Spring wheat production.-The production of spring wheat, as illustrated in table 3, shows the effect of insufficient moisture. In interpreting table 3, it should be borne in mind that the eight-county area represents approximately 30 percent of the spring wheat acreage of the State of South Dakota. Yet, in only 6 years since 1924, did this eight-county area exceed the State average in the production of spring wheat.

Drought and its effects.-The eight-county area extending north, south, and west of Huron, suffered most damaging results during the period from 1931 to 1936, inclusively, from drought. The recorded precipitation at the Huron station for that period of years follows:

The economic results were disastrous and characterized by a considerable loss of population in the State as well as in the eight-county area. The recorded loss of population by counties in the area is as follows:

Farm values declined to a near-vanishing point. City real estate suffered a great loss in value as a result of the declining fortunes of our rural population. Tax-supported instrumentalities of Government were hard-pressed to meet the barest operating expenses and tax sales and foreclosures were common daily Occurrences. Temperatures soared beyond the 100-degree mark daily. Fields lost their top soil. The channel of the James River dried up causing a complete failure of the municipal water supply of the city of Huron, and forced local authorities to develop an emergency well supply 4 miles west of the city. Conservation of water.-Out of these experiences, there was born a realization that the economic stability of the future of this State, was dependent upon the conservation of our water resources to the highest degree. Through the able assistance of the Soil Conservation Service many new practices have been adopted by our rural inhabitants, but in our best judgment, the problem will. not be solved satisfactorily and our area developed to its fullest capacity, until water is brought to as much irrigable land as possible during the critical months of the growing season. Only until such an opportunity is made possible, will the abnormal results of drought be eliminated.

Program of agricultural stabilization.—On May 1, 1944, the Bureau of Reclamation released a report on Missouri River basin development, which had taken more than 5 years to prepare. The Huron Chamber of Commerce considers the program proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation as being the most specific, most complete, and offering the greatest promise of success of any of the various plans submitted in the interest of Missouri River development.

'It specifically locates the dams on the main stem and many of the tributaries which will provide the storage capacity for flood-control requirements. It outlines the areas that are irrigable. It assures the opportunity for irrigation and maximum agricultural development.

Its benefits extend to many geographic areas in South Dakota. The program would be of material benefit to farmers still continuing dry-farming practices in contiguous territory to the potential irrigation areas. The program offers the beneficial consumptive use of water in the production of new wealth as a benefit to the Nation. The program proposed comes from a Federal agency with long experience in the matter of constructing dams and reclaiming arid lands. Conclusion In view of the fact that the Congress of the United States is faced with the difficult task of providing a plan for Missouri River development that will provide the greatest beneficial use of the water to the 12,000,000 residents of the valley, and to the Nation as well, and because there is wide divergence of opinion as to the need of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural, and navigation purposes, it is our sincere belief that the flood-control bill and the Bureau of Reclamation report should be combined in such a way that the flood-control features with which we are all agreed can be accomplished and that the irrigation 60479-44- -37

opportunities made possible by the Reclamation Bureau report, shall not be sacrificed to the interests of navigation.

We further recommend that:

1. There should be added to the various Missouri River development bills now before the Congress, provisions authorizing the construction of those projects about which there is agreement between the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, while withholding authorization for construction of those projects appearing in the several bills about which there is still disagreement.

2. In authorizing the construction of the Oahe project, that a definite amount of storage capacity be allocated for irrigation, domestic, and industrial purposes. Respectfully submitted.

C. IRVIN KRUMM, Secretary, Huron Chamber of Commerce.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MISSOURI RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT PLAN (KNOWN AS THE PICK PLAN) IN H. R. 4485

Senator JOHN H. OVERTON,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Flood Control:

As president of the Upper Missouri Valley Association of the Missouri River Basin above Sioux City, Iowa, I wish to file with your committee our recommendations to you to report out favorably for passage by the Senate, H. R. 4485. Our association has long worked with the United States engineers to get an over-all plan for the Missouri River above Sioux City, Iowa. We have had several congressional resolutions passed requesting the engineers for a report to Congress relative to flood control, irrigation, and power. The engineers have for 10 years been at this job, and after all these surveys and studies have presented a comprehensive plan of development of primarily flood control. This plan is known as the Pick plan because Brig. Gen. Lewis A. Pick, of the United States engineers, put all the parts together of a 10-year study of the valley.

This United States Army engineers Missouri Basin development plan, popularly known as the Pick plan, does not give any interests priority on use of water. It controls all of the water in the Missouri River Basin above Sioux City, Iowa, on the main stem of the river and on the important tributaries in the whole basin.

