As Romans yielded leadership in the old world, in Nebraska another people coped with changes in the environment; from nomadic hunters, they settled along the Niobrara, and are known to historians as the Pottery People. Apparently, perhaps at the time of the Arabic conquests, their agricultural techniques were further enhanced and they became known as the Corn and Bean People.

.. When Columbus was planning to sail the seas, the Indians of the Niobrara were building substantial villages... keyed to the flora and fauna then indigenous. But nature again changed the environment-whomping up extended drouth and high winds. Village sites became mounds of silt-what happened to the flora and fauna? One animal, man, was either eliminated or moved himself out.

Time brought more changes-when Europeans first neared that area, between 1720 and 1760, the Indians had returned as farmers. But by the time of Lewis and Clark, the farmers were over their peak, yielding to hunters and marauders made mobile by the horse. Again, agriculture declined; would not the resulting changes have influenced the local flora and fauna once more?

The perspective is that nature changes endlessly. Against her vast changes, the extension of wildlife areas by the Niobrara do not seem a very significant impact.

Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness will be Doris Gates, representing the Nebraska executive council, Rocky Mountain Chapter, Sierra Club, Chadron, Nebr.

STATEMENT OF DORIS GATES, REPRESENTING NEBRASKA EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB, CHADRON, NEBR.

Mr. CLAUSEN. As I recall Miss Gates testified at the hearings. Miss GATES. No, I didn't testify but I was at that meeting at O'Neill. But I didn't testify. I spoke with you afterwards about it.

Mr. JOHNSON. We are very glad to have you here, Miss Gates. You may proceed.

Miss GATES. Thank you very much, and I should like to read mine since it is short and since it is on the other side of the question.

Mr. JOHNSON. Fine, go right ahead. We are glad to hear both sides.

Miss. GATES. As one who has continuously opposed the Norden Dam since it became rather widely known as a probability; as a new member of the Sierra Club; as a member of the faculty of Chadron State College, Nebraska; and as one who has canoed on the river and hiked along its banks, I wish to present statements showing that a dam on the Niobrara River would not be in the best interest of the citizens of Nebraska.

The Niobrara River has been little changed since the advent of agriculture. It has relatively little pollution, high canyon walls have prevented road building, plowing and similar use, and the kinds and numbers of trees and lesser plants are essentially the same as when settlers first came. Of what other rivers in the contiguous States can this be said? Shouldn't such a river be protected?

Very limited studies of the flora and fauna that exist along the river have shown some interesting things and have indicated others. No other river forms a bridge of trees across the Great Plains along which populations of related species of animals and plants from west and east meet. Dr. Lester Short of the American Museum of Natural History and others studied several kinds of birds, and some

of their conclusions were that although flickers, towhees, and orioles (Baltimore and Bullock's types) could freely interbreed, blackheaded and rose-breasted grosbeaks did not. This was apparently true of indigo and lazuli buntings and scarlet and western tanagers, also. These three forms of birds had been separated long enough to develop species status while the first three had not.

Another preliminary study indicates that east and west forms of butterflies meet along this river system resulting in some cases of interbreeding and other cases of absence of it. Still another study, which was of junipers, demonstrated interbreeding of three kinds of parent forms. What other studies would be lost by destroying this bridge? It might appear that a lake that would cover a distance of only 19 miles would not prevent the mingling of these populations. As little as 2 miles can be an effective barrier to some species.

The scenic beauty of the Niobrara River is like no other in Nebraska. In places the high banks are straight and without vegetation, and in others the slopes are less extreme and are thick with several varieties of trees, shrubs, and flowers. Surprising to some people are the paper birches that grow in rather thick stands. Other trees include the usual American elms, ash, cottonwood, hackberry, as well as junipers. Grape vines and Virginia creepers growing over trees and shrubs make hiding and nesting cover for large numbers of birds and mammals. Deer and fox squirrels are locally common.

It may be difficult to believe that waterfalls are very common along some sections of the river. Of course, they would disappear along with the high banks and treed slopes if a lake forms.

