Page images
PDF
EPUB

becoming dry river beds, and then when large storms settle over the low watersheds rising to extremely high flows.

They are very difficult, treacherous streams, and expensive streams to handle. They cannot be justified on the normal reclamation formula that has been used in the arid West where the streams are not subject to quite such terrific variations in flow.

In many areas, such as this, the water safety valves on the dams, the spillways, may be as expensive as the dams themselves because of the caution that has to be taken in the design and construction to prevent overtopping in one of these torrential storms.

Now we approached the Missouri River Basin on a piecemeal basis and made very little progress. The Corps developed a navigation plan for the lower river and instituted it. We developed irrigation plans for the extremely arid areas and built certain small projects in the Missouri River Basin. But the whole central section where the need was greatest in the high plains

Senator KERR. And the greatest benefit possible.

Mr. WARNE. And the greatest total benefits possible, simply could not be approached because the planning and the comprehension of the program was not on an adequate basis. We were not considering all the benefits, we were only considering a part of them in the justification. Consequently many, many years passed and ran into five or six decades before an adequate plan was devised and put forward.

Those plans were joined together in a mutual agreement reached in Omaha between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers at a time when authorization of work in the Missouri was momentarily in consideration in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Their joinder was, I think, well done for that time and for that method.

I am confident, however, that a better plan might have resulted had the foresight of several years and several years' endeavor been put upon it as is proposed in the Kerr bill for the Red and the Arkansas and the White River basins. It would be my hope that if the Congress should adopt legislation of this sort and the work should be undertaken, that there would not arise afterward some of the questions that we are faced with in the Missouri Basin now, and that sufficient length of time could be allowed in the completion of the plan to insure a smooth operation.

You have much at stake in it. I question myself whether enough time is allowed in the bill.

Senator KERR. I think the department has recommended an additional year.

Mr. WARNE. We have recommended a 3-year period rather than a 2-year period in that point in the bill where the 2 years are set out.

There is a lot of work to be done. It is time we got at it. The problems that run into these basins will include both quantity and quality of water problems. They will include inadequacy of the surface waters for just basic water uses in the western portions of the Red and the Arkansas, particularly, and their major tributaries, the Canadian and the Ouachita.

The needs of irrigation, reclamation, fish and wildlife, and these other conservation uses of water must be considered, and they should be considered in concert with the flood-control and navigation plans of the lower river to avoid storing up unnecessary troubles for the future.

There is a possibility of the importation of some river water into the upper reaches of the Arkansas from Colorado through a plan that is of interest to Colorado and the States of the Colorado River Basin. If so, that water would be used in the Arksansas River Basin within the State of Colorado. There is an agreement on the Arkansas itself between Colorado and Arkansas, and as a result of that agreement I believe there is not apt to be interstate problems arise on the use of the Arkansas at any point.

Senator DOWNEY. What might be the amount of water that might be diverted from the Colorado to the Arkansas? Have you that in mind?

Mr. WARNE. I do not have it in mind at the moment. It is within an allocation for depletion purposes to the State of Colorado and would, of necessity, come out of whatever water Colorado is entitled to.

I am told the studies are based on three schedules. One would be 300,000 acre-feet annually. Another would be 600,000 acre-feet annually, and another 900,000 acre-feet annually.

What the ultimate requirement might be is still undetermined.

Senator KERR. There is a study, however, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, that pertains only to that portion of the Colorado River water which by the compact and by the agreement in the upper basin is assigned to and belongs to Colorado.

Senator DOWNEY. I understand that, Senator Kerr, and I have to withdraw now.

Why do you not take the chair and continue the hearing?
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator KERR (presiding). Proceed, Mr. Warne.

Mr. WARNE. Things that will have to be taken into consideration in the study are the effects of upstream consumptive use of water on downstream navigation, in floods, effects of possible developments both upstream and downstream on fish and wildlife benefits, use of the power in relation to the development of minerals and other resources in the areas that are within transmission distances, proper sequence of construction throughout the basin, and the means of obtaining a system operation from one end of the rivers to another, which will be essential to any effective flood-control plan and will be important in any power plan as well.

Our department has a number of interests that are affected in ihis planning. As I mentioned a moment ago, we have two projects tha have been constructed there, two small projets-the Tuermea proiect in New Mexico and the W. C. Austin project in Oklahoma

We have a long series of investigations on the Arkansas River that have been pushed to different stages of completion, and I would like to offer this list for the record as well as a list of about 20 investig. tions that have been or are presently under way on the Red River Basin similarly.

I would like also to offer for the record a table which will indicate the size of the power that is authorized and proposed. and potential power projects in these three basins will place additional responsbility upon the Southwestern Power Administration which is open the agencies of our department with first-line interest in this development.

Senator KERR. They will be placed in the record. (The tables referred to are as follows:)

INVESTIGATION WORK PERFORMED BY BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Arkansas River Basin

iden project-

Kansas. rkansas City project.

Do. rkoma project

Oklahoma. rkansas River Basin.-

Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma,

New Mexico, Kansas. tarber County project (formerly Medi- Kansas.

cine Lodge). arron Fork project-

Oklahoma. ig Ranch project

Do. lack Mesa project-

New Mexico. rannan project--

Oklahoma. ridgeport project-

Do. ueyeros project

New Mexico. aldwell project---

Kansas. aldwell pumping project--

Do. anadian River subbasin..

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas. anadian River project.

Texas. anton project

Oklahoma. apulin project

New Mexico. astