unless you would want to adhere to the principle of the 160-acre limitation whereby you dispose of the excess.

Mr. GEWEKE. Yes, sir.

(Mr. Geweke's statement follows:)

STATEMENT of LLOYD GEWEKE, ENTERPRISE, NEBr.

I am the owner-operator of 2.080 acres in Enterprise Township of Valley County, Nebraska. The NW 22 W1⁄2 15-18-14 lays within the boundaries of this Twin Loups Irrigation District. I have lived in this area all of my life. My irrigation experience dates back to 1939, which was the start of the North Loup Rural Public Power and Irrigation District. My dad and I owned and operated 320 Class I acres under that project. Through the years each of us served on the Board of Directors of that District.

The original contract for water from the NLRPPI District was $2.50 per acre. Later, $2.50 per acre was added for repair and maintenance. Using and working with this open ditch project for the past 30 years has proven to me that projects of this type are not satisfactory or feasible. Each of the two quarters mentioned above has irrigation wells operating at the present time to supplement the open ditch project.

In the fall of 1954 we drilled our first irrigation well on the north line of NW of Section 22. This well was 405 feet deep and test pumped over 900 gallons per minute from 190 feet. For a number of years we irrigated 300 acres of this land from three 80 rod sprinkler lines, moving pipe by hand once or twice a day.

In the early 1960's, with hired help harder to find, we decided to level some land and gravity irrigate all we could, farming the rest as dry land.

We leveled 95 acres at a cost of $110.00 per acre. The well we drilled in 1954, mentioned previously, handles the water needed for these 95 acres. This well is pumping just as much water or more today, as when new.

I drilled my second well on the north side of SW4 of Section 15-18-14 in 1966. We leveled 45 acres in the NW of Section 15 at a cost of $2200 and parallel bench leveled 60 acres in SW 15 at a cost of $8280. This well, being a larger capacity well of over 1,000 gallons per minute, handles the water needs of these 105 acres easily. Although we have leveled 200 acres of land at a cost of over $20,000, it would be impossible to irrigate from an open ditch. All the water is handled under low-pressure through gated pipe to irrigate the 210 acres.

The above described ground, according to Bureau of Reclamation maps, is all Class II land, with the exception of a few Class III acres.

The cost of operating my first well on the NW of section 22 18-14 for the year 1971 was as follows: $365 for natural gas, $300 for depreciation on motor, $370 depreciation on well, $25 for oil, making the average cost of water $11.15 per acre, while delivering 300 acre feet of water to my land. The cost in 1971 was a little higher than in 1970 because of being extra dry. Well number two, on SW4 of Section 15 18-14, is powered by an electric motor. The electricity cost $842.76 for the year 1971, plus depreciation of $380, making the average cost of water $11.64 per acre. while delivering 3.06 acre feet of water to 105 acres of land. Again the cost is higher because of the extra dry year. I have records proving the water costs quoted are higher than any previous year.

The already two-year old estimated cost of $10.60 per acre for 1.51 acre feet of water by the Twin Loup Reclamation District is more than twice as high per acre foot of water than the system I am now using.

The more modern type of irrigation in our area, where underground water is so abundant, is the new pivot system. Working this system with sprinkler line makes the irrigation of a large amount of acres possible from one well.

The map from U.S. Department of Agriculture Stabilization of Conservation of Sec. 33 18-14 shows how sprinkler and pivot systems are doing the job. The south half of Section 33 is owned and irrigated by one man. He irrigated 145 acres by sprinkler lines and 130 plus by pivot, all with high pressure. It cost him $1,416.17 for natural gas, electricity and depreciation for 117 days

irrigation during which he applied 1.4 acre feet per acre to 275 acres at a cost of $5.15 per acre.

The Bureau of Reclamation Irrigable acres map shows 64 acres irrigable on NE of Section 33. The owner is irrigating 147 acres by tow line system. The NW of Section 33 shows 85 irrigable acres. A new well and pivot system just installed will irrigate 130 acres. The progress of irrigation within the boundaries of the Twin Loup Reclamation District in Valley County is moving so rapidly that, with the already 140 plus wells irrigating 18,000 plus acres, I feel very certain a ditch system would be disastrous to the land owners and operators in this area.

It doesn't seem feasible to spend 742 million dollars plus over 19,000 acres of land in fees and easements, to irrigate 52,000 acres of which a vast amount is already being irrigated. The Reclamation Bureau figures 65 miles of main canal in our area. In this same area, the canal will cross 35 quarters of already developed irrigated land. Can you imagine the loss and inconvenience to these land owners?

Because of the rolling and hilly terrain, the 105 miles of laterals in Valley County in this Reclamation District will cut the already developed land into patches not suitable for our modern type equipment. In my particular case, the NW of Section 22 and the SW4 of Section 15 18-14, which are fully developed, will be cut into three patches. One lateral 4 of a mile long (crossing this good, already irrigated ground with underground pipe installed, a well developed building site, and feed lots) will take water to ONLY 17 undeveloped proposed acres in this project.