Some people say that Nebraska needs another lake for recreational purposes. Very few citizens of Nebraska are as much as 100 miles from a lake-mostly the result of dammed streams or rivers or diverted water-where fishing, power boating, water skiing, and camping facilities are available. According to the report on the framework study, the Valentine socioeconomic area has a surplus of boating, skiing, and fishing waters, and has a zero need until the year 2000. To develop another lake would be to produce recreation of the type which already exists in large quantity in place of another kind of recreation of which Nebraskans have very little. There are few streams in Nebraska that are large enough for canoeing, stream fishing and similar water sports.

Another lake will provide more waterfowl habitat. Already, Nebraska is one of the greatest waterfowl centers of the Great Plains. So we will have more ducks and fewer indigo buntings. Is this what we need?

To say that a lake on the Niobrara River will trap river sediment is to say that the lake will become a mudflat and eventually a marsh. Then where is the water for irrigation? By then, the esthetic values of the canyons will be gone.

Does it seem logical that Nebraskans should lose even a segment of a river that provides a valuable study potential, unique scenery, and a special type of recreation so that a few farmers can increase production? I doubt it.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you for presenting a very clearcut statement of your views and the views of many others. We now have to go over to vote, and will be back within 15 minutes. We will

recess for 15 minutes and we will question you after we come back. Miss GATES. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. JOHNSON. The committee will resume its sitting.

You may come back to the witness chair, Miss Gates.

You have given us a very well prepared statement pointing up your opposition to the project. I would interpret this that you are opposed to the project being built.

Miss GATES. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. We have heard from a number of people this morning who have views other than your own.

Miss GATES. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. We talked about taking care of a number of things other than the agricultural end of the project. There has been a great deal of consideration given to some of these factors of the recreation, streamflow, fish and wildlife, and the environment itself.

I realize that when you create a reservoir it is to have some place to put the water. Your objection is to the damming of the stream and creating the reservoir?

Miss GATES. Yes, that is true.

Mr. JOHNSON. The supporters feel that this can be done without doing damage to any great extent to the environment, and yet take care of the recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality and take care of agricultural needs at the same time.

It is true that this project is a fair-sized project. If and when built it will require an expenditure of better than $100 million, of which 94 percent of this will be repaid. The users will have to repay within 50 years to the best of their ability and then the balance would come from the power fund of the Missouri River Basin System.

This was all explained this morning and we appreciate your right to testify here and come and give us the benefit of your testimony as you see it.

The gentlman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan.

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

I think the statement is very well prepared and very informative and I thank Miss Gates for submitting it.

Miss. GATES. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sorry that we are in this situation. We are meeting while the House is in session. We are going over only for the roll calls and there is still another one expected to take place. We hate to see things interrupted because I think we would all like to be able to go on and get through much sooner than we are going to get through.

We thank you, Miss Gates, for being here.

Our next witness will be Dwight Hoxie, chairman, Sierra Club, Bluestem Group, Lincoln, Nebr.

Miss GATES. He is not here. I don't know if anybody else can speak for him, but he is not here.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we will reserve a right for him to place his statement in the record at this point.

(The full statement of Mr. Hoxie follows:)

STATEMENT OF BLUESTEM GROUP, SIERRA CLUB, LINCOLN, NEBR., SUBMITTED BY DWIGHT HOXIE, CHAIRMAN

I. FOREWORD

The O'Neill Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program, will include the Norden Dam and Reservoir, the Springview Pumping Plant and 362 miles of irrigation canals and laterals. The project will provide irrigation service to 77,000 acres of land as its principal function.

It is the contention of the Bluestem Group of the Sierra Club that the project is economically unsound, ruinous to the environment and contrary to the current needs of the United States and the State of Nebraska. It is our contention that this project should not be authorized for development.

II. NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The Bureau of Reclamation has failed to demonstrate the existence of overriding need by which to justify authorization and development of the O'Neill Unit. Instead the O'Neill Unit has been billed as multipurpose with benefits accruing from increased agricultural production, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement and incidental flood control. It is these projected benefits which substitute for demonstrable need. It is the position of the Bluestem Group of the Sierra Club that such benefits are specious and that the overall interests of the Nation and the State of Nebraska are better served through nondevelopment of the project.

