enhancement plus interest during construction ($89,800) in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. Subsequent to preparation of the feasibility report, some of the irrigators in the Wendell-Jerome-Deitrich area (North Side Canal Company) indicated opposition to participating in the exchange of surface water for ground water as discussed in the report. We have, therefore, developed and evaluated an equally feasible alternative plan involving wells and pumps in a different area of the Snake River plan. The alternative would involve slightly less construction cost but slightly higher operating cost than the plan described in the feasibility report. A reevaluaton statement describing the alternative plan is enclosed. We prefer development of this project in accordance with the original plan, on the ground that it involves less water loss than the alternative by virtue of a nearer, more direct, connection between water source and water use in the Salmon Falls division. It would also provide a separate emergency water supply for the North Side Canal water users in the event of a break in their canal or other failure of their system. However, in the event the consent of the North Side Canal water users to the original plan is not obtained, we believe the alternative is feasible and economically justified and only slightly less desirable than the original plan. We believe it desirable to reserve the final choice of a definite plan of development until after authorization of the division. We conclude 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. Should the division be authorized, no construction would be undertaken until the Secretary is satisfied that an adequate water supply is available under valid water rights. Accordingly, we find that the Salmon Falls division is engineeringly and financially feasible. Its economic justification is demonstrated by a ratio of benefits to costs of 1.42 to 1. It has been examined and found to be favorable from an ecologic and environmental standpoint. As a minor technical amendment, we recommend that on page 1, line 7, the word "Act" be changed to “Acts." Enclosed is a statement concerning the estimated employment and expenditures required by 5 U.S.C. 2953 (1966), formerly Public Law 84-801 (5 U.S.C. 642). Also enclosed is a statement of the effects of the bill on the environment as required by section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190). The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, JAMES R. SMITH, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mr. John Hepworth of Buhl, Idaho. STATEMENT OF JOHN HEPWORTH OF BUHL, IDAHO Mr. HEPWORTH. Thank you, sir. Being a rather naive country lawyer, I wasn't sophisticated enough to realize that I should prepare a statement and submit it, so I am afraid that I have not done that, but I shall try to keep my statement brief. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we have to go vote within a short period of time. So if we can confine it to 10 minutes, that will be fine. Mr. HEPWORTH. I would hope that I can and if I can't, you can cut me off and I will quit. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, as I said, my name is John Hepworth. I am an attorney practicing law in Buhl, Idaho, and I am an officer and one of the principal stockholders in Clear Springs Trout Co. which have hatcheries in Thousand Springs area near Buhl, Idaho. Clear Springs Trout Co. has water filings on the north side of Snake River in the Thousand Springs area totaling 657 cubic feet per second. I appear before this subcommittee on behalf of the following rainbow trout farms. One, Clear Springs Trout Co. and its subsidiary, Clear Springs Trout Sales, Inc. Two, Idaho Trout Processors. Three, Blue Lakes Trout Co. Four, Rimview Trout Co. Five, Clear Lakes Trout Co. Six, Ransen Trout Farm. Seven, Jones and Sandy Trout Farm. Eight, Magic Springs Trout Farm. Nine, Box Canyon Trout Farms. Ten, 26 individual farmers in Hagerman Valley with small farm trout ponds utilizing spring water from the famous Thousand Springs area. And in addition to the foregoing, I have been asked to enter my protest on behalf of the Thousand Springs Water Users Association, a group of farmers and businessmen located in the Hagerman Valley. My purpose in appearing before you is to strongly protest that part of the Salmon Falls division project which proposes the pumping of water by a series of deep wells from the Snake River Plain aquifer. Our protest is directed to any pumping above the Thousand Springs area because of the adverse affect such pumping would almost surely have on the flow of the springs in the area between Burley and King Hill. Any deep well pumping from the Snake River aquifer east of Thousand Springs area will undoubtedly reduce the flow of water in the Thousand Springs area. Such action must surely damage if not destroy the important rainbow trout industry, not to mention the severe damage which could result to other agricultural interests in our area which depend upon such spring water for the irrigation of their farms. This action could further damage the substantial farmland development which has taken place over the past 20 years in developing new farmlands both on the north and south sides of the river utilizing waters of Thousand Springs. I wish to allude briefly to the fact that individual farmers in Hagerman Valley and the King Hill water user district are irrigating in excess of 24,000 acres with spring water from Thousand Springs. In addition, other