also state that there are landholders on the Salmon tract that do not want supplemental water at the expense of established projects. The threat of my being short of water and this fact alone is what I am objecting to. When a new source of water has been found for this project it will have the blessing of the north side people. A water right should be based on the shortest supply of water that has been available. Irrigating is not the type of business that can be shut down like a factory. It has to be planned months in advance. Money has to be invested in land preparation and seed. If there is no water this cannot be recovered. In an irrigated country this is a total loss. I have heard several theories propounded about our inexhaustible aquifer as a permanent source of water. One school of thought says it replenishes itself from runoff higher up in the mountains. Supposedly it travels toward the Snake River at the rate of all the way from 3 feet to several miles per year. All of this may be true, but a fact I can tell you is that the streamflow in Hagerman Valley is not constant. It varies with the high point being 2 to 3 months after the irrigation season starts on the north side and Big Wood Canal projects. Another fact is that the water table is lower now than it was 20 years ago when I first bought land on the north side. This could be due to irrigation wells in the immediate area. The question arises: what happens to the water table when the tract above is short of water, thereby restricting percolation? Will this proposed pumping pull the water table so low that the spring flow for Hagerman Valley and the King Hill Ditch be affected as well as the existing domestic and irrigation wells? As a sidelight I might say that in 1961, in that short water year, I had a domestic well with a new submersible pump in it. It cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $500. The water table dropped, the pump was out of water and it burned up. The question I want to point up is in the event they do pump this aquifer and it drops, who do I go to for recourse? One other question poses itself. What about the radioactive waste deposited in the ground at Arco? Is there danger of it traveling with this water toward the Snake River? What will the danger be of excessive contamination if the volume of water is lessened by pumping on short water years? Do not forget, we will have them. I would further like to touch on the cost of construction. How much good producing land will be destroyed by a canal? How can Congress possibly justify this cost per acre? In round figures to me this means in excess of a $1,000 an acre and I cannot conceive of any of those people who would not sell out entirely for a thousand dollars an acre, and you are talking of-I think the figure was mentioned in excess of $60 million and then 47,000 acres that you are talking about. Just a thought. I would like to hear some estimate on pumping from the Snake River at about Clear Lakes. This in itself would not bother anybody. This source of water would bother no one. It could be pumped into the lower end of the Twin Falls system. Their water could be pumped onto the Salmon farther up. This idea should appeal to those Twin Falls people who also have land on the Salmon. No more problems would be created than the proposal to use north side water. I thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. We are very glad to have your statement in the record, Mr. Erwin. I am sure that the Idaho Water Resources people and the Bureau of Reclamation are going to work very closely together, and bring to bear all their knowledge of aquifers, and all of the geology that is involved. There are many experts who are associated with the various canal systems here who will safeguard the rights of those in the north area as well as your rights. Now, it is hard to say if you burn up a pump who will pay for it and how you would prove your case. Your court costs would probably be more than you would get for the pump, but I understand your problem there. Now, the other matter of concern here-the $1,000 per acrethat is about the going price for pretty near any reclamation project. Some of them are higher than that at the present time. The economics of a project of this kind are considered very thoroughly and the Bureau must come up with a story to convince Congress; otherwise Congress will not pass it. We have passed a lot of projects. They are based upon the feasibility reports showing engineering feasibility and the economics of the project. These are put before us and are used to justify the authorization. I realize that $1,000 is a lot to place against the lands and that the farmers are going to have to assume a pretty good obligation. This is a long-term development for the long time economic growth of the area that we are trying to help. These benefits would far offset the costs of it. Mr. ERWIN. Do not misunderstand me. I am not opposed to the project. I just do not want them dabbling in my water. [Laughter.] Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Fine. They will be looking into it because you have called it to their attention. Anyone else have a question? Mr. McCLURE. Mr. Chairman Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. MCCLURE. As I understand, your testimony is based on the original proposal that has been submitted. Mr. ERWIN. That is right. Mr. MCCLURE. And it is not based upon the alternative which was outlined at a later date. Mr. ERWIN. To my experience, the pumping in the Rupert area has had no effect, appreciable effect, on our water supply down there. I would assume if you go farther up the river I will not be affected. Mr. MCCLURE. And you would not be here if that were the proposal. Mr. ERWIN. Well, if I had known that this was going to be the proposal and not an alternative proposal, I mean, if you had given me a cut-and-dried statement that you will not pump out of the aquifer in Gooding County or Jerome County, then I will go home right now. [Laughter.] Mr. MCCLURE. Just one further comment in regard to this cost of developing reclamation projects. In the first place, if it had not been for the foresight of men like Senator Jordan, who some years ago got a Columbia Basin account so we could have some power revenues, we would not be here talking about this project because it would be too expensive and we could not justify it. We can justify for indirect benefits and national purpose for the region, the benefits that go beyond the direct benefits to the farmer on the land and, therefore, go beyond his repayment capacity. So I think we can justify this and other reclamation projects. Thank you. Mr. ERWIN. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Erwin. Our next witness is Mr. Lester E. McGregor, Twin Falls. STATEMENT OF LESTER S. MCGREGOR, TWIN FALLS Mr. McGREGOR. Chairman Johnson, other members of the House subcommittee, I am Lester McGregor, a long time resident_farmer of the Salmon Falls tract, and a past member of the board of directors and president of the Salmon River Canal Co. Incidentally, I am the immediate junior president of the company. I have lived on this irrigation project since 1913 and have seen the ups and downs of the water supply since the beginning of irrigation on this tract. Every possibility of obtaining additional water has been studied since 1919 without finding a sufficient supply that would justify the cost of getting the water to the tract. In the early 1950's we even made an attempt to improve our snow pack, by seeding the clouds, without any noticeable beneficial results. We see water spill down the Snake River past the Milner Dam about 4 years out of 5, or more often, and we know that this is the largest and cheapest supply of water we will ever be able to have even though it has to be pumped. With the high cost of equipment and operation and the fact that taxes and water maintenance charges do not fluctuate with the water supply, it is extremely difficult to encourage the younger generation to stay on the farm, as the future of agriculture on this project does not look too promising to them without a stable water supply. Since the Salmon Falls division project is not a new development, but primarily a supplemental water supply project for an irrigation project which has been in operation for a long time, therefore, in my opinion, the Salmon Falls project is fast becoming a necessity if this project is to survive. Mr. JOHNSON. I want to say that after living in the project area since 1913 you look very good. Mr. MCGREGOR. This is my 60th year on the Salmon. Mr. JOHNSON. You are doing very good. [Laughter.] Now, I see that people have studied this since 1919. That just about puts it in the 50-year category, or a little better. Mr. McGREGOR. Right. Mr. JOHNSON. You want to see something done about it. We appreciate very much your statement. Coming from a person who has been here and acquainted with it that long, it really means a lot to all of us who are here. The gentleman from Wyoming. Mr. RONCALIO. In view of the Chairman's observation, I have no questions. Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. McCLURE. I have no questions. Mr. JOHNSON. We thank you for coming here. Mr. McGREGOR. Thank you. It was a privilege to be here. Mr. JOHNSON. Our next witness is Mr. James Patrick, Twin Falls, Idaho. STATEMENT OF JAMES PATRICK, TWIN FALLS, IDAHO Mr. PATRICK. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I farm on the Salmon tract near Berger, Idaho with my dad and brother. We have enough land among us to make a workable unit except on short water years. On good water years such as this one it is a joy to farm, but on short years it is impossible. A person cannot plan any kind of rotation to conserve his land; all he can do is get the maximum from what water he does have and hope he does not have to look for extra work in town. I am 26 years old and have a college education, so I can get a good job in other areas, but after working on a job for 3 years I have chosen to farm, but I do not like to work with a dark cloud of short water years to look forward to. I was raised on the Salmon tract, so I have seen several years when it would have been more profitable to have done nothing, but a person cannot let his farm be overrun by weeds, rodents, and insects. It seems as if it takes at least 2 years to get the ditches and fields back into a productive condition after a short water year when you have to leave some fields lay idle. A lot of people have the idea that all a person has to do is buy the water shares from other lands so that even on very short years he will have enough water for his land, but it is not that simple. In order to have enough water in the canals to keep the water loss at a minimum the water is run in bursts of on a few days and off a few days. under a schedule such as this everything on the farm needs watering the same day. There just is not any way to run an efficient operation on dry water years and with the small margin of profit already in farming I am afraid there is not much future for my brother and me on the Salmon tract without supplemental water. Mr. JOHNSON. Jim, we are glad to see you here and going back to the farm. Mr. PATRICK. Well, that is what I want. Mr. JOHNSON. Having a college education and being only 26 years old, if you can possibly get additional water, you will have a very comfortable living here, I presume? That is the way you figure it? Mr. PATRICK. Well, it will be easier. In other areas possibly, with the same amount of work, you can be a lot more successful, let me put it that way. It will not be easy to farm any place, I do not believe, but it is sure a lot simpler with water. Mr. JOHNSON. You have got some real work ahead of you because it is not easy to make a living on a small farm. That is quite the case throughout the United States, regardless of whether you have water or do not have it. Here you need water very badly. We realize that. Any further questions? We want to thank you for coming here. STATEMENT OF VICTOR W. NELSON, TWIN FALLS, IDAHO Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I am Victor W. Nelson of Twin Falls, Idaho. I am a former director of the Salmon River Canal Co., a resident, farmer, and livestock rancher on the Salmon Falls tract. I have farmed for 40 years on the same farm. Being the age of 67, I would like to retire and turn the place over to a younger farmer, but I have been uable to do this as it is impossible for the younger generation to operate the farms with the fluctuation of water supply. They are unable to obtain finances to farm on because of the unsure water situation and the cost of farming. On short water years we do have to let farm land lay idle. The erosion and drought destroy the productivity of the land, then it takes several years to bring this land back into production. With a more constant water supply, it would enable us to follow a better rotation program. It presents a problem in the livestock operation as some years feed can be raised, then on dry years the livestock raisers are forced to purchase feed or sell their breeding stock. The young farmers and livestock producers cannot afford this kind of operation. The farmers have had to have extra acres of land in order to offset the short water years. An adequate and constant water supply would relieve the farmers of this burden, and enable them to operate smaller farms. Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you, Mr. Nelson, for the information given us yesterday on the bus tour, and for our opportunity to meet with you last night and learn more about the cooperative effort in the livestock industry that you people have put together. Those of you who have livestock, I guess, are doing better than some that are strictly in farming here? Mr. NELSON. Well, I happen to have some land over in Nevada. We bought a big ranch out there in Nevada, took the water off of the ranch and brought it down to our land, and we formed an association-a construction company, which takes that water and I am running livestock on that. That helps me out in the summertime. I can pasture cattle. If we had water-you saw a lot of land yesterday that could be used for the pasture. You know, you like to see your cattle at home, young people especially, and it would be a lot better and I would like to say, like Billy Loughmiller just said, the ducks and stuff-I have got in my place four or five little ponds and I have seen them in the last 3 or 4 days since there is water, I must have 500 ducks getting ready, some of them already making nests. This is going to make a lot of ducks in this country. I guess they went to Canada because I never have seen them in a dry year. Mr. JOHNSON. We will have to bring that to the attention of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service to see if we cannot get an increased benefit here. Mr. NELSON. It is nice. I like to see these ducks. I like to see these |