A. Increased agricultural production

The argument that the O'Neill Unit will stimulate beneficial increased agricultural production is especially questionable.

1. It is misleading to justify an irrigation project on the basis of anticipated crop yields from crops which may or may not be grown in the project area. Projected crops for the O'Neill Unit include corn, barley, alfalfa and sugar beets (House Document 378, p. 75, 1968, and Table I attached herewith). Of the 77,000 acres to receive irrigation service from the O'Neill Unit, 69,000 (90 percent) lie in Holt County, Nebraska. In 1969 and 1970 79,300 acres and 86,000 acres, respectively, of cropland were irrigated by wells in Holt County. The irrigated cropland productions in Holt County for 1969 and 1970 are summarized in Table I herewith from which it may be seen that in both years irrigated crop production was limited almost solely to corn for grain. There was no sugar beet production and only minor production of barley and alfalfa. There is no indication that this production distribution will be altered in the future. We thus conclude that the projected corn production from the O'Neill Unit is vastly underestimated and that the production of barley, alfalfa and sugar beets is vastly overestimated.

To further substantiate the above claims, analyses of the projected and present crop production from the Ainsworth Unit (Brown and Cherry Counties, Nebraska) and the Farwell Unit (Howard County, Nebraska) are presented in Tables II and III, herewith. The Ainsworth Unit commenced irrigation water delivery in 1965 and the Farwell Unit in 1963. Examination of Tables II and III reveals that, as in the case of the present situation in Holt County, irrigated crop production is limited almost solely to corn for grain. Although sugar beets were listed as a projected crop in both the Ainsworth and Farwell Units, there has been no sugar beet production from either of these project areas to date. Realistically speaking, it must be recognized that corn for grain will be the principal crop produced from the lands to be irrigated by the O'Neill Unit.

2. The consequences of stimulating increased corn production from the project area are totally counter to the needs of the nation at present. The Department of Agriculture announced in October, 1971, that it was seeking to remove 38 million feed grain acres from production in 1972, a program which will cost taxpayers some $2 billion in payments to farmers. Rather than stimulate increased feed grain production, in particular corn, through projects such as the O'Neill Unit, we must seek means to utilize current production. On this ground, the O'Neill Unit must be judged as being economically unsound.

3. The claim by the Bureau of Reclamation that the O'Neill Unit will reduce the rate of rural out-migration from the project area is not substantiated. Similar reclamation irrigation projects elsewhere in Nebraska have not been

76-941-72—————6

shown to have had a significant affect on out-migration within their respective project areas. Irrigation development does not tend to produce more farms; on the contrary the actual numbers of farms in both the Ainsworth and Farwell Units have declined over the period 1963 to 1970 (Nebraska Agricultural Statistics, 1969-1970, Nebraska Department of Agriculture). The consolidation of farms plus increased efficiency through mechanization decreases the farm employment potential in spite of irrigation development.

4. As of January 1, 1971, a total of 637 irrigation wells were registered in Holt County and provided irrigation service to 86,000 acres of land. Of this total acreage, 48,500 acres lie within the O'Neill Unit project area. Hydrograph records from wells at O'Neill and at Atkinson, Nebraska, clearly indicate a systematic decline of the ground water level during the interval 1966-1970 during which time 404 new wells were registered (Nebraska Water Survey Paper Number 28, University of Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division, 1971). It is highly unfortunate that ground water is not regarded as a depletable resource and therefore managed and conserved as such. Development of the O'Neill Unit would provide short-term and shortsighted alleviation of this problem within the project area which, however, involves only somewhat more than 50 percent of the total irrigated acreage in Holt County as of January 1, 1971. Well irrigation will continue and will likely increase outside of the project area and with it continued depletion of the ground water reserves.

5. The O'Neill Unit will provide irrigation service to 77,000 acres of what the Draft Environment Statement prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation (dated July 12, 1971) claims to be "high quality land." According to House Document 378 (p. 45) only 12 percent of the 77,000 acres is classed as highly suitable for irrigation development, 58 percent is classed as moderately suitable and 30 percent is classed as marginally suitable. The claim by the Bureau of Reclamation is highly misleading.