Mr. Sullivan, you may go to the table and have your assistant go to the map to give us the benefit of your testimony concerning the general scope of the project that we are considering today.

STATEMENT OF EDWIN F. SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR, REGIONAL BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure for me to be here.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, my name is Edwin F. Sullivan. I am Regional Director for Region 1 of the Bureau of Reclamation.

We do appreciate the opportunity to appear before the distinguished members of this committee and testify on the Salmon Falls division.

The feasibility report on the Salmon Falls division was sent to Congress on June 29, 1970, and printed as House Document 91–359. Senate hearings were held June 9, 1971, and Senate bill 432 was passed by the Senate June 28, 1971.

An environmental impact statement has been written and approved in accordance with section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190.

The Salmon Falls division is located in southern Idaho in the valley of the Upper Snake River, near the city of Twin Falls, in Cassia and Twin Falls Counties.

There is a map over to your right which shows the location. The green areas are irrigated now but need a supplemental supply, and the other areas are those that would receive new water.

The plan of development for the division contemplates irrigation of 64,100 acres of land, lying in two adjacent units on the south side of the Snake River. Of this total, 49,380 acres are now irrigated. The Milner-Cottonwood unit would serve 24,170 acres of irrigable land, of which 18,320 acres are presently irrigated by ground water pumping. The Salmon tract unit would serve 39,940 acres of irrigable land, of which 31,060 acres are now irrigated by use of stored water from Salmon Falls Creek and ground water.

The presently irrigated lands have an uncertain and dwindling water supply as the yield of Salmon Falls Creek, with regulation in the existing Salmon Falls Reservoir, is inadequate in most years to serve the developed lands; and the ground water levels are declining, indicating ground water withdrawals exceed natural recharge. The plan of development includes facilities for diversion from the Snake River and development of ground water to provide surface water and ground water supplies for irrigation of lands now inadequately supplied and for irrigation service to presently dry lands. In addition, measures are included for enhancement of upland game and waterfowl habitat. The development would have little effect on fishery resources. The division would not provide flood control, outdoor recreation opportunities, or water quality control to any appreciable degree. There is no current or anticipated need in the area for project-supplied municipal and industrial water and there is no opportunity for development of hydroelectric power.

It is proposed to divert an average of 181,600 acre-feet of water annually from the Snake River to the Salmon Falls division lands to augment local irrigation water supplies. This would involve construction of Milner pumping plant, a short distance upstream from existing Milner Dam on the Snake River, to lift 1,165 second-feet of water 115 feet into the 47-mile-long Milner-Salmon Falls Canal.

Four relift pump stations and smaller canals would serve lands which lie above the Milner-Salmon Falls Canal. Existing wells and pumps throughout the area and existing works of the Salmon River Canal Company would be integrated into the division. Such facilities would include existing Salmon Falls Dam and Reservoir, canals, laterals, and drainage systems. Irrigators on the Salmon tract unit of the division would continue to be served in part from Salmon Falls Reservoir and surplus flows of Rock Creek.

The availability of water from the Snake River varies subtantially from year to year, with unregulated spills at Milner Dam occurring in 25 of the 35 years of record. The Salmon Falls division would utilize part of these spills through:

(1) Storage regulation in Ririe Reservoir which is now under construction by the Corps of Army Engineers on Willow Creek, a tributary of the Snake River.

(2) Possible acquisition of storage rights of the Idaho Power Co. in American Falls Reservoir, and

(3) A 1,000 acre-foot storage right in Palisades Reservoir. Sufficient wells have been included in the plan to furnish water equivalent to the amount of Idaho Power Co. storage in American Falls Reservoir in the event that storage space does not become available.

In years of low runoff, the total flow of Snake River is already appropriated, and the division lands would continue to suffer extreme shortages unless an additional water supply is made available. To alleviate these shortages, we propose to develop a well field in the Snake River plain, which is underlain by a very large and productive aquifer. Ample amounts of good quality ground water could be pumped from that aquifer in those years when surface water resources are not sufficient to serve the Salmon Falls division.

Our feasibility report suggested that the auxiliary well field could be located in the Wendell-Jerome-Dietrich area, an irrigated area directly north of Twin Falls, served by the North Side Canal Co. However, the North Side Canal Co. has asked for approval of the Salmon Falls division without implementation of a ground water exchange within the North Side Canal Co. system. Accordingly, new well fields have been investigated-one north of Lake Walcott and two upstreams in the vicinity of Roberts-that does not show on the map but it is about 25 miles north of Idaho Falls-and either of these could be used for direct discharge into the Snake River.

We have examined the feasibility and economic justification of this alternative plan. As reported in an August 1970 reevaluation statement, we found that the alternative plan can be built at essentially the same cost and would have about the same benefit-cost ratio as the feasibility report plan. We concluded that sufficient flexibility exists by virtue of the availability of ample amounts of ground water to meet any contingency with regard to project water supply. No

construction would be undertaken until we are assured that an adequate water supply is available.

The crops adaptable to the Salmon Falls division are those presently raised on the irrigated lands and on adjacent lands irrigated by the Twin Falls Canal. Alfalfa, feed grain, and pasture support the important livestock industry; and potatoes, beans, and other row crops would be grown as main enterprises or in a rotation. cropping plan. The soil is generally productive, deep, and has good water-holding capacity. The land lies on long gentle slopes, favorable to irrigation and drainage.

During formulation of the plan of development, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, in cooperation with the Idaho Fish and Game Department, found that loss of wildlife habitat, mainly pheasants, could be mitigated and that substantial enhancement of wildlife could be created in conjunction with the division. Nonirrigable areas totaling 2,000 acres of public domain and 80 acres of ponding areas within or adjacent to the irrigated land service. area would be reserved for upland game use, with small impoundments, plantings, and fences provided. About one-half of this area would serve to mitigate wildlife losses, and the other one-half to improve habitat for upland game and waterfowl. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation finds the proposed fish and wildlife development to be consistent with the objectives of the Idaho outdoor recreation plan.

