in the hearing on the rivers and harbors bill, about the objections which would be made under the provisions of this amendment by the governors of the affected States. Some seem to think there would be a barrage of objections to many project items contained in this bill, and a large number of them stalemated by such objections. This, it seems to me, is an unwarranted assumption. After all, Mr. Chairman, these governors are responsible public officials. Confidence should be reposed in them. They are not going to interject objections unless they are warranted in the substantial interests of their States. It is not likely that any more than those projects which have encountered objections before this committee will be subjected to such objections. And in those cases, it is also likely such objections will serve as a means of invoking a procedure which will give an opportunity to resolve the differences evidenced before your committee and reauthorization made unnecessary. Fifth, on behalf of those whom I represent, I cannot too strongly urge upon you the procedure set forth in the amendment to protect the interests of the States. When great river developments are planned and authorized, they involve a water resource which is a part of a State's territorial inheritance. This is especially true in an arid or semiarid region where water is an inherent complement to its land development. Ever since the pioneers started irrigation in the West, waters have been the subject of most tenacious claims. These States recognize the right of the Federal Government to regulate navigable waters on interstate rivers and that their right to control irrigation uses is subject to the control by Congress in the interests of navigation. But we assert that this Federal jurisdiction should not be exercised in a way to unduly and unnecessarily limit our future agricultural advancement. We come here seeking in this amendment the protection which we believe should be accorded us to use a natural resource which is a vital and necessary part of our future welfare and prosperity. And, Mr. Chairman, as you serve the interests and welfare of a State, you serve likewise the interests of the Nation. A review of the hearings on this matter shows that it has been said that the States have an opportunity to present their view before this committee when a project is submitted for authorization; and that the practices of the Army engineers offers further opportunity. We submit that the interests of the State should be more fully protected when we come to the final stages of river development than is provided by the procedure of the past. It is during the course of investigation and study of these projects that the States should be heard and in that way in many cases objections can be removed and projects submitted to Congress which will not incur the controversy which recently have been evidenced before your committee. I have read some of the statements and have studied the hearings before your committee on the river and harbor bill. Some of these statements present positions on which I wish to make particular comment. It came as a shock to some of us that it was advocated here, I believe by the Governor of my State, that the Missouri item of all pending bills should * * provide * that no rights or priorities in the water shall rest in any person or State because of irrigation uses. In another place in his statement it is suggested that the fear of the irrigation as well as of the navigation interests could be dispelled if H. R. 4485 contained a proviso that the- use of water pursuant to it should ever be in any manner construed as establishing or vesting any rights in anyone except the Nation itself. This is a most astounding proposal. In spite of the fact that the Congress and the Supreme Court have reputedly recognized that the States have the right to control the use and distribution of water for irrigation under their laws and constitutions, this proposal would seek to destroy the legal basis under which the whole agricultural economy of the West has developed. It is a proposal for complete destruction of State's rights in water. It is a suggestion for the imposition of complete Federal jurisdiction over the water of the Missouri River. Its proponent is not content that the arteries of water-borne commerce and the water therefor should be controlled by the Federal Government, but he seeks the imposition of the Federal jurisdiction over use of water for irrigation. He is going further than proposing a formula for the adjustment of the conflict between navigation and irrigation uses and suggests that the States in the Missouri Basin should now be compelled by Congress to surrender all their rights in the control of the use of water. In the absence of any Federal laws to control the appropriation and use of water for irrigation, it is hard to understand how under his plan an irrigation farmer would be accorded any security in the use of water. It would seem, therefore, that all irrigation development being thus without a status which the law protects would be stalemated. Under this proposal, in view of the present Federal reclamation laws, which provide that the use of water for a reclamation project shall be in conformity with State laws, it is hard to understand how any reclamation project could be authorized for construction. It should be kept in mind that such a radical departure