and will create a much larger economy for the area. I presume that you would be able to utilize your ranch as you would like if you had the necessary amount of water?

Mr. SCHNITKER. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Wyoming. Mr. Roncalio. Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I want to thank you, Mr. Schnitker, for yesterday's courtesies in showing us around and letting us know what is what. I have a closer appreciation of your problem with the figures you gave us. In my State, around Cody, Big Horn and Park Counties we have what we think of as the best projects in Wyoming. They are the most favorable, have the greater payout, and they use 6 acre-feet per acre per year. Now, I see what a problem you have.

Mr. SCHNITKER. I enjoyed my association with you yesterday, also.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. McClure.

Mr. McCLURE. I would just like to comment that you pointed to direct crop increase return to the farmers on the tract of $2 million annually. Studies will indicate-two independent studies in particular have indicated that the indirect benefits to the community and to the region are seven to eight times what the farmer himself enjoys. So if we use that as one measurement then we would have $14 to $16 million a year increased benefits to the region, But beyond that $2 million is only a direct benefit in terms of crop values and does not measure the indirect benefits and increased values to the farmer on the farm who is occupying the land. So, I think it is a very significant input of very real value for our area.

Thank you.

Mr. SCHNITKER. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Orval, do you have any

Mr. HANSEN. No.

comments?

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Schnitker.

Our next witness will be John A. Rosholt, the legal counsel, North Side Canal Co., an attorney here in the community of Twin Falls, Idaho.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. ROSHOLT, LEGAL COUNSEL, NORTH SIDE CANAL CO., TWIN FALLS, IDAHO

Mr. ROSHOLT. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, staff members, distinguished guests, ladies, and gentlemen, I am glad I am not running in politics this year but to show you that I try to be somewhat of a politician, I serve as first vice president of the Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce, whose statement you will hear later. I also serve as director to the National Water Resources Association from the State of Idaho, whose statement from the Idaho Water Users Association you will also hear today. But I make my living practicing law, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, most generally they do pretty well at that. They do better than farmers. [Laughter.]

Mr. ROSHOLT. We have managed to live somewhere above poverty but below economy, I think. [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the subcommittee for coming out to the field hearings. I think it is a real tribute to the people involved, and those of us in Idaho concerned about the project thank you.

I am here today representing the North Side Canal Co. Because of time I have submitted a formal statement which at this point in time I would ask be included in the record verbatim and then I would like to summarize a few short remarks, if I might.

Mr. JOHNSON. It will be placed in the record as if read in full and you may summarize it any way you see fit.

Mr. ROSHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the North Side Canal Co. is also a Carey Act company. It had its origin in the short water years prior to the completion of Palisades Reservoir, which began to be built some time in the late fifties. These people had similar problems and through the good efforts of your committee and others, Palisades was constructed and finally established what we consider as an adequate water right.

The board of directors has a very technical position, as such, on the Salmon Falls project. They have no objections to the technical language of the bill. However, they are the operating_company that would be most affected by the ground water exchange which has been much discussed this morning. It is their position at this time, and they have asked me to advance that position, that they would endorse the Salmon Falls division project on the condition that the project as constructed not contain an exchange provision from within the boundaries of their irrigation. district or with their irrigation district. So that they not be a dog in the manger, their objection is not that the project not be completed. There objection is not basically to the water supplies, the capacity of the underground aquifer to support the water.

Their objection is an operational one. They feel that a system which would be half dependent upon exchange water from deep wells would be less efficient than the system they now maintain. On that basis, Mr. Chairman, if the assurance is given by Mr. Sullivan and others here this morning that the alternative to pump in the Wendell-Jerome area, insofar as the exchange with the North Side Canal Co. is concerned, is deleted we would heartily endorse the Salmon Falls division project.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am very glad to learn this because you might say that seems to be the only area of disagreement. There might be other things that come to light as the legislation progresses through the process, but your company has no objections to the alternative proposal. You would say that a pumping site on Federal lands, pumping from the underground aquifer at that location, would have no ill effects upon your operation on the north side?

Mr. ROSHOLT. As an irrigation operating company, no, sir. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, this would be a direct pumping discharge into the river.

Mr. ROSHOLT. Yes, sir.

75-914 0-72-pt. 1

Mr. JOHNSON. And you would not see any objections to that? Mr. ROSHOLT. As I say, from the canal company position, no, sir. There may be some persons in either the fish industry or individual farmers who have wells on the north side of the river who fear that the aquifer would not be able to accept that draft. However, the official statement of the company is not to that effect.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we have heard from the State water authority and from the Bureau of Reclamation about their exploratory work and geologic studies. The claim that the aquifer is very substantial and the amount they anticipate to take is so minimal it would not harm anyone's use of the aquifer at the present time.

Mr. ROSHOLT. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. I fully realize that it is much easier to agree to something like the alternative plan than it would be to establish a pumping site on your lands and then work out an exchange agreement. Their new proposal is to go upriver and pump directly into the river from Federal lands; that is, the well field would be on the Federal lands. I do not know how you people in Idaho figure water rights.

Mr. ROSHOLT. Very carefully, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. We had quite a squabble in California. So I imagine you watch it very closely. I am glad to hear you say that from the standpoint of pumping from the aquifer, you could see no harm in discharging into the river.

Mr. ROSHOLT. Some of the directors of the company may well have lands that they feel pumping levels could be affected on. As the board of directors they have taken the position that they cannot make this objection.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, but one observation. I want to thank Mr. Rosholt for his testimony and for the second briefing I got at breakfast which I enjoyed very much. So you have done your job well today.

Mr. ROSHOLT. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. I would like to quote from the report filed, a portion of which you have repeated in your statement. It says, "It"-and by that I refer to the pumping within the North Side Canal Co. area-"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."

I gather from your statement, from the position of the board, and from conversations with various people involved that you do not feel that any benefit that might come from that kind of a firming up of water supply would outweigh the disruption of the operations of your canal system. Is that correct?

Mr. ROSHOLT. Mr. Chairman, Congressman McClure, this is the position of the board, yes, sir. They operate a main canal which is approximately 100 miles long. The exchange wells as proposed would be half way through that system. This system takes about 3 days to regulate, as it is now. They simply feel that with the possibility of power outages and the operational problems involved, that this exchange is just going to cost them more money.

Mr. MCCLURE. You think the pumping should occur above your project area?

Mr. ROSHOLT. Yes, sir. You have our endorsement on the Salmon Falls division project if that is the alternative selected.

Mr. McCLURE. Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Orval?

Mr. HANSEN. No comments.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you, Mr. Rosholt, for the benefit of your testimony. The full text will appear in the record. Mr. ROSHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Mr. Rosholt's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. ROSHOLT, TWIN FALLS, IDAHO

MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: My name is John A. Rosholt. I am a lawyer with the firm of Parry, Robertson. Daly & Larson of Twin Falls, Idaho. I am here today at the request of the board of directors of the North Side Canal Company, Ltd., to officially state their position on certain parts of the Salmon Falls Division Project.

The North Side Canal Company is an authorized Carey Act operating company with its principal office in Jerome, Idaho. Presently some one hundred sixty thousand acres are irrigated through their system. The system extends from Milner Dam on the east through portions of Jerome, Gooding and Elmore Counties, the last delivery being some one hundred miles from the point of diversion. Portions of the system overlie what is commonly referred to as the "Great Snake River Plain Aquifer."

