that this county has proposed a resolution to the State farm bureau in support of this project and it has been accepted enough years in succession that it has become a part of the State farm bureau policy book.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you, Mr. Loughmiller, for coming here as a young farmer. This is the first time we have mentioned California here. There is great farming enterprise out there. I know that your reference to the duck population will interest a lot of people. Some in opposition to our reclamation projects, those who organize as conservation groups do not look too favorably at reclaiming of lands or the construction of new water resource projects. There is an added value here that we can bring in. With an adequate supply of water we have proof that there will be an increase in the duck population.

We are very glad to learn that the farm bureau is in support of the project. We realize it takes a long time to develop one of these and get it to the point this one is today. We hope it moves faster than it has for the last 50 years. We are about ready to say either go or no go. We thank you.

Do you have any questions?

Mr. RONCALIO. I have nothing.

Mr. McCLURE. I have no questions. I just want to thank you for a very thoughtful statement and to underscore what the chairman said, do not rush out and plant the crops because we are not going to have it done this year.

Mr. LOUGHMILLER. I thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness will be Mr. Richard Carrier, Murtaugh, Idaho.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD CARRIER, MURTAUGH, IDAHO

Mr. CARRIER. Mr. Chairman, committee members, my name is Richard Carrier. I would like to submit to you for your consideration the dire need for Idaho water to be used here in Idaho. I would like to see all the proposed projects completed in the very near future. We are especially interested in early completion of the Salmon Falls project because of the need of supplemental water.

My area is that portion designated by the Bureau of Reclamation as the Milner-Cottonwood unit of the Salmon Falls project, which is about 24,000 acres.

This land lies southeast, south, and southwest of the town of Murtaugh, and is now partially irrigated by wells. This land was taken out of sagebrush 12 to 15 years ago and is an excellent quality in all respects and capable of sustained high production for all hermetically adapted crops.

The last several years have seen the water table dropping at a fast rate. My survey of the wells shows that many of them are pumping approximately 20 to 50 feet deeper this past year than in the previous year or 2. Several of these wells have been analyzed and found to be carrying a high content of salts. It is believed that this is caused by the lowering of the water table.

If this continues for a few years, this land will be useless.
The economy of the area is basically agricultural and it is my

hope that these projects can be completed in the very near future and improve the economy of all Idaho.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I want to thank you for appearing here. I had the opportunity to talk to you a little bit about your farming experiences. I thought all the young people moved away but I have seen a number of young farmers coming before us here who are willing to pick right up and stay with it. We are hopeful that we will be able to help you in due time.

This is the first mention of salts coming out of your wells. This is the first I have heard of bad water being found in your wells here, and you have experienced that in your wells.

Mr. CARRIER. Not in our own wells, but some that are real close by, yes. There has been some.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Wyoming.

Mr. RONCALIO. I have no questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. McCLURE. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. No questions.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you.

The next witness we have scheduled is Mr. Jack D. Claiborn, Jr., who wants to have his statement placed in the record at this point. From Kimberly, Idaho. Is he with us?

Mr. CLAIBORN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. We have had an opportunity to talk with the gentleman before. We will place your statement in the record in full at this point.

(Mr. Claiborn's statement follows:)

Hon. HAROLD T. JOHNSON,

KIMBERLY, IDAHO, March 21, 1972.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I am a landowner in the Milner-Cottonwood unit of the proposed Salmon Falls Division of the upper Snake River Project. I endorse this project and believe that it would be very beneficial not only to me as a landowner and irrigator, but also the users of underground water in the Milner-Cottonwood area and to the economic situation of the county generally, particularly the eastern part of Twin Falls County and the western part of Cassia County. These areas have been caused a great deal of difficulty by falling water tables and decreasing underground water supplies. The delivery of supplemental Snake River water to this area would solve this problem and very much increase the economic base of the whole area.

Sincerely yours,

JACK D. CLAIBORN, Jr.

Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mr. Delbert Clampitt. He comes from Hammett, Idaho.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DELBERT CLAMPITT, HAMMETT, IDAHO

Mr. CLAMPITT. Mr. Johnson, members of the committee, my name is Delbert Clampitt. I formerly have been a farmer on the Salmon Falls project. I spent 20 years out there and while I am no longer a farmer there, I have the interests of my friends and neighbors that I would like to assist. If I may read my statement, I farmed on the

Salmon Falls project for 21 years, starting at age 19, in 1936. In all of these years it was never possible at planting time to predict just how much water would be available for the year. Many years we had to abandon some acreage for lack of water. In the years of 1954 and 1955 only .265 and .34 was delivered per share. I was forced to move in order to support my family.

I am still engaged in farming and own land and water stock in the Twin Falls Canal Co. I can see no reason why this project would endanger my water rights.

This proposed project, when completed, will add tremendously to the economy and employment possibilities of Southern Idaho, as well as security for the young men who are now trying to farm here. I have no financial interest in the Salmon tract at this time. I only feel that this project is long overdue and I sincerely hope it can be completed without delay.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you for this statement. Here is a case where you were on the Salmon tract and due to certain unfortunate conditions you had to leave. You moved over to a better location and you are still farming in the Twin Falls area.

Mr. CLAMPITT. I own property in the Twin Falls tract and I am farming from a pumping project on the Snake River at Hammett. Mr. JOHNSON. Very good.

The gentleman from Wyoming.

Mr. RONCALIO. No questions.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. McCLURE. I have no questions.

Mr. HANSEN. No questions.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you for appearing here.

As we go on to the next witness I think we should recognize all the women who are here. I think we have one or two that are going to testify. Yesterday we drove through the area we had all of the husbands with us. We saw the women working in their homes and on the front porch. We are very glad to see you here today to share this hearing with us. We are looking forward to hearing from those who are on the witness list and if anyone else wants to say a word or two representing the women here, feel free to ask us and we will try to accommodate you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mr. Ted Diehl. Is Ted Diehl with us?

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, I think he indicated he just wanted to present the statement of Vernon Ravenscroft, which is in.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is in the record now.

The next witness is a representative of the Uhlig ranch.

Mr. STANGER. He was unable to be here. He was here but had to leave. He wished these to be entered into the record.

Mr. JOHNSON. His statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statement of the Uhlig ranch follows:)

Hon. HAROLD T. JOHNSON,

HANSEN, IDAHO, March 10, 1972.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation,
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. JOHNSON: This letter is submitted as the statement of my position relative to the above mentioned project, and I request that it be included with

the other material submitted to your committee at the hearing held in Twin Falls, Idaho, on the 11th day of March, 1972.

If the Hansen Butte area, located in the Milner-Cottonwood Unit, is to be included in the project, then I am opposed to the entire Salmon Falls Division project because the same is not feasible for the reasons itemized below.

(1) During the past 30 years I, my wife, and my children have acquired ownership of 1,960 acres of farmland adjacent to Hansen Butte in the location outlined in red on the map attached to this statement. Some of the land is irrigated with subterranean water from 10 deep wells and some is irrigated with surface water from Snake River. There are sufficient water rights appurtenant to the land for irrigation of all 1,960 acres. For many years I have also leased and developed irrigation systems for an additional 1,500 acres in the same vicinity.

The plans of the Bureau of Reclamation are to include in the project 1,000 acres of my lands, 580 acres of which are already within the boundaries of the American Falls Reservoir District. I do not and will not have a shortage of water for irrigation of these lands, I do not desire to have any of my land included in this proposed reclamation project, and I understand that the same cannot be included therein without my consent. Yet the canals, pumping plant and substation hereinafter described are being constructed with a greater capacity and at a much higher expense than necessary under the illusion that my lands will be served by the project.

(2) The inclusion in the project of lands other than mine surrounding Hansen Butte will necessitate construction upon and through the center of my property of more than three miles of what has been designated as the Hansen Butte East Canal, which actually consists of two canals. These open canals will be constructed in a meandering direction to follow the contour of the land and will intersect and cross six underground pipelines (which were installed by me to conserve irrigation water and to enlarge fields to work modern machinery), two underground petroleum pipelines, and one underground gas pipeline. Because much of my land is presently irrigated by sprinkler system, the winding and meandering nature of the construction of these canals will be most damaging to my entire farming operations. Irrigation by sprinkler system would have to be discontinued, and 800 acres of fields would be so cut up as to make irrigation by any other method prohibitive in cost and unprofitable.

