Mr. MCFARLAND. You gave an opportunity for comment but how long do you have to wait around for these people to come?

Mr. FAIRCHILD. I would like to clarify that situation with respect to this particular project. As Secretary Smith has previously pointed out, the procedures to carry out the provisions of NEPA on a legislative proposal which we had back in June of 1971 was that we would attach the draft environmental impact statement to the Department's legislative report. As a result of this, actually some Federal and many of the non-Federal entities were not aware of the draft environmental impact statement at that time. We released the environmental impact statement to the Council on Environmental Quality and the State of Nebraska on July 12, 1971, and they were the only ones that got the statement at that time.

As of February 11, this was about the time our legislative report was sent to the chairman of the committee, we provided copies of the environmental impact statement to many other non-Federal entities, and requested these entities to provide their comments to us by March 15, 1972, which was last week. We are reviewing the comments we received and will be revising the environmental impact statement as necessary and the revised statement will be filed with CEQ and with this committee.

Mr. MCFARLAND. That has no basis in law and I don't know why you have to wait around for a year for somebody to comment when all you have to do is approve it and send it up along with your report.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JOHNSON. Counsel, Mr. Casey?

Mr. CASEY. I have no questions.

Mr. JOHNSON. I just have one further question. In evaluating the recreation benefits on Norden Reservoir, you claim 216 visitor-days annually with initial development, increasing to 300,000. From this you get an annual benefit estimated at $318,000. That is a pretty fair figure for a body of water that size.

Mr. SMITH. Not for this area in north-central Nebraska, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JOHNSON. I had better use these Bureau of Outdoor Recreation people to evaluate in California where we have 20 million people and can't get any benefit, so to speak, out of a reservoir of this size. I can see it there because there is no other body of water in that area. You create this reservoir and I am sure that people will use it because of the surroundings which lend themselves to recreation. To assure this you provide for the taking of certain amounts of land to make certain the use occurs.

I have no objection. I am glad to see it and I think people will use it, but here again on the benefit side we can't get our benefits up to where they should be. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in evaluating some of the projects other than this one have not given us anything like this at all. They gave us a zero factor on a reservoir of this size.

That is all I have. I want to thank you and I agree with the staff director, Mr. McFarland. I think when you complete these environmental statements they should be filed here. We are the people who

have to take them from there after you have complied with the mandates of the law.

Mr. SMITH. Yes sir. It will be submitted to you.

Mr. JOHNSON. We thank you, Mr. Smith and your associates for your statement and the responses to the questions.

Our next witness is the Governor's representative, Mr. Glenn Kreuscher, director of agriculture, State of Nebraska.

STATEMENT OF GLENN KREUSCHER, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF NEBRASKA, REPRESENTING GOV. JAMES EXON

Mr. KREUSCHER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Glenn Kreuscher. I am here today representing Gov. J. J. Exon in reaffirming his wishes to offer support to previous administration efforts and to again confirm strong support from the State of Nebraska for this project.

The committee will be receiving testimony from other Nebraska State agencies, so I will not enter the technical aspects, since this will be covered by other people, and will offer a statement from the Governor with a few comments.

As we all know, the State of Nebraska is composed mostly of agricultural lands and looking to Nebraska's future, we are interested in basing in the future on continuous advancements of agricultural economy. And when we look at the overall use of our agricultural land in Nebraska, we find our future is going to depend definitely on increasing our support of the State's agricultural production that can support the citizens and communities of a rural State.

The rewards are tremendous. From three recent seminars held at the University of Nebraska in recent months it was estimated that projects such as these in total development can result in an increase of $2 billion a year in annual income or double now our income of the State of Nebraska. Because of our great dependence on agriculture, lands and water developments is of more than passing importance to the Governor of our State. He considers such development absolutely essential if we are to develop and maintain a vigorous economy, required to hold our youth in the State, and keep our family farms.

He is aware that if we would have stopped development in the forties in the Midwest that today we would be a starving Nation and that possibly the greatest rural development program for Nebraska is such as we are discussing here this morning. And it deserves widespread support at a time when extensive pressures are being exerted on our more populated States for land use that will be taking accelerated acreage out of production at a time when we can forecast a 30-percent increase required more in food in the next decade.

Today's costs in agriculture can't stand the economic loss of Nebraska and this is very important from the Governor's standpoint because he believes we deserve consideration of the fact that something like one-third of the years in Nebraska are years of severe drought and that irrigation development is desparately needed to

give the farmer some stability of production so he can afford to plan

on a crop.

Now, the O'Neill unit project, from the time it first was conceived, has never been a cause for the upstream-downstream division of opinion which often arises. From indications of the support that the Governor's office has received, he is convinced that an unusual degree of support exists throughout the basin in favor of the project. It is true the project has received some publicity recently on environmental effects but because the environment is such a major national concern at the present time I will make a little comment on it.

First of all, we think in Nebraska, the Governor's office does, that we must realize man lives in more than just a physical environment. And taking together these pluses, perhaps others, that are determining the quality of our lives, we believe the quality of life that we seek is not merely preservation in every case of physical environment status quo. In other words, we can develop a better land, conceive an environment of an area offering many attractions and more use of our resources.

In addition to the recognized values of irrigation and flood control this project will create a reservoir of real beauty. It will be an opportunity to develop recreation that does not exist in that area and we can foresee a greatly expanded usage of the area through development, and this has been the case as we look at our State.