The Salmon Falls Project, as originally planned by the Bureau of Reclamation, contemplated that a portion of the water supply for this project would come by reason of an exchange of Snake River surface water flows for Snake River Plain aquifer water. Under this plan, Snake River flows to which the North Side Canal Company is entitled would be diverted in some years to the Salmon Falls Division and a like amount of water replaced in the North Side Canal system by some ninety deep wells to be placed in the Wendell-JeromeDietrich area at a point approximately half way through the North Side system. For many reasons, the North Side Canal Company board opposed this part of the original plan. Basically, their objections concerned the probability of interruptions in the supply of water, additional Bureau of Reclamation control within their project, increased costs, and declining water levels in wells operated by individual stockholder-water users. Because of this opposition, in June of 1970, the directors corresponded with Mr. Harold Nelson, Regional Director of Region I of the Bureau of Reclamation. Pursuant to this correspondence, Mr. Nelson addressed a letter to me under the date of June 15, 1970 reassuring the North Side Canal Company's directors that construction of the Salmon Falls Division would proceed without a ground water exchange within the project area of the North Side Canal Company. (A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit "A")

As those of you who have followed the progress of this report recognize, because of this letter some difficulty was incurred in obtaining a hearing in 1970 for the reason that the alternative as proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation had not been cleared through the Office of Management and Budget. At present, the Bureau's report shows an alternative proposal to the original exchange feature. Alternative pumping sites have been designated to obtain the needed water. However, the original exchange alternative remains an alternative in the project plans. The North Side Canal Company is told that the alternative has not been eliminated because it is a feasible alternative. We note with some interest that Assistant Secretary of the Interior James R. Smith's letter dated December 28, 1970, addressed to the Honorable Senator Henry Jackson, Chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the Senate, includes the following paragraph:

"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 the 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 that the consent of the North Side Canal Company water users to the original plan is not obtained, we believe that 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 the authorization of the division.”

Thus, the original exchange provision alternative is very much a part of the plan under consideration here today. The correspondence indicates a preference for the original alternative, somewhat contrary to the assurances given the North Side Canal Company.

The North Side Canal Company board of directors does not wish to be misunderstood. They urge prompt action by this Subcommittee and the House of Representatives toward the authorization and construction of the Salmon Falls Division Project. This endorsement is conditional only to the extent that they ask that the Salmon Falls Division Project be constructed without the implementation of the ground water exchange within the North Side Canal Company system. If this condition is honored, the Salmon Falls Division Project has the full support of the North Side Canal Company board of directors.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
Boise, Idaho, June 15, 1970.

MR. JOHN A. ROSHOLT,

Parry, Robertson, Daly & Larson,
Twin Falls, Idaho.

DEAR MR. ROSHOLT: In response to your letter of June 9, 1970, we wish to assure the North Side Canal Company and water users that, based on their expressed wishes, construction of the Salmon Falls Division will proceed when authorized without ground water exchange within the project area of the North Side Canal Company. This position is based solely on the long-time policy of the Bureau of Reclamation of proceeding in such matters in concert with the positions of the Company's Board and water users. The Bureau of Reclamation would not propose any plan that would operate to their disadvantage. As we have advised you previously, the long-term development of eastern Idaho is intimately related to the combined use of both the surface and ground water supplies underlying the eastern Idaho area. It is not now nor has it ever been the intention of the Bureau to bring about this integrated use of water resources of eastern Idaho in a manner that would be detrimental to any of the existing interests in that area.

Our experience in investigating the Lower Teton Division indicates we don't have to implace wells in the project area of the North Side Canal Company. During the definite plan stage of the Salmon Falls Division we will firm up the location of the ground water wells, and we will be happy to consult with the North Side Company Board and their water users at that time to keep them informed of our plans.

We appreciate your letter and trust that this reply clearly reiterates our long-standing position on this matter.

Sincerely,

HAROLD NELSON.
Regional Director.

Mr. JOHNSON. At this point I want to say, even as comfortable as it is in here, with the lovely facilities we have, I think we should have about a 10-minute break. Then we will come back and hear the witnesses out before lunch.

(A recess was taken.)

Mr. JOHNSON. The subcommittee will reconvene.