Mr. HOLCOMB. I do not think there is any way to get cleaner

water.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, at the same time the current irrigation and the current usages, then, of the water have paralleled water quality, and we, really, would not be gaining anything as far as the quality of the water, whether the project was in or; is that correct?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Right; no difference in the change of quality-except, if you are talking about the water that is used for irrigation purposes, once the water has been used for irrigation and then runs back off the soil, there may be some change in water quality in the Niobrara River. As the drainage flows back toward the Niobrara, nitrates or phosphates or perhaps even pesticides and herbicides and fungicides that are residual could be carried back to the Niobrara River and thus to the Missouri, and so forth.

There has been some concern expressed about that by the Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Services. But they, of course, claim with the use of proper technology, the use of the land properly, there would be very little runoff of these pesticudes and herbicides. We would hope that does not happen.

But we know that through the use of pesticides to control mosquitoes that are going to occur in the laterals, canals, and the little side pockets of water that are going to form as a result of irrigation, they are going to need more mosquito control, and those pesticides, together with others that are being used, will probably have some effect on downstream river flows.

See, this directly gets back to me and all the other 500,000 inhabitants that live in Omaha or the Omaha metropolitan area, because we drink that water. It comes down the Missouri River. So, there could be an effect. We hope it would be slight, but we would hope there is no effect. If there is good proper conservation methods taken, of course-they have not been guaranteed in here; we have no guarantee on that, but if they are taken, I suspect they could keep the majority of those from washing on down to the Niobrara.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Now, the question of environmental quality control, of course, is the one thing that probably occupies most of our time— at least, most of the committees I am involved in, and I think it is proper we address ourselves to this.

If I see any areas where we have the most serious environmental problems, it is because people, everyone going into Omaha—and I have been out there or everyone going into Chicago or New York, which I think is the most unmanageable of the subdivisions I know of. As a result, there are an increasing number of us that are looking to ways and means of population dispersal, new population patterns. One of the prime ingredients, of course, is water supply for something other than possibly agriculture-municipal or industrial water supply.

The reason I am asking this question, from what we could observe out there, this is a beautiful place in which to live and raise a family. It would seem to me, as I fly over Nebraska and all of the Midwest States-and if I detect the general sentiment-there is a desire not only to stabilize the population and maintain the kind of economic roots they now have, but they would want to avoid just

making extremely large economic growth centers and would prefer to have some sort of coordinated planning effort in order to have the kind of basic growth center with some satellite economic growth centers, and all of these are going to require some form of water supply in addition to the basic public facility.

Again, we are getting back to the question where, in dealing with quality water, you said it would be the same whether it is from wells or whether it is from a reservoir that would be created. What other form of diversification, from the standpoint of economic diversification, out there, do you envision?

Mr. HOLCOMB. I do not know whether we want to see much in that particular area. There are areas, like I said before

Mr. CLAUSEN. Do you live in this area?

Mr. HOLCOMB. No, I live in Omaha. But I travel through there quite often, and I am very familiar with it.

Mr. CLAUSEN. When you say "we want to see," does this reflect the opinion of the people that live in the area?

Mr. HOLCOMB. The people that I am representing would like to see diversification, too, and we would like to see a dispersal of population. But in this particular area, I am not at all sure we can afford to irrigate the numbers of acres that this project is now proposing to be irrigated, because of the soil type. I think that man too often has rushed into projects not knowing the total environmental situation that he is getting into. As I said before, we are indeed very hopeful that we can get some input here that will prevent a project that will actually harm the economy. These people have some central-pivot irrigations in there, and, of course, they are beginning to dry up the well water a little bit. The records you have here, thoughsome of them you were given today-are from individual wells. Some wells are not declining in water.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Would it harm the economy?

Be more specific.

Mr. HOLCOMB. I think if you got the entire 77,000 acres irrigated, whether it was by the laterals or canals central-pivot irrigators, or whatever, if you then contaminated your groundwater supply so badly that it was not usable, then you have, essentially, ruined the economy, because you fight off the population use of that water. The people are dependent on this water. They are not going to completely ignore huge quantities of underground water reservoirs for domestic use when you start contaminating that much water, and, of course, that water moves down clear to where I live, too. It moves in a southerly direction.