The question was asked, and I enjoyed the dialog in previous testimony, the question has been asked I think in every case that I am aware of we have expanded use of the public and more valuable use of our resources following such development. The State through several agencies and boards involved in resource development and ownership of our public lands has spent considerable time in balancing environmental pluses and minuses of the project and we feel that the pluses far outweigh any negative effects and that the project from an environmental standpoint will be a major and definite asset to Nebraska.

Certainly, then, when viewing this project in full perspective of its contribution to the overall quality of life in the Niobrara Basin and in Nebraska there can be no doubt as to its desirability. The need for this project and the substantial public support in Nebraska for its authorization and construction has resulted in numerous endorsements of the project within the State, and the one that I would like to specifically call to the attention of this committee is that the O'Neill project is included as a principal feature of Nebraska's State water plan which has been endorsed by the legislature without a single dissent. I think this is very very important. And the legislature has by resolution specifically requested Congress to provide early authorization and funding of the project.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Gov. J. James Exon wants the record to show that as Governor of the State of Nebraska and on behalf of the people of Nebraska, he fully supports the authorization of the O'Neill project and urges you to favorably act on it at the earliest time possible.

Are there any questions?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Kreuscher, the Governor's statement will in the record in full and your summary will follow. I want appear

to thank you for coming and giving us the sentiments of the Governor, and yourself, representing the State department of agriculture, a very important department in the Nebraska State government.

I am glad to hear you say that your people have recognized many of the things in the project might be a little controversial as far as the environment is concerned. However, most recently your legislature voted approval by unanimous vote and I note that you and the Governor are of the opinion that the project itself outweighs the objections that have been raised? Many of these can be dealt with in perfecting this legislation. In the overall the project will be very beneficial to the State as I see it. Would you agree with that?

Mr. KREUSCHER. I most certainly would.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspinall.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Kreuscher, I wish that you would give the Governor my personal commendation for his statement and for his willingness to take the position that he has. You make a statement, the Governor makes a statement, it would be impossible for Nebraska to use these lands for purposes other than agricultural production. In your capacity as director of agriculture, you are in agreement with that statement, I understand.

Mr. KREUSCHER. Yes, I am.

Mr. ASPINALL. It might be used for some grazing but outside of this the contribution to the State of Nebraska would be practically nil as it is at the present time?

Mr. KREUSCHER. That is right.

Mr. ASPINALL. In your statement you suggested that the project has received some publicity locally at least with regard to possible bad environmental effects. Who are the people, Mr. Kreuscher, that have seen fit to criticize the project in this respect?

Mr. KREUSCHER. At this late hour, and just recently, I noticed comments from Sierra Club, and Quality Environment Council, two of them, and another group or two in regard to environmental effects, but what we overlook in Nebraska is that some of our greatest and long-time true environmentalists are people in agriculture. As the committee members well know, since the thirties we have been working to improve that environment and long before some people heard the word ecology or "isms," they have been in there working hard at it, and I think that it is time that we have an understanding that we can have a better America, we can have a better Nebraska, by developments and we do not have to harm our environment or ecology. And as mentioned in the statement, I think that if we look at it from all angles, that the person that is really interested in our environment realizes that you need an economy, you need jobs. You have to have people out there making a living if you are going to enjoy things. So they are compatible. And I think this project can meet those requirements.

Mr. ASPINALL. In other words, what you are saying is that the whole economy, the whole lifestream of the United States, depends upon those values that are taken from the soil, is that correct?

Mr. KREUSCHER. That is right. That is our primary application where things start, and I think we need to give a little more attention to future needs. There will be some people that come in and say that 1.6 million members say so and so. If the committee wants to go

on membership nationally, and I am sure that many of these have never even seen the area, if you want to go on numbers and you take the combined other groups and their total national membership, you have millions that are interested in it, and when I see what has happened in Nebraska, our State line, when I see what has happened on the Missouri, see the thousands of people around McConihee (?), when I see the richness of the works of our irrigation waters, I can't imagine how anyone can fail to recognize these tremendous benefits, and we need more.

Mr. ASPINALL. Do I understand, then, that those who are talking about endangerment to our environment values out there would be represented by at least three of the witnesses who are here this morning? Is that my understanding of your statement?

Mr. KREUSCHER. I expect several witnesses to comment in that direction.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Kreuscher, in the Governor's statement there is also set forth that this will create a tree-lined reservoir which will be a place of real beauty.

Mr. KREUSCHER. That is how we visualize it.

Mr. ASPINALL. That is correct?

Mr. KREUSCHER. Yes.

Mr. ASPINALL. In the determination of feasibility for this project has value been given to those particular enhancements of our environment? In other words, we haven't considered those in dollar terms?

Mr. KREUSCHER. No.

Mr. ASPINALL. Outside of the environmental-outside of the representatives of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Environment Council, and so forth, is there any other opposition to this project within the area or within the State?

Mr. KREUSCHER. I think that the action of the legislature answers that best when you have representatives of the legislature without dissenting vote giving approval. I would like to say in justification to those that might oppose if that if they visualize the added benefits and the encouragement for most uses of the area and the economic effects, I consider myself an environmentalist, a lifelong person that loves to hunt, the Governor loves to hunt, fish and everything else. And I can see that when you balance them up I do not have any fear for their part.

In all justification I could assure them that I think it can be something that they can be proud of and I would encourage them to look at all aspects of it.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Camp.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kreuscher, the statement you just made in regard to your good Governor Jim, he is one of the better ones as I know him as an environmentalist. In fact, he is the instigator now of the one box pheasant hunts in Nebraska, he has attended our Grand National Quail Hunt in Oklahoma and I think he can be classified very much as one.

May I ask you just one question. If I understand it right, up and down the two Platte Rivers where you do have irrigation, do you grow commodities?