Each and every one of the proposed flood-control dams are multipurpose, and are designed to take care of that particular part of the river. The seven multiple-purpose reservoirs above Sioux City, Iowa, with the completed Fort Peck Reservoir, will store some 60,000,000 acre-feet of water, which means a large carry-over to care for a reasonable dry period such as the 1930 to 1940 years. Each and every one of the proposed flood-control dams are designed to take care of that particular part of the river. These dams up-river haver, first, so much water assigned to the Bureau of Reclamation for irrigtation of so many acres of land, at or near the project, the Bureau to have priority and make usable such assigned acre-feet of water for irrigation purposes. Second, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Power Commission will specify the amount of power that is required from each dam; there will be a certain height of water provided for this power; the power will be used or sold by other Government agencies. Individual or group pump irrigation projects along the immediate valley of the rivers will be a large user of this power.

The storage of water for navigation use will be that water used for power, plus sufficient storage in these reservoirs to impound all the water that comes down the river, thereby eliminating the destruction and waste in the valley.

This complete storage of all the waters assures the upper States enough water for all the irrigation that the Bureau of Reclamation has requested in their plan, and, according to stream flow chart over a period of 45 years, may allow a considerable diversion for irrigation into the valley of the Red River of the North. This Pick plan assures water for a navigable 9-foot channel up to Sioux City, Iowa, and later on up to Pierre, S. Dak., as many people desire the benefits derived from this form of transportation. These savings of transport costs in this area would be the greatest benefit that farmers could be given by the Congress. Water transportation is the lifeblood of our Nation, and if your committee will investigate, you will find that our population is ever moving to where it is available, and that no great amount of industry will be invited to come into the valley unless water transportation is available.

I believe that the Pick plan, supplemented with the Bureau of Reclamation projects, will take 12 years or more to construct and that appropriations of $60,000,000 a year would carry the plan to completion. During these 12 years the project would be consuming a great deal of labor and equipment. This would afford a practicable aid to millions of people who will soon be returning from the war and to whom the Federal Government plainly owes the obligation of post-war adjustment.

The Pick plan is a flood-control plan and must be justified on that basis before consideration of its advantages as a source of irrigation, navigation, and power. During the 1943 flood, the direct loss in the valley was $90,000,000 besides the millions of dollars of damage annually through bank erosion of rich bottom lands, and the yearly loss of crop production that is never directly calculated. This river plan would not only aid the Missouri River Basin, but is necessary if the Mississippi River is ever to to have a safe and sure flood-control plan. It seems plain that we have a plan on which the United States has spent much money for surveying, engineering, and preparation, and which would result in the construction of a great internal improvement of natural resources belonging to the Nation, covering more than one-sixth of the Nation, located in the geographical center of it, and which, among other benefits produced, would connect its great industrial East and its great industrial and agricultural South by a useful, cheap, supplemental transportation system.

The conflict of interests betweeen the irrigation advocates in the upper basin and the navigation enthusiasts on the middle and lower river is more apparent than real. This apparent conflict is based solely on the question of whether there is enough water for the present and future requirements of each. I believe, as the United States engineers do, that the conflict will be dissolved by the storage possibilities of the proposed reservoirs. The conflicts can be reconciled, compromised and adjusted so that this great national improvement can start on its way of benefit for the present generation and generations to come.

The plan above Sioux City, Iowa, consists of seven huge multiple-purpose reservoirs and would be the most expensive part of the project. The total for this would be $385,000,000. The seven reservoirs will have a storage capacity in acre-feet of 41,000,000, adding Fort Peck Reservoir now built, of 20,000,000, making a total of 61,000,000 acre-feet of storage.

Since all of these dams are necessary for flood control and storage to carry over dry periods, they should be multiple-purpose ones, so that the water can be used for irrigation, navigation, power, water supply, pollution abatement, wildlife conservation, and recreation purposes. Such a framework, because it will not be completed for many years, must be sufficiently flexible to meet changed conditions that may arise in the future. The Pick plan has this flexibility.

The Upper Missouri Valley Association has always favored irrigation where it is feasible and also favors navigation and its benefits to the valley as a whole. It is the opinion of the Upper Missouri Valley Association: That Congress called on the Army engineers, probably the most respected agency of its kind in the world, to prepare a plan;

The plan was prepared by Colonel Pick who is regarded as highly as anyone; so highly that he has been called to direct the building of the Ledo Road in Burma by the War Department;

The Pick plan is the deliberate judgment of the Corps of Engineers;

That the Missouri River watershed will provide enough water by storing the floods to serve all purposes.

If during any period of drouth that judgment should prove wrong, then the engineers urge that irrigation should be given first priority on the water. With that recommendation our association wholeheartedly agree. We think the current quarreling, if persisted in, will produce nothing but disaster and failure for all in the valley.

We do not think there is any real conflict between irrigation and navigation and if we thought there were not enough water, would favor irrigation. Let's store the water in the reservoirs as now proposed, and in the years to come these so-called differences can be settled without injury to any interests in the valley.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN D. FORSYTH, President, Upper Missouri Valley Associaiton, Niobrara, Nebr.