Underneath the sand hills-and Dr. Drayton here, I believe, could explain this far better than I, but some of that water winds up in Douglas County, Washington County, and some counties way south of the area.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Isn't Omaha south of the area?

Mr. HOLCOMB. South and a little east.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I thought I heard testimony that 30 percent of this water would find its way back into the river?

Mr. HOLCOMB. The water that is used on this, the bulk of it, will go back to the Niobrara drainage, yes. But the water we are talking

about that is going to percolate down through the soil, and the increased human use in that area or very intensive agriculture use could be very detrimental to the underground water supply, to the extent that the town of O'Neill, as the Mayor said in the 1970 hearings, could not use a well there part of the time because it was so contaminated. If people do become dependent on this type of supply and it becomes so contaminated they cannot use it, you have hurt them more than to begin with in that they have become dependent. They live there; they have invested in water, on farming and machinery. Now, they have a contaminated water supply.

Mr. CLAUSEN. If you agree that some form of population dispersal is a good move toward improving the environmental quality and the general living standards which we hope your children and their children are living, to say this is not going to be an irrigation project per se, that it would be strictly for municipal water requirements or for the families that might be living out there other than agricultural, let's say you stopped agriculture right where it is and something else were put in, would you support the project if it were built. by another agency that handles M&I water.

Mr. HOLCOMB. I would like to look at this, to evaluate it all over again. If it can hold its head out of the water as far as economic feasibility, I think it should be passed. Until all of the considerations given it are again evaluated as you would just for this project as it stands, write all costs and benefits in the project and weigh these as to their effects on the entire population of the United Stateswe cannot isolate ourselves any longer; we have to see the effects of what we do in Nebraska on the remainder of the country, as this corn-blighting thing which is happening here now and which I believe is going to continue to happen for many years to come. I agree if we could distribute it, it would be great. I know farmers in Nebraska that suffered this last year, because of a glutted market, and they lost money. We have to somehow stabilize our rural economy, but not this way. I think they picked the wrong place to change the type of agricultural economy. You are selling $45 per hundredweight for feeder cattle; you can do far better than selling 80 cents a bushel for corn, and I do not care how many bushels of corn you get to the acre.

Mr. CLAUSEN. When do you think you would have recommendations on what your organization would recommend for a project to accommodate the kind of population that will divert its efforts into some other form of economic activity?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Well, I would have to see the project.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I am just asking: What terms do you see out there as far as diversification, economic potentials?

Mr. HOLCOMB. I would like to see-and I hope this happens-to see small industries locate at these towns.

Mr. CLAUSEN. How is this going to come about?

Mr. HOLCOMB. I hope by attrition of the people living in those towns, people who say "We want you to come because we do have a fine place to live." I agree they do. The convenience of the place they have to live compared with where I live. But I think we have to get the people to get up their courage and live in a nonblighted fashion.

Mr. CLAUSEN. We can generalize and theorize, but let us get down to the specifics.

What does that area have to offer?

You say you hope we can do this, but people do not live on hope. They cannot pay your salary on hope. They cannot pay their taxes on hope. They are doing their level best to try to diversity. What specifically does this area have to offer that would entice, as you say, the kind of economic and industrial diversification into that area that would create the jobs to stabilize the population, to disperse the population?

Mr. HOLCOMB. If the people in Gary, Ind., that raised so much sulfurdioxide that they have a very high incidence of cancer, much higher than people out there if they were to see that area and someone wanted to move a small industry out there-I am not going to name the industry

Mr. CLAUSEN. What causes sulfurdioxide in Gary, Ind., that would not transfer out to O'Neill?

Mr. HOLCOMB. OK. They have already got so many smelters and use coal. But you can control it. There is clean air in Nebraska, and I think these people forget sometimes that they are lucky to have it. They have pretty decent water. Take a town like Valentine. They have a fairly decent water supply except for this nitrate hazard we are talking about in some of the well water.