Another 4 mile lateral, crossing these same two quarters, will deliver water to 23 acres of undeveloped proposed irrigated land. The third lateral, 1⁄2 mile long, crossing these same two quarters, takes water to 50 acres of undeveloped proposed irrigated land. This is a true example that shows how treacherous this kind of project can be to our area.

I have cards signed, in the last three weeks, by the land owners representing 27,000 acres that lay within the boundaries of this district in Valley County, indicating that they do not want to contract water from this District. I feel that the $10.60 estimated cost for 1.51 acre feet of water delivered is so high that most of the land owners in the entire district will not want to sign a fifty year contract for water.

The cost benefit ratio is based on a hundred year analysis at a 34 discount rate. If you figure interest rates at a more practical percent such as five or six percent, the cost ratio would be so far out of line that the project would no longer be feasible.

It is estimated in the Benefits Summary that total irrigation benefits are a little over $3,800,000. It is also estimated about 70 to 75% of our crop is corn. If that is true and I will not question the 70 to 75% figure, we should benefit about $2,800,000 from raising corn on the 52,000 acres of proposed irrigated land. The truth is, gentlemen, if we raised corn to sell on the open market the last ten years, due to cost of production, we would not be able to survive. The only way a farmer can make $1.00 bushel corn pay off is the raising and feeding of livestock. That, gentlemen, is our major industry. In fact, more than 75% of our crops are feed to livestock in one way or another.

I have a statement from the Treasurer of Valley County showing what has been collected in taxes from 1955 to February 29, 1972 for Twin Loup Reclamation District. We feel this $44,265.80 has been a wasteful expense for a needless and unfeasible project.

Attached are A.S.C. photos of NW4 W1⁄2 15-18-14 and Section 33 18-14, I have referred to in my statement.

Gentlemen, it is with all sincerity that I make this plea to you to reconsider the proposed project. I have lived all my life in this area, and love this land of ours more than words can tell. We are only here on this earth a short time, and I feel that it is our duty to try to improve the land and our country whenever possible. Please do not approve a project that will scar the land that we have spent our entire lives trying to improve.

43, 654. 88

610.92

Total disbursements from Nov. 1956 to Feb. 29, 1972...

Valley County treasurer's balance Feb. 29, 1972...

SHARON L. FOTH.

Mr. JOHNSON. Your next speaker any further questions?

Mr. TYE. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to introduce Mr. Gaylord Wallace, immediately behind me, and Mr. Wallace is the owner of the ranch on the Calamus River which will be inundated. Mr. Wallace.

STATEMENT OF GAYLORD WALLACE, BURWELL, NEBR.

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Gaylord Wallace. I have lived in Burwell, on the Calamus River, the valley area, for 38 years. My ranch operation consists of 11,000 acres on which I operate 300 cow and calf units. Of this 11,000 acre operation I will lose 960 acres of ranch lands which compose my homes, by building, large shelter belts, corrals. There are 18 ranches in the Calamus River Valley of which there are 13 families living at the present time. Eleven of these families are opposed to this project and only two families are for the project. Óf these 18 ranches, it will affect some 50,000 acres of ranch lands, of which I have a map here, colored in various colors for different owners. Shall we submit this

Mr. TYE. May we offer this for the file, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, we will accept that for the file.

(The map referred to will be found in the files of the subcommittee.)

Mr. WALLACE. In losing that area, these 13 families losing their homes their shelter belts, all of their buildings, along with their very good river bottom hay, their alfalfa, they will have nothing left but some sand hills on which there is absolutely no protection for winter range or no feed available for our livestock in the winter. We all respectfully submit that you give this project your careful consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON. Your statement will appear in the record as presented the same as the gentleman who preceded you. As for the maps, they will have to be a part of the file, the soil conservation maps that he submitted.

Are there any questions of Mr. Wallace?

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Wallace, do you know the Ainsworth-Farwell project?

Mr. WALLACE. I live some 60 to 75 miles south of it. I know a little about it, not too much.

Mr. ASPINALL. You don't know whether the project has proved to be a successful project or not?

Mr. WALLACE. I understand there have been quite a lot of difficulties that ranchers have had in the area.

Mr. ASPINALL. Well, they had some of the same opposition, to the construction of the project that may have been caused by operations such as yours in this project. I just wondered if by this time that opposition had dwindled down and that it has become a successful project. I have been told, but I don't know personally, that it is operating all right at the present time.

Mr. WALLACE. I cannot answer your question, sir.

Mr. ASPINALL. All right. Thank

you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Any further questions?