from present Federal policy on the Missouri could not be accomplished without jeopardizing the irrigation interests in all the other major river basins in the West. Even an intimation of serious consideration of such a proposal would incur a storm of protest from the West which would overshadow even the present controversy on the Missouri. Of course, we do not for a moment admit that the Federal Government has such control over water which would permit the right to effectuate this most astounding proposal, but we could not refrain from an attempt to disclose its import. The argument made here that flood control should come first, and that, therefore, the Pick plan should be authorized, is not at all convincing to us. If the Pick plan provided solely for flood control, and if the reservoirs provided thereunder, had no relation to other developments in the basin, then there would be merit to that position. If that were true, then there would be no occasion for the irrigation interests appearing here. But everyone knows that that is not the case. The various purposes of the structures in the Pick plan, aside from flood control, and their relation to other improvements on the river, have been discussed in this statement and shown by a number of other presentations made here. The necessity of project integration would seem to be pretty well demonstrated. No one is claiming that there should be any particular priority of project construction. The need to prevent the floods along the Missouri as soon as possible is recognized by all, but when a river development plan for all purposes is before Congress it seems wholly unnecessary to jeopardize other interests in the river to accomplish this one purpose. Under this bill these flood-control structures cannot be built until after the war, and I submit that if the amendment here proposed is adopted an orderly procedure will have been provided under which differences will be adjusted and these flood-control works can be built. In closing, I wish to point out that the problems involved in a plan for the development of the Missouri are not peculiar to that basin. They exist in other basins of the United States. A settlement on the Missouri in a piecemeal fashion will not serve to prevent a recurrence of the same controversy in other river basins. The amendment which we urge your committee to approve provides a policy and procedure applicable to all river basins. It will go far to afford a sound basis for adjustment in an orderly fashion of the water resources of the Nation. I hereby submit a statement of attitudes from three of the larger cities of the State sent me as testimony for this hearing. Now, I have three letters which I would like to file, calling attention to resolutions passed by the respective groups meeting in our area. I would also like to file a copy of a resolution by the Aberdeen Civic Association. Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask that that which he says he is going to file be entered in the record. Senator OVERTON. Very well, that will be done. (The letters and resolution are as follows:) Mr. E. C. MCKENZIE, Huron, S. Dak. SIOUX FALLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, DEAR MR. MCKENZIE: Our attitude regarding the proposed plans to develop the various possibilities in connection with the Missouri River Basin remains the same as when we sent the following telegram to Gov. M. Q. Sharpe while he was attending a governors' conference in Omaha, Nebr., March 13, 1944: "We feel certain that South Dakota's interest in Missouri River development plan is mainly irrigation and flood control and that any conclusions which do not include these will be contrary to the State's interests." We understand that you have been designated as the official representative of the South Dakota Reclamation Association to Washington in the interest of Missouri River development and we wish you success. DEAR MR. MCKENZIE: This will be your authority to represent the Mitchell Chamber of Commerce before the Senate committee now holding hearings on the so-called 9-foot channel bill, a bill which has for its purpose the maintenance of a 9-foot channel of water in the Missouri River, from its mouth to Sioux City, Iowa, for navigation purposes. It is our very strong conviction that the waters of the Missouri River, originating as they do in Montana, North and South Dakota, should first be used for the 60479-44-49 purpose of stabilizing agriculture in the upper Missouri Valley Basin States, and the furnishing of water for domestic use. You are therefore authorized to speak in our behalf along these lines, with the same effect as though one of our own members was making the presentation. Yours very truly, MITCHELL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Mr. E. C. MCKENZIE, President, Huron Chamber of Commerce, ABERDEEN CIVIC ASSOCIATION, Aberdeen, S. Dak., June 10, 1944. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We enclose copy of resolution approved and adopted by the board of directors of this association as of May 3, 1944, relative to pending legislation on development of the Missouri River. We understand that you will possibly make an appearance before one of the committees at Washington, D. C., relative to this subject. The conservation committee of this association should like you to feel free to represent the Aberdeen Civic Association in accordance with the language of our official resolution. Sincerely yours, C. E. ARNOLD, Executive Secretary. RESOLUTION OF ABERDEEN CIVIC ASSOCIATION Whereas H. R. 3961, commonly known as the river and harbor bill, has now been approved by the House of Representatives in Congress and will soon be scheduled for committee hearings in the Senate; and Whereas the development of irrigation in our State and the assurance of supplementary water supply for domestic uses is of paramount importance to the future stability and well-being of our people: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Aberdeen Civic Association, That we most urgently request all the members of the delegation from South Dakota in the Congress of the United States to use every effort and give their fullest support to the preparation, consideration, and final adoption of such amendments to H. R. 3961 that may be submitted with the specific intent of guaranteeing to Missouri River Basin States a sufficient amount of water from the Missouri and its tributaries for irrigation and domestic uses; and be it further Resolved, That we, the directors of the Aberdeen Civic Association, convened in Aberdeen, S. Dak., on May 3, 1944, suggest that the following amendment will accomplish that purpose: "Provided further, That no navigation project herein or hereafter authorized, and requiring the use of waters of any river or tributary thereof having its source west of the ninety-seventh meridian, shall be appropriated for or constructed until the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with such Federal agencies as may be concerned, have integrated their plans for flood control, irrigation, power, navigation, and other uses and submitted to the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress such joint or several recommendations as they may deem appropriate, within a time to be fixed by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget; and that the use of water west of the ninety-seventh meridian for domestic, irrigation, mining, or industrial purposes made available by works and improvements under any integrated plan approved by Congress shall be unimpaired by claims for water to maintain navigation." NELS F. FIELD, President, Aberdeen Civic Association. Approved and adopted: May 3, 1944. Mr. MCKENZIE. It happens that my town is located in the center of the James Valley. We are also in the center of the Dust Bowl which the Saturday Evening Post wrote up telling you how you get your dust back East. Senator OVERTON. All right. We are very much obliged to you. Senator MILLIKIN. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have Mr. Svendby. Senator OVERTON. Will he take more than 5 minutes? I have to leave in 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ARTHUR SVENDBY, SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATIVE MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION, AND REPRESENTING THE SOUTH DAKOTA RECLAMATION ASSOCIA TION Mr. SVENDBY. I think I can finish in that time. I have just a short statement. Senator OVERTON. You may proceed. If you dont' get through we can take it up in the morning. Mr. SVENDBY. My name is Arthur Svendby, and I represent the South Dakota Reclamation Association and am South Dakota legislative member of the National Reclamation Association. Senator OVERTON. What are you by profession? Mr. SVENDBY. I am a merchant, sir. Senator OVERTON. What do you sell? Mr. SVENDBY. General merchandise, small department store. Senator OVERTON. Have you had occasion to make a study of floodcontrol problems? Mr. SVENDBY. Yes, sir; I have. Senator OVERTON. Irrigation and navigation? Mr. SVENDBY. Yes. I have been operating on this program for the last 9 years. Senator OVERTON. In what capacity? Mr. SVENDBY. As a member of small organizations we have had in our own State and as a member of the South Dakota Reclamation Association for the last 8 years. Senator OVERTON. All right. Mr. SVENDBY. This program of water conservation and irrigation is not a new program to me. In 1935 the Western Dakota Water Conservation Association was formed, and in 1936 I directed a letter to Mr. W. R. Ronald, chairman of the South Dakota Planning Board, at Mitchell, S. Dak., relative to the building of irrigation dams in western South Dakota, and this proposal took in all the streams of the western portion of South Dakota. At that time, we also advocated the impounding of waters for stock water in small farm dams, and now over 16,000 of these stock-water dams dot the plains of South Dakota. Congressman Case of the Second District, in which I reside, told you previously that he desired the western portion of South Dakota to get irrigation water to alleviate the conditions that existed during he dry years of 1930 to 1940. Those, too, are my wishes. South Dakota needs irrigation, as is shown during the last decade. During that period, 1930 to 1940, the lack of rainfall, in comparison to the climatological recording in South Dakota, shows the loss of 48 inches of rainfall in comparison with the average up to 1930. This same average precipitation was lowered from 20.76 inches in 1930 to 18.87 inches, or nearly 2 inches loss, by 1940, in the average annual precipitation. The State of South Dakota had a precipitation record of 15.90 inches for the 10-year period of 1930 to 1940, which varies by divisions in which the State is divided, as the western, central, and |