water programs are being considered including the Mountainview Water Co. which is well into development stage. The Mountainview project contemplates using these spring waters to irrigate 32,000 acres on the south side of the river above Hagerman Valley after first utilizing the water for trout propogation, a proposal which not only encompasses the multiple use of water but also would be developed by private capital without the Government subsidy. Again I wish to reiterate that we do not oppose additional water for the Salmon tract. Conversely, we support and commend such a project. But not at the expense of jeopardizing existing interests and future private development from the Thousand Springs water sources. I appear primarily on behalf of the trout farmers mentioned before. and recognizing the adverse, perhaps even fatal, effect such deep well pumping could have on the trout industry, I wish to draw your attention, if I may, to certain facts concerning our important industry. No. 1, we estimate that approximately 90 percent of all commercial trout grown in the United States are raised from the Clear Springs water in the Thousand Springs area. The reason for this is the available constant spring water supply plus the fact that the water temperature is considered ideal by raising rainbow trout. This is not only important to the economy of Magic Valley in Idaho but assumes even greater importance when you consider that in the face of other agricultural surpluses, the world's seafoods are in short supply and sharply on the decrease. We estimate that there are presently about 12 million pounds of rainbow trout raised in our area annually and that with present known water supplies in the Thousand Springs area, there is a potential for a total annually round weight production of 36 million pounds. That this increase will soon be needed is demonstrated by the vast expanding trout industry in our area together with the projected decrease in seafoods. We further estimate that the present annual gross income in our area due solely to rainbow trout sales is $8 million. This figure ignores income from related sources such as fish feed, manufacturers' sales, which are rather substantial. That is, trout farm machinery and other related sources of income. Consider the fact that presently there are an estimated 350 persons employed in our area in the direct rearing or processing of rainbow trout, not to mention those employed in the related fields. Clear Springs Trout Co., the company which I am associated with directly, in addition to its own trout farm facilities contracts with approximately 50 individual farmers who own and operate between them approximately 80 separate trout ponds. These 50 farmers have collectively received net profits from our trout company in excess of $150,000 during the past year and this program is on the sharp increase. The income to these farmers in some instances exceeds the income from the rest of their irrigated farm in the face of the fact that less than 5 percent of their area of lands is used for trout-rearing purposes. To better understand the expansion which has occurred and is occurring in the trout industry, consider that in 1966 the estimated dressed weight production of rainbow trout in our area was approximately 3 million pounds dressed weight and this year the estimated dressed weight production will be 8 million pounds. I wish to underline the fact that this development has been by Idaho people with private funds, asking for nothing by way of Government subsidy. What I have said thus far totally ignores fish hatcheries in our area using this spring water for the purpose of raising fish for planting in public streams for recreational fishing. Both the State and Federal Governments have hatcheries and Idaho Power Co. maintains a steelhead hatchery for planting in public streams utilizing this precious water source. If my calculations are correct, there are filings presently on these spring waters for fish hatchery purposes totaling 3,667 cubic feet per second for fish production. Remembering that under Idaho's priority water laws that should a subsequent appropriator interfere with the flow to a prior appropriator, the subsequent appropriator's water must be cut off by the court, it would seem dangerous indeed to expend large sums of Government or private moneys for deep wells and pumps which very well could be required to close down if they interfere with the use of prior appropriators. In conclusion, while we strongly endorse the concept of additional water for the Salmon tract, we vehemently oppose any deep well pumping from the Snake River aquifer which might impair the flow of the natural spring water between Burley and King Hill. Thank you for listening. Mr. JOHNSON. Your testimony is pretty much like Mr. Erkins who appeared ahead of you here just before lunch. We think that in the study made by all of those who are in authority, both from the Federal standpoint and the State standpoint and local people there who are involved in the project before us, and especially with moving up river with their pumping facilities as far as location is concerned, and putting it back into the Salmon River at that upstream point would not jeopardize the fishing operations that are going on at the present time that take water from the Thousand Springs area. Now, the power company that operates in that general area collects a certain amount of water. I guess they reuse it. It has to go through the powerplant for fish propagation