, we are constantly told by agricultural economists that our present cropland has a productive capacity in excess of our needs. Or more conservatively, that present cropland plus constantly improving yields through increased efficiency and technology are keeping capacity ahead of demand. Personally, I have always supported any more designed to strengthen and improve agriculture. However, I do think the time has come when ecological and agricultural considerations must be carefully considered and balanced. In this situation I think the balance is clearly in favor of retaining the Calamus in its natural state. Respectfully yours, JAMES M. WOLF, President. MID-AMERICA PUBLISHING CORP., FLOWER AND GARDEN MAGAZINE, Kansas City, Mo., February 18, 1972. Mrs. GAYLORD WALLACE, DEAR MRS. WALLACE: It would be all right if you wish to include my previous letter in the file of things for the hearings on the Calamus River. I can't remember exactly what I said, but in any case I wouldn't retract or change any of it but might add. Nancy Jack and I recently had a get-together to review slides we took on that trip, and reminisce about it. The Calamus stands out in my mind as unique. It is not like any other river I know, and apart from all the economic, agricultural and recreation considerations about damming it, the main thing is that something of rare and incalculable value exists there that should not be destroyed. It is as yet virtually unspoiled. We saw more wild life in the stretch from the Highway 183 bridge down to your landing than anywhere else along it, although life was abundant the whole distance from the Meeks Upstream Ranch down to the lake in Burwell. There were enormous female carp spawning (noisily) under the overhanging prairie grasses along the bank. I have never seen a stream where the prairie runs absolutely to the water's edge as it does on the Calamus, and this tells us something about the stability and constancy of its flow. It must have been going along this same way for ages on end without major disruptions such as floods or cessation from drouth. Two big owls (species not identied) flew off the bank shortly downstream from the bridge. A great blue heron preceded us down the river and we glimpsed him occasionally as we rounded bends. We saw song birds of so many kinds-I wish I had written them down, but didn't think of it then. In the higher banks were swallow nests. We saw turtles of all sizes, and two or three different shapes. The water was so clear we could see them on the bottom, and in one place we stopped and watched one burrow into the shifting bottom sand, completely hiding himself in about ten seconds. Where banks were higher we saw signs of muskrat and beaver, and in fact the evening we camped on your property we actually saw the beavers twice-this is the only time I have ever seen them in the wild in broad daylight. As we walked over to visit your pond with the waterlilies that evening, we saw a band of deer. In the woods near your place we were astounded to see wild turkeys. Tracks in the sand revealed the presence of many other creatures, but I am not that up on animal tracks to know what they all were. I was especially interested in the vegetation, for obvious reasons, and took pictures of many things. Incidentally. I did a little research and learned the Calamus is named for a plant that grows along it, Acorus calamus, and it was called that (in their own language) by the Indians. Some of the other plants of interest were the arrowhead (sagittaria) in great abundance, bur-heads, the bee-plants, a wide variety of milkweeds, catch-flies, desmodiums. In one place near the confluence with the North Loup we found a patch of Gerardia purpurea, a pretty little pink flower something like a foxglove—I had never seen it before and had quite a time identifying it because most authorities do not even list it for Nebraska. It was growing in the wet prairie grass just a foot from the water's edge. If it would be of help, I could lend you some of these slides. I probably do not know of all the arguments pro and con. Obviously the kind of pleasure we found in your Calamus River has nothing in common with the thrills some people get from roaring around in a speed boat and making waves in a big body of water. It does have something to do with a sensitivity toward the land, and man's stewardship in preserving the fragile and fine systems he finds on it. This is why I hope the decision makers will not make the one-way mistake of destroying this very unusual stream and its beautiful little valley. If you feel this letter will add to your material, you are at liberty to use it, and let me know if you want any of my pictures. Also, thanks a lot for the snapshots you sent. And thanks for writing me. Sincerely, RACHEL SNYDER, Editor-In-Chief. KANSAS CITY, KANS., February 20, 1972. Mrs. GAYLORD WALLACE, DEAR MRS. WALLACE: From my copy of Rachel Snyder's letter to you, I see that the proposal to dam the Calamus has gotten beyond the speculation stage. Consider this my "no" vote for any dam on the Calamus. Before any irrevocable decision is made, I would like to inject a few points in favor of leaving the beautiful little Calamus river just as I saw it a few months ago. As you will recall, Rachel and I canoed the Calamus from above your lovely home to its junction with the North Loup and thence to the dam at Burwell. That was in mid-August when most streams in other parts of the country are bone-dry or are too low to float a shallow-draft canoe. Canoeing something over 30 miles of the Calamus did not qualify me as an Instant Expert on your river. But for the past 15 years, I have been a keen student and observed of wild and natural rivers and do not plead general ignorance of same. On vacation last year, we were headed for the Niobrara river because of the threat of the proposed Norden dam on the lower end of the most scenic and most canoeable part of the whole Niobrara. The stretch from near Valentine to Rocky Ford is indeed worthy of National Scenic Rivers designation and does not deserve to be inundated to provide irrigation water for lands which the Federal government is already paying $1 million