The plan of development for the division was examined by the Federal Water Quality Administration (now the Environmental Protection Agency). The Administration advised that the division will probably affect the quality of local streams receiving irrigation return flows and the quality of the Snake River to some extent. However, the quantity of return flows will be small and will not adversely affect the other functional uses of the streams.

The next effect of the consumptive use of water and of irrigation return flows from this division on existing downstream irrigation use will be insignificant and the benefits of the proposed development will substantially exceed any damages to other existing and anticipated water uses. We plan a cooperative program of appraisals of the effects of further development on water quality and investigations of measures for assuring compliance with water quality standards with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The estimated cost of constructing the division, at January 1969 prices, is $47,252,000. In addition, a portion of the cost of existing upstream storage (an assigned cost of $292,000) and the cost of generating the power and energy needed for pumping requires an irrigation power suballocation of $4,154,000, and this must be added to obtain the total division cost of $51,698,000. The cost is tentatively allocated $51,524,000 to irrigation and $174,000 to fish and wildlife enhancement.

Irrigation benefits are estimated at $4,875,000 annually. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife estimates the annual benefit from enhancement of wildlife habitat at $10,600.

The annual equivalent Federal investment plus annual operation and maintenance costs total $3,442,800. Economic justification for the division is demonstrated by a total benefit-cost ratio of

1.42 to 1, and a direct benefit-cost ratio of 1.1 to 1. The interest rate used for this economic analysis was 4% percent, the rate computed by the Department of Treasury for fiscal year 1970. Under the current rate of 5% percent and costs escalated to reflect January 1972 price levels, the project would continue to have a favorable benefit-cost ratio.

Farm budget studies indicate the ability of water users to pay all costs of annual operation and maintenance as well as a substantial portion of the cost of construction during a 50-year repayment period following a 5-year development period. Annual water charges to irrigators would range from $10 per acre to $18 per acre, reflecting the amount of service provided by the project and land productivity. Of the $51,524,000 cost allocated to irrigation, the water users could repay the irrigation power suballocation ($4,154,000) from pumping charges and $13,117,000 by annual contract payments, leaving $34,253,000 to be returned from net power revenues of the Federal Columbia River Power System. Adequate system revenues are in prospect to provide this necessary financial

assistance.

In 1969 the Salmon River Canal Co., owner and operator of Salmon Falls Reservoir and the existing distribution system, was granted a $979,000 loan under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, as amended, to improve its main canal. The first year of the construction program has started with 2 years remaining. The repayment of irrigation costs discussed above provides for the water users to repay the small projects loan concurrently with their payments for irrigation costs of the Salmon Falls division. Construction of the division would be fully compatible with this program.

The allocation of costs to fish and wildlife enhancement ($174,000) is composed of joint costs of $2,000 and sepaxable costs of $172,000. In accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Public Law 89-72, a non-Federal public entity would be required to repay one-half of the separable fish and wildlife enhancement costs ($86,000) plus interest during construction ($3,800), and to operate, maintain, and replace the facilities to be provided for that purpose. The remaining one-half of the separable costs and all of the joint costs would be nonreimbursable. By a letter of May 3, 1967, the Idaho Fish and Game Department stated it wishes to finance the wildlife enhancement features inherent in this proposed project.

The Salmon Falls division is an engineeringly feasible and economically justified multiple-purpose reclamation development which represents the optimum development of the water and related land resources and is compatible with the comprehensive plan for the Snake River Basin. The Governor and the Legislature of the State of Idaho have endorsed the proposal. It is urgently needed and strongly supported by the water users. Established and operating irrigation districts are ready to enter into water service contracts as soon as the division is authorized for construction.

Thank you very much. That concludes my statement.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you for appearing here and giving us your statement concerning the project and also for having It pointed out on the map by your assistants. It gives us a pretty good orientation of the scope and size of the project.

Now, there are only about three questions I would ask, because we will have you people in the final hearings in Washington when we go through the project with a fine tooth comb.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. You have pointed this up so that the people who are here to testify know exactly what the project consists of as presented by you in the feasibility report and on the map that is before us.

As I understand it, you can bring in about 14,000 or 15,000 acres of dry land?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. The rest is supplemental?

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. The waterfowl and other fish and wildlife benefits are fairly minimum.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. They are not a major portion of the project but I think they are of some significance to the area.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Idaho Fish and Game Department is agreeable to paying one-half of the separable costs and all of the costs to operate it and maintain the fish and wildlife facilities?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. They have indicated that in the past and I believe they would continue to do that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, you state that you have filed your environmental statement in behalf of the project. What is the status of the review by the Council on Environmental Quality?

Mr. SULLIVAN. The final statement has been filed and there were no adverse comments received on it. So we assume that that process is technically clear so far as the environmental statement in relation to the planning report is concerned.

Mr. JOHNSON. You state that the return flows into the minor streams is minimal?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. And that the final discharge into the Snake River is not too bad as you see it?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, that is correct. The amount of return flow from that area would be relatively small compared to the total that is coming in from other sources. I would not expect that the quality would be poor enough to have any significant adverse effects in the downstream areas.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will most of the smaller streams percolate and disappear and then enter the river in the same fashion that the spring water is coming in?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Oh, I suspect it would be a combination of some of it percolating into the ground and some of it going into small surface streams, but it would soon get into the larger streams and would be a part of the major stream. In a sense this might even be an improvement because you would have a more active stream than would otherwise be there on some of these smaller water courses that would otherwise be dry in the summer and fall.