(Mr. Wallace's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF GAYLORD WALLACE

DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS: I submit my written statement for the record, and because of the limited time, I should like to call your attention to 2 or 3 major points.

My ranch is located on the Calamus River, and we operate 11,000 acres of land on which we raise cows and calves.

The Dam will practically put us out of business, because of loss of our homes, Shelterbelts, buildings, corrals, hay meadows, and alfalfa grown on the river bottoms.

The Dam will take all the hay meadows and farm ground, up and down the Calamus River, and will completely ruin 18 ranches, and their operation of over 50,000 acres of land used or owned by them.

We ask that the project not be authorized.

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman and Members of Subcommittee,

Calamus River Dam Project.

DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS: My name is Gaylord Wallace of Burwell, Nebr. I have been a ranch owner and ranch manager for 34 years. At the present time my wife and I own 7720 acres of land, and rent 3,280 acres of land, on which we run 300 cows, calving at present time, plus 70 calving 2 yr. old heifers, which will calve spring of 1973. Also we are retaining 60 heifer calves to put into the breeding herd, or to calve in 1974. So by 1974 we will have 400 cows calving. Our long range plan was to build this ranch into a 500 cow operation.

But now discussion of part of our land being taken away from us for a Dam, discourages one from plans to build larger.

On the 1971 market our calves sold for average of $175.00 per head, our yearling steers sold for $250.00 per head, cows culled from herd as canners have sold up to $290.00 a head. Bulls no longer needed for breeding are selling $400-$425 on the weigh up market.

To handle this type of an operation we have 3 homes, 1 a 4 bedroom house, 1 a 3 bedroom house, and 1 a 2 bedroom house, 2-Quonset machine sheds, a cattle shed, 100 ft. long, enclosed for calving in snow or rain storms, good corrals and 2 shelterbelts. One is 2640 feet long-285 feet deep, the other 1584 feet long and 100 feet deep. These trees are from 35 to 50 years old.

Our operation as a cow and calf unit is to take all the cattle we can to the sand hills during the summer and fall, and then bringing the cattle back home to the Calamus river and Gracie Creek. Both are spring fed the year round and neither has ever been know to raise over a foot in depth from any prolonged rain of several inches.

A river such as this that only freezes in the very coldest of weather, and the Gracie creek has never been know to freeze, has a value of undetermined value to a rancher in the winter, when his livestock needs warmer water than they can get from drinking out of stock tanks, let alone all the trouble and work removing the ice each day from the tanks so their cattle can drink.

I am sure you can understand we get more weight on our cattle, from being able to drink warm water in the winter, compared to men whose cattle have to drink from an ice cold water tank.

We have 150 acres of alfalfa on the second bench or level of the Calamus river, which in normal years produces 2 to 3 ton of alfalfa per year, this along with the good river bottom hay meadows and what hay we get from the upland, produces all the hay we need to feed our cattle and horses besides selling some to neighbors.

This must sound to you gentleman, that ranching is all roses, but on the other side of the ledger, we spend many dollars, for gasoline, diesel fuel, propane gas, Salt, mineral, protein feed, Electricity, grain for the livestock, Real Estate taxes, Personal taxes, Labor, Groceries, Machinery of all types, used in ranching. Automobiles, trucks, Veterinary services, and medicine for cattle, plus the big item of interest on borrowed money which is now between 7% to 8%%.

If you gentleman vote to put in the Dam on the Calamus, we will lose 840 acres of deeded land, on which all our buildings, corrals and shelterbelts are located, plus 120 acres of rental land. In all 960 acres, right in the heart of the ranch, will be under water, which we can not replace, under any conditions. Losing this portion of the ranch is comparable to losing the yolk and white out of an egg. All we will have left is a shell.

A ranch without buildings, corrals, hay ground and trees is practically useless, unless one wants to be a suit case rancher, here in summer, and gone the rest of the time. Our only means of using what would be left of our ranch, would be to take in cattle for summer range, which greatly reduces the income of the ranch, the area he lives in, and to the community as a whole. Also on this ranch, as well as all those that may be covered with water, are many deer, game of all kinds, such as pheasant, prairie chicken, Grouse, Quail, many types of song birds. Squirrels, rabbits, and etc.

In the river are many muskrat, Beaver and good fishing.

Our story applies also to all those below us, who also will be flooded out of their homes, their ranches and forced to become members of the urban Society of some city.

Any of the ranchers who loses their homes, buildings, shelterbelts, hay ground, etc. will have left a portion of their land whose value in dollars will be decreased from 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 of its market value.

This seems very inconsiderate to good cattle county, when the demand for red meat is continually on the increase, while the price of corn and other grains are cheaper, because of irrigation, fertilizer and good farm management, already in practice.

I can not see how any one can justify building many miles of large canals and laterals, to irrigate more farm land up to 100 miles from the Dam. Think