Federal reclamation projects under Administration of Bureau C, completed; UC, under construction; A, authorized but not yet under construction. Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Dixon, why is this a departure when on the table you give us you show three different projects in which the Corps of Engineers are proposing to construct, maintain, and operate irrigation projects? In other words, you include the Humboldt and the Russian Rivers. If it is objectionable for them to proceed with the Grand Prairie project, why is it not objectionable for them to proceed with the Humboldt and Russian Rivers? Mr. DIXON. Senator, I do not know whether you were here during the testimony on those cases. Senator SPARKMAN. Well, I was, but I do not remember it very clearly. I remember the Russian River. I was here definitely when we had hearings on that, but I do not remember the details of it. Mr. DIXON. I can use either the Russian or Humboldt River case as you wish to illustrate the answer. The Russian River proposal involves construction of a dam by the Corps of Engineers in the Russian River Basin for flood control, for domestic, municipal, industrial water supplies, and for irrigation. It was agreed that section 8 should apply so as to permit the coordination between the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation in such a way that whenever either agency built a reservoir it would not by virtue of its having come under one law instead of the other debar uses for all purposes. Senator SPARKMAN. It would be utilized as a multiple-purpose dam regardless of who built it. Mr. DIXON. That is right. In the case of the Russian River, Senator Downey agreed that section 8 should apply. In the case of the Humboldt River, I think that is entirely up to the committee at this point. We have made our recommendation that it apply the same as in the case of the Russian River. Senator MCCLELLAN. It could not be up to the committee if the law is like you say it is, and it certainly was intended to apply to reclamation States. Mr. DIXON. We cited that law, as you remember. Senator MCCLELLAN. It is not up to the committee if that is already the law any more than the change of any other law is up to the committee. Mr. DIXON. I did not suggest that policy, but if you will refer to the Corps of Engineers' report, they point out, in fact it is one of their conclusions, that it is up to the committee to decide. Of course the committee has the choice of making an exception to any law by legislative procedures. That is what they had in mind. Senator MCCLELLAN. They mean it is up to the committee to decide whether to change existing law as to a project. Mr. DIXON. That is right. It is to the proposals in the Corps report that would effect such change in law to which we objected. Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, that is not a differentiation. between the Grand Prairie project and the Russian project. It is still up to the committee whether the committee makes exception in either case or not. That is not a distinction, as I see it, as between the two projects. Mr. DIXON. At the time this tabulation was prepared the testimony on the Russian River and the Humboldt River had not been concluded, Senator. I was caught between the desire to simplify by taking out those two middle rows and leaving just the Grand Prairie and congressionally established reclamation policy, or leaving the others in. But I thought it would be worth while to the committee to see that, shall I call it, a contrasting set of policies which seem to be springing up. And so we decided to let the tabulation show them all, but the ones we are particularly discussing are those proposed for the Grand Prairie and reclamation policy. Senator SPARKMAN. Would the Grand Prairie be a separate dam to the Bayou Meto? Mr. DIXON. That is page 20, lines 10 to 21, I think. Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. Is it two separate dams or all one dam? Mr. DIXON. There are no dams. Senator SPARKMAN. No dams? Mr. DIXON. No. The irrigation part consists of a pumping plant to take water out of the White River the flows of which are regulated by a series of authorized existing dams and to be further regulated by dams yet to be built on the White River. Senator MCCLELLAN. They are not all yet to be built. Mr. DIXON. I say "existing." There are one or two existing, I think. The water supply would be pumped from the White River into a 28-mile main canal. From that it would be sent through a 150-mile main lateral system for irrigation purposes, and from that would be another 160 miles of sublateral to get the water out onto the irrigated area. Senator SPARKMAN. Is the main purpose of the project irrigation or flood control? Mr. DIXON. It is irrigation. Senator MCCLELLAN. That particular project. Mr. DIXON. For the Grand Prairie area the sole purpose is for irrigation. Senator SPARKMAN. There are two names given here, two separate names. Are they two separate projects or two parts of one project! Mr. DIXON. It is two separate projects, Senator. The first paragraph tries to draw that out. You were not here when I read it. Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, I was, but when I get to talking about it they seem to merge again. Mr. DIXON. Here is the Grand Prairie area to the east, illustrating with these two pieces of paper. The Bayou Meto is to the west. The problem of the Bayou Meto relates to improved drainage and flood control. It is not concerned with irrigation. Senator SPARKMAN. In other words, that is not primarily irrigation? Mr. DIXON. No. Senator SPARKMAN. But the Grand Prairie is primarily irrigation? Mr. DIXON. The word "primarily" can come out with reference to both. There is no irrigation in one and it is all irrigation in the other. Senator SPARKMAN. And you are asking-the one where there is no irrigation, you are not asking that be disturbed? Mr. DIXON. No, sir. Senator SPARKMAN. But you are asking where it is all irrigation it not be carried in this section; is that correct? Mr. DIXON. That is right. Senator. I was caught between the desire to simplify by taking out those two middle rows and leaving just the Grand Prairie and congressionally established reclamation policy, or leaving the others in. But I thought it would be worth while to the committee to see that, shall I call it, a contrasting set of policies which seem to be springing up. And so we decided to let the tabulation show them all, but the ones we are particularly discussing are those proposed for the Grand Prairie and reclamation policy. Senator SPARKMAN. Would the Grand Prairie be a separate dam to the Bayou Meto? Mr. DIXON. That is page 20, lines 10 to 21, I think. Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. Is it two separate dams or all one dam? Mr. DIXON. There are no dams. Senator SPARKMAN. No dams? Mr. DIXON. No. The irrigation part consists of a pumping plant to take water out of the White River the flows of which are regulated by a series of authorized existing dams and to be further regulated by dams yet to be built on the White River. Senator MCCLELLAN. They are not all yet to be built. Mr. DIXON. I say "existing." There are one or two existing, I think. The water supply would be pumped from the White River into a 28-mile main canal. From that it would be sent through a 150-mile main lateral system for irrigation purposes, and from that would be another 160 miles of sublateral to get the water out onto the irrigated area. Senator SPARKMAN. Is the main purpose of the project irrigation or flood control? Mr. DIXON. It is irrigation. Senator MCCLELLAN. That particular project. Mr. DIXON. For the Grand Prairie area the sole purpose is for irrigation. Senator SPARKMAN. There are two names given here, two separate names. Are they two separate projects or two parts of one project? Mr. DIXON. It is two separate projects, Senator. The first paragraph tries to draw that out. You were not here when I read it. Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, I was, but when I get to talking about it they seem to merge again. Mr. DIXON. Here is the Grand Prairie area to the east, illustrating with these two pieces of paper. The Bayou Meto is to the west. The problem of the Bayou Meto relates to improved drainage and flood control. It is not concerned with irrigation. Senator SPARKMAN. In other words, that is not primarily irrigation? Mr. DIXON. No. Senator SPARKMAN. But the Grand Prairie is primarily irrigation? Mr. DIXON. The word "primarily" can come out with reference to both. There is no irrigation in one and it is all irrigation in the other. Senator SPARK MAN. And you are asking-the one where there is no irrigation, you are not asking that be disturbed? Mr. DIXON. No, sir. Senator SPARKMAN. But you are asking where it is all irrigation it not be carried in this section; is that correct? Mr. DIXON. That is right. |