purposes, too, or at least delivered to someone who does. We know that the fish industry is a big industry to Idaho, just like it is to California. We are trying to move along. We have some very fine waters that we rear a few trout in and we are moving along with the catfish, rearing it out there in California, and developing quite a little market in certain areas. So it is a growing industry throughout the land. We know that. And certainly we wouldn't want to jeopardize anyone's enterprise. If we do, as you say, if we are to affect your pumping capabilities there, you probably would take us to court and shut us off. Mr. HEPWORTH. We would try. Mr. JOHNSON. Hopefully we are going to get most of the water out of the river and we will be pumping some. Now, our people tell us the aquifer will recharge itself in a good year and use it in dry years and you people bring to our attention the heavy pumping that takes place at the same time you are using the most water for rearing fish. Well, I guess there are all kinds of things. We have a recycling process that people will have to look to before too long, I guess, and we probably have to purify water and recycle it and reuse it in the fish industry as well as other industries. We find now we are doing a lot of that in other industrial plants where we recycle and reuse the water. So I don't know where we go with this. We have your testimony and we have the gentleman who testified ahead of you. You are both big operations. You are carrying on a thriving industry at the present time, one that is healthy. But I want to assure you if the Government makes the investment here, we figure that we will come out on the investment. The irrigators are going to have to pay back their portion of it and the fish and wildlife side of it, half of the separable costs, and then the power users of the Columbia River Basin are going to accumulate the rest of it and that will be taken from revenues for power consumers. So by and large a project of this kind will repay itself. Probably 95 percent of it will be coming back to the Government. And then the other benefits accrue by virtue of the fact that you put water on the land that will more than offset the other—————— Mr. HEPWORTH. I didn't mean to imply anything disparaging toward the project, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I just want to make that clear in the record, that this isn't just a gift of public funds. This is an investment in the resources and a good portion of it, a very high percentage, will be repaid. Mr. HEPWORTH. I understand. Mr. JOHNSON. Now, it is true it is low-cost money as far as the use of it is concerned. It will come from power resources. The second bells have rung and we have got to go and be on record. We have a vote. Mr. McCLURE. Could I ask just a couple of questions? Mr. JOHNSON. You can continue and recess the meeting. Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to run pretty quick so it is not going to run very much longer. I would like for the record, though, to ask a couple of questions. First of all, John, have you or your people similarly situated objected to the filings and the pumping from the aquifer that occurs now? Mr. HEPWORTH. We have not, and I can't speak for the others, Congressman. I just don't know. I would have to confess that our company has not. Mr. McCLURE. Now, the evidence seems to be that as the irrigation has increased in recent years, the aquifer has benefited from that irrigation and the aquifer probably is at a higher level now than it was at a prior date. Mr. HEPWORTH. I might, if I may interrupt, Jim, say that I don't share Mr. Erkins' skepticism about recharging. I welcome recharging. We have talked to geologists with varying reports. You become quite confused. And I will have to confess in all candor that we would be much less concerned, or at least I would, if the pumping facilities were moved far upstream as I understand an alternate proposal exists. But we have had others tell us that in years to come, if they pump from the aquifer, we are going to feel it. Mr. MCCLURE. But you have seen no immediate evidence of that. Mr. McCLURE. At the present time? Mr. HEPWORTH. No. I would have to agree that and we have been trying to watch it, and we have no-I have no evidence that it has decreased. Mr. McCLURE. Now, I assume from your statement, and I wouldn't have assumed otherwise, that you have talked to competent geologists with respect to the water problems. Have any of them mentioned to you that there is a break in the aquifer with respect to its influence upon the Thousand Springs, that pumping below that point may have some effect while pumping above it will have a lesser affect? Mr. HEPWORTH. Well, I can't honestly say that I recall this sort of discussion. I do recall discussions to the effect that if they put pumps in in your immediate area, in the Jerome-Dietrich area as proposed, we would feel it rather immediately, and they didn't think any of us would live to see the day that the decrease might be felt if it were to be moved up to the other side. And I have talked to some who said it wouldn't be felt. I will have to be honest about that. I mean I have talked to people who I have to say were qualified who would say it would just be so very, very small that you wouldn't-it wouldn't be noticeable, if at all, and others who would say there would be a direct ratio. So I don't know who you believe and I think in either of the cases, or the several cases I have talked to, whom I consider competent |