a year to keep out of production. We had decided to try the Calamus as a second stream for canoeing in Nebraska before heading for Colorado and a week of backpacking. A little map reading and sheer good fortune led us to your door. It certainly turned out to be a fine choice. And as I am sure I told you, visiting Nebraskaland was a "homecoming" for me after more than 30 years. A man at Valentine had told us "The sand hills are one great, big sponge." Rainfall does not run off, but sinks in-fast and deep and is released slowly to maintain a constant water table. It would take 40 days and 40 nights of steady downpour to cause a flood, and the streams don't dry up in a Nebraska summer. Whether you realize it or not, this is unique among rivers of America which are neither heavily spring-fed or born among glaciers and snowfields. One reason why I dwell upon your region as a huge aquifer is that it bears directly upon the question of damming the Calamus or any other sand hills stream. Two secure high points must be found to anchor a dam. Not having any topographical maps of the area, I would have to estimate that the highest points we saw along the river were no more than 100 feet about the streambed, and I don't recall having seen any bluffs that were closer than a mile apart. So if an earthen dam were to be built across the Calamus, it would have to be something like 100 feet high and a mile long. You should be very deeply concerned about where that much fill dirt would come from. Even minimal amounts of concrete would require a lot of aggregate from someone's land in the area. It hardly needs to be added that the lush, productive valley behind the dam would be under water and lost to agriculture for all time-or at least until after sedimentation had filled in the lake. This has happened in other places within a very short number of years. Sedimentation is one of three major problems that would prove troublesome with a dam on the Calamus. The other two are evaporation and seepage. On the Calamus, we constantly heard the soft swishing of the suspended silt in the water as it brushed our aluminum canoe. Sandbars shift endlessly beneath the surface. A river forced to drop its load when the current is slowed or stopped by any barrier such as a dam will deposit sediments very rapidly. Among other adverse effects, this progressively diminishes water storage capacity. Lake Mead behind Hoover dam on the Colorado river in Arizona was completed in the mid-1930's and was considered to be more than 40 per cent silted in when I was there in 1967. Evaporation from a large body of water is mind-boggling in the amount of water loss. Honest figures are hard to come by. On a hot dry day in Nebraska, water loss from any body of standing water is far, far greater than from any meandering meadow stream. Much water "saved" for irrigation and/or other purposes just evaporates into thin air. Seepage would constitute another tremendous water loss from a dam on the Calamus. If rainfall presently sinks into the ground instead of running off the sand hills, just think how the thirsty sand would absorb every rising inch of an impoundment. Not only would accumulating water be siphoned off like a 24hour leak, but there is no way of knowing what effects it would have upon stability of the soil for many miles around in all directions. The Glen Canyon dam on the Colorado will never be "full" because there is one single dam on the Colorado will never be "full" because there is one single permeable rock layer well below the intended high water mark where water just flows out instead of rising. When the heavy siltation catches up with the permeable stratum, there will be no more Lake Powell, and I expect this to happen within my lifetime. No two rivers are exactly alike, but they all share a few things in common in addition to wetness. As we paddled down the Calamus, we often heard the next irrigation water pump before the sound of the last one faded in the distance. X number of gallons of water were being pumped from the river, yet the river was not harmed or out of balance. We assumed that irrigation needs were being met, and not at the cost of destroying the source of the water. The same claim could not be made for a dam. As a matter of local curiosity, you might inquire about the original depth of the diversion dam at Burwell, and what it is now. I don't know where on the Calamus the proposed damsite is, but for my purposes it doesn't matter: the consequences would be unfortunate for just about everyone. Damming wrecks the natural balance of everything for many miles upstream (even to where the engineers will tell you there is "no effect"), and downstream where the sporadic flow dependent upon releases is nothing like it was before, in quality, quantity, or in dependability. Even when proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was a flat failure has any dam ever been “unbuilt." Why should it? The damage is already done. Or in other words, once a dam has been built, it is irreversible. The entire ecosystem of every river is wrecked by any dam, anyplace. If you are opposed to or undecided about the proposed damming of the Calamus, I suggest that you insist upon a satisfactory Environmental Impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Act was kind of a sleeper when it was passed, but it has good, strong teeth in it. Rachel covered the flora and faunda of the Calamus very well. I share her concern for the probable losses of plant and animal life if the dam is constructed. And if you are not subscribers, DO rush right out and buy a copy of the March issue of Field & Stream magazine. Pay particular attention to Richard Starnes' "Chapter & Verse on The Dam Builders," Michael Frome on "Conservation," and a vapid story titled "Save the Provo." All would be of immediate interest to you. You may use all or any part of this rather long letter in any way you see fit. For myself, I can only reiterate that a dam on the Calamus would be fatal to the unique little sand hills prairie stream-and quite unnecessarily so. As soon as I can get them made, I will send you some duplicate slides of pictures I took along the Calamus