(3) Stanger Bros., who are also opposing this project if the Hansen Butte area is to be included therein, own approximately 1,700 acres and lease another 320 acres of land located in the area outlined in green on the attached map. About 1,200 acres of their lands are proposed to be served by this reclamation project, yet by separate statement filed with this Committee the Stanger Bros. make it apparent that they will not elect to have their lands included. At least four miles of three open and winding canals, designated as the Hansen Butte Canal and Hansen Butte West Canal, would be constructed through the land of the Stanger Bros. and would be as damaging to their operation as to mine. The major portion of the lands surrounding Hansen Butte, consisting of approximately 3,000 acres exclusive of those owned by myself and Stanger Bros., are designated a full service area. It is the proposal of the Bureau of Reclamation, if this project be approved in its entirety, to sacrifice the irrigation systems of 1,000 acres of my land and 1,200 acres of the Stanger Bros. lands, all of which in their present state is one of the most productive and valuable in Twin Falls County, in an attempt to furnish irrigation for the 3,000 acres of the other marginal, full service area lands surrounding Hansen Butte.

(4) The Hansen Butte East Canal will intersect and cross with an open ditch canal the airstrip located on my property, which is owned and maintained by me. This airstrip is used primarily all during each crop season to conduct insect control spraying operations in three counties in southern Idaho. (5) Exclusion from the project of all the lands surrounding Hansen Butte, by reason of their isolation from other lands included in the Milner-Cottonwood Unit, will not adversely affect other landowners desiring to participate in this reclamation project, nor would such deletion require any extensive alteration in the plans and engineering already completed. The lands lying south of those owned by myself and Stanger Bros. can be irrigated by gravity flow from the Milner-Salmon Falls Canal.

(6) Exclusion from the project of the lands surrounding Hansen Butte would conserve the following immediate construction costs, based upon the estimates compiled by the Bureau of Reclamation in its Reevaluation Statement

dated in August, 1970, a copy of such estimates being attached to this statement as an exhibit hereto :

Hansen Butte pumping plant and substation (capacity of 78 c.f.s.)__
Hansen Butte canals..

Reduction in number of replacement wells by 5 (5 at 15 c.f.s. each
would compensate for 78 c.f.s. not needed at Hansen Butte pumping
plant)___
Reduction of 7 percent in volume of 15 miles of Milner-Salmon Falls
Canal (from capacity of 1,140 c.f.s. to 1,062 c.f.s.) –

335, 000

392, 000

Total cost conserved.....

2,068, 000

And, of course, many other more remote construction costs would be conserved by deletion of the entire Hansen Butte area from the Milner-Cottonwood Unit of the project.

In conclusion I wish to emphasize it is my position that no reclamation project can be considered practical or feasible if the lands to be reclaimed by the new project will always be less in value than the damage resulting to existing productive lands through construction of the project.

Very truly yours,

EDWARD L. UHLIG.

Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness will be Mr. Alan Erwin of Hagerman, Idaho.

STATEMENT OF ALAN ERWIN OF HAGERMAN, IDAHO

Mr. ERWIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify my position a little bit. I do not want to appear as a witness who is hostile to this proposal. I merely want to point out the hazards that the people on the north side project, the people in Hagerman Valley, even on the King Hill Ditch, would suffer if the alternative proposal of pumping out of the aquifer were followed.

At the time I wrote this I did not have access to the information that is here today, and pursuing on the supposition that you are going to follow the same proposal that was brought up here a few years ago and pump out of the aquifer over here in Gooding and Jerome and Lincoln Counties, I would like to point out what these would do to us.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Alan Erwin (better known as Hap Erwin). I live on what is known as the Buckeye Ranch in Hagerman Valley. I am representing the Gooding County Tax Equality Association, which is a group of citizens who own water rights on the north side canal project, on the American Falls No. 2 project and also the decrease on spring and stream flow in Hagerman Valley. Especially, I am rep-. resenting myself as an American citizen who has paid hard-earned private funds for a ranch whose water right looks as though it might be jeopardized by this proposal to put supplemental water on a few acres on the Salmon Falls project.

Let me state I am not opposed to the Salmon Falls project having supplemental water. I can remember the short water years that the Big Wood Canal Co. went through prior to the building of the American Falls Dam and Canal. I also remember the sacrifices that those people made paying for the additional water rights. Let me