Senator JOHN H. OVERTON,

Senate Commerce Committee.

TOPEKA, KANS., June 10, 1944.

I am in favor of the Pick plan as a comprehensive plan of development for the Missouri River Valley. I am confident that it permits the constructive and necessary adjustments to meet all reasonable requirements of sectional interests as the development proceeds. I hope that the proper enactments can be effected to permit development to get under way as soon as possible. Best regards. ANDREW F. SCHOEPPEL. Governor of Kansas. Senator OVERTON. Senator Austin, the committee will be very glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARREN R. AUSTIN, OF VERMONT

Senator AUSTIN. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, I am going to try to be very brief on account of your own great responsibilities and the exactions upon your time and energy involved in this important bill. I speak in favor of the Millikin amendment, offered Friday, June 9, to H. R. 4485.

As I understand this problem, in its present setting, which is some different from the setting in 1938 when the distinguished chairman of this committee and I had our keen debate on the floor of the Senate, connected with the Barkley amendment. As I understand its setting today I am practically assuming for the basis of what I have to say that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana was right and that the Senator from Vermont was not right; but I do not admit it, I just make that for the record, to keep the record straight. There may be a time when we can debate the fundamental question and perhaps come to an agreement; I do not know.

Taking the law as its exists, assuming that the policy of centralization is correct and that flood control is distinctively a national problem and can be settled-which I do not admit, for I shall take the same position that the Attorney General of Vermont has taken and will take on this bill, that the administration of it at least is local or regional-yet assuming all these things, I say that this amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado is extremely important. .

It represents a principle of government which is just exactly as important asthe principle of Federal control of flood control. It is a principle of government that affects the feelings and the judgment of the people of America today quite as much as it ever did, as evidenced by what occurred at the governors' meeting in Philadelphia, when both Democratic governors and Republican governors emphasized this same principle throughout their meeting.

It is not a step backward. It is not quite the same thing as the old States' rights controversy. It is a step forward. It contains a new principle of government, which is entirely in harmony with the times that have been developed by a world war and the development of progress, and development even of the world, especially in the world of government. Assuming that the Federal Government rightfully takes charge of the great rivers of the Nation, and rightfully says this problem of flood control is a national one, nevertheless, we must not forget that the evil tendency of that is to concentrate enormous

power in the Federal Government, and that we should all be guarding against that trend, which is extremely present and a great temptation to us in time of war, and, of course, immediately after the invasion of Europe. We now feel the necessity of speed, of united effort, and all the power that comes from concentration; and so we have a duty as I see it, as Senator and legislators, to look around and see what we do not get now so deep in this proposition of centralization that we cannot get out of it.

The new principle is a principle of cooperation, it is not the principle of separation of State and National or State and Federal authority. In my opinion, with the brief study I have made of it, it is a better principle than that of separation. It is stated quite succinctly in the first paragraph of the amendment—

to recognize the interests and rights of the States in determining the develop-ment of the watersheds within their borders and likewise their interests and rights in water utilization and control; to preserve and protect to the fullest possible extent established and potential uses, for all purposes, of the waters of the Nation's rivers; to facilitate the consideration of projects on a basis of comprehensive, basin-wide development; and to limit the authorization and construction of navigation works to those in which a substantial benefit to navigation will be realized therefrom and which can be operated consistently with appropriate and economic use of the waters of such rivers by other

users.

And thereupon, it goes on and lays out a scheme for consultation, for joint study of the problem of the convenience and necessity for the development of any new project, giving to the affected State and States a chance to be heard. What does it cost? What does it cost in time? Time? It is admitted that it costs time, and it might cost a long time in some cases. For example, there is the first 90 days, mentioned in the amendment; then there is the second 90 days; so that there might be even 180 days involved in getting this plan considered by both State and Federal Governments and submitted to the Congress. Then it might cost a little time; but we are dealing in a long-run project; we are dealing with demobilization or remobilization. We are looking forward; our vision is not foreshortened. This question of 180 days might be disturbing for some particular thing, but relative to the great problem of government that is involved here it must be considered as relatively unimportant.

I will not take your time to analyze this amendment. You have already done it. You know more about it than I do.

Senator BURTON. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to inquiry just there? I am not so familiar as I might be with the particular language, but isn't it true that the 180 days might expand into a great deal longer period than that if there were not an agreement reached forthwith?

Senator AUSTIN. Yes, it is true.

Senator OVERTON. I have not had the opportunity, Senator, I should say, to read the amendment.

Senator AUSTIN. Would you mind, then, if I read it?

Senator OVERTON. It was read here by Senator Millikin into the record.

Senator AUSTIN. Oh, well, then I will not read it.

Senator OVERTON. But I have not had an opportunity to analyze it.