late last summer. Just once more, I urge you to keep what you have the Calamus river as a river all the way. Sincerely, (Miss) NANCY C. JACK. Mr. TYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will only make one brief statement at this time and then ask the gentlemen who are with me to explain their peculiar situations of which they have personal knowledge in this area. I will have then, in conclusion, one additional item which I would like to bring up, but to begin with, I should like to offer for the file, copies of a publication entitled "Nebraska's Water Story." I am sorry that I only have three of these left as the State of Nebraska no longer prints this particular publication. Mr. JOHNSON. They will be placed in the file for further reference and you may refer to the content matter here in your remarks. (The publication referred to will be found in the files of the subcommittee.) Mr. TYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This publication was published by the Division of Nebraska Resources and the part to which I have particular reference, I believe, was prepared by the conservation and survey division. The publication doesn't have a date. I am sure Mr. Dreeszen can supply it. As I recall from my vague memory, I think it was 1964, but maybe he can give us that information. The part, Mr. Chairman, I am referring to deals with ground water in storage in Nebraska wherein it is stated that in the area of Nebraska we have a total of 1,000,678,816,000 acre-feet of water in storage underneath the State of Nebraska. This particular publication also states that north-central Nebraska is especially significant as a ground water recharge area as shown in their maps in this particular publication. Aquifers lying immediately below the land surface are essentially an unbroken blanket of unconsolidated deposits, ranging in thickness from a few feet to more than 800 feet. The average annual increment to this underground supply reservoir is estimated to be 8 million acre-feet. Present total utilization is about 3 million acre-feet. Therefore, there is an unused balance of appropriately 5 million acre-feet. If you will notice the area which they are talking about in this particular publication deals with the area that we are talking about in the North Loup. I should like at this time to ask Mr. Lloyd Geweke Mr. JOHNSON. If that concludes your statement. Mr. TYE. It does except for one concluding remark. Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to ask a question at that point. In the brochure you referred to and the figures you used, how much of this has actually been explored? Mr. TYE. You mean Mr. JOHNSON. Where there is proof that the water is there and it is available and can be reached and used. Or is this only someone's theory? Now the reason I ask this question-we have a situation in our State where the geologists and engineers tell us that we have a lot of ground water and we don't need the 8 million acre-feet of new water. Neveretheless, we are looking for a source of 4 million acrefeet of water for southern California. We don't know because we haven't actually explored the area. I wonder if this has been explored and has it been a proven source of water supply? We know that Nebraska is underlain with a lot of water but has all of this been proven here or is this someone's theory. Mr. TYE. The only thing-in answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, the only thing I can say is that I am stating only from facts given and prepared by the conservation and survey division. I have no knowledge, personal knowledge, myself as to whether they have made studies as to how much, if any part or all of this is usable or not usable. I could not answer your question with the knowledge that I have. Mr. JOHNSON. The reason I was asking, I was wondering if they actually drilled this and have proof that the water is there in these amounts. Mr. TYE. How they arrived at the conclusions that are made in this particular study I do not know, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. Eight million acre-feet of water is quite a supply of water. Mr. TYE. It certainly is and we feel we have a tremendous amount of water underneath Nebraska. Mr. JOHNSON. If this is water that accumulates and replenishes itself, you always have that much supply, that is quite a supply. All right, now, you may proceed. Mr. TYE. Thank you. (Mr. Tye's full statement follows:) Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: MARCH 19, 1972. My name is Thomas W. Tye. I am an attorney practicing in Kearney, Nebraska and representing an organization known as Southern Loup & Calamus River Valley, Inc. I would like at this time to offer letters of objection from the following persons and ask that they be made a part of the record at this hearing: Clifford and Jim Goff, Burwell, Nebraska Bryan and Carolyn Peterson, Ord, Nebraska Harry H. Foth, Ord, Nebraska Rupert and Sona Bristol, Burwell. Nebraska Charles Vancura, Jr., Ord, Nebraska E. R. Horner, Cox & Horner Drilling & Irrigation Co., Ord & North Loup, Nebraska Joseph J. Borne, Ord, Nebraska Walter and Victoria Conner Mike Shonka, Burwell, Nebraska Rollie R. Staab, Ord, Nebraska James M. Wolf, President of The Albion National Bank, Albion, Nebraska Rachel Snyder, Editor-in-Chief, Mid-America Publishing Corp., Flower and Garden Magazine, Kansas City, Missouri Nancy C. Jack, Kansas City, Kansas Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Sewell, Burwell, Nebraska Etta Sebesta, Burwell, Nebraska I have with me today Mr. Alfred Blessing, an attorney from Hastings, Nebraska and an owner of land in the Ord and Calamus River area; Mr. Lloyd Geweke, a resident of the Mira Valley area, active farmer and livestock raiser and feeder; Mr. Gaylord Wallace, a resident of the Calamus Valley area, and active cattle rancher operating over 10,000 acres of land; Mr. John Koll, a resident of the Mira Valley and an active farmer and livestock raiser; and Mr. Robert Schrup, a resident of the Calamus Valley area, an active cattle raiser, and also a member of the Taylor County Board of Commissioners and here representing said Board of Commissioners. |