Mr. CLAUSEN. But you said you would have nitrate whether it came from the reservoir or the well. But you say you have good water. I see a tremedous amount of inconsistency in your statement.

Mr. HOLCOMB. All I am trying to say is that whether you diversify or not, if you intensively farm an area of the country and you are going to try to do as many acres per unit area as possible in the intensive farming, acres that have the type of soil that exists in Holt County, you are going to have a polluted water supply with the current technology used.

Mr. CLAUSEN. You are completely avoiding the question.

What I am trying to do is get you on target to give me specifically what you would offer in the way of diversification if we did not have the Bureau of Reclamation advancing their project.

Mr. HOLCOMB. I am not sure you can get the type of diversification that you are looking for at that site.

Mr. CLAUSEN. But you said a moment ago you hoped you would and this was how you were going to stabilize the population.

Mr. HOLCOMB. I hope that, given the right type of industry, once a small industry or middle-sized or even large can move to that site and use the water wisely and not let it get back into a nonusable fashion, if they clean the water after they use it, clean the air after they use it, then, they should be attracted to that kind of site, because it offers them some qualities they may not have where they are currently located.

I cannot name you the industry today. But I think if the chamber of commerce were to try to bring proper ones in, tell them

Mr. CLAUSEN. Have you met with the people in the area to discuss your ideas with them?

Mr. HOLCOMB. I have, I met with people at Bassett, Nebr., last summer, in the high school gym there.

There were more than 100 ranchers and farmers there.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I guess we could discuss this subject all day. Frankly, I started out by being impressed with your testimony, but, then, with this interrogation, I frankly got a lot of theory, hopes and platitudes, but I did not get anything specific.

Mr. HOLCOMB. What I am trying to get across to you is that these people have been raising beef cattle there for years in the areas to be irrigated.

Now, can you change that type of setup to the type of setup that is advocated by the O'Neill unit project and not deteriorate the quality of the water in the long run?

Now, I do not think there is anything inconsistent about that. I am just trying to say that man can use an area and he should try to maintain the quality of that area, and if you are going to put it into corn and you cannot justify it on the cost, with a good cost-benefit analysis, then it should not go in.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Where the inconsistency comes, you said you lived downstream and you are concerned with degradation of water. Yet, at the same time, I asked about the well water now there and I asked about the quality that would come from the reservoir, and you say one and the same. At one time, you say it will be the same, and, then, you say the water would be good; whether it is ground water or reservoir, it is all the same. This is where the inconsistency

Mr. HOLCOMB. Man has an effect on it. Man will have an effect if he uses it. If he uses it wisely, it should not degrade the quality. Mr. CLAUSEN. They are using this well water now; aren't they? Mr. HOLCOMB. They are using it in approximately 15,000-20,000 acres of central-pivot irrigation.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Then, you say it is the same water as that this is up in the reservoir that is not being touched by man. So, it is the same. Mr. HOLCOMB. It is the same if the wells are spaced out far enough. When you start getting many wells placed close together in the very intensive agriculture area, then there is contamination. The water driller that I know tests water for people; they send it down to the State and check out the nitrate levels. If they have an intensive operation and there are many wells close together, then, the water is, sometimes, contaminated.

But I did not mean to mislead you and say all of the water underneath this area is the same. There are spots where the well water is contaminated because of very extensive use. There are other areas, the bulk of the water has not been contaminated as yet and should be at least the same quality as in the reservoir.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I think, Mr. Chairman, because of the time factorand this is a very engaging and very interesting opportunity to exchange-but I think what we should do is take this information and have some of the experts in the water field look at the critique on this and give us an analysis of the comparison, because we are dealing in an area of expertise which I certainly do not have, and I am not so sure that by prolonging this discussion we will arrive at any conclusion.

I am trying to seek the answers here. If we can find the answer to this one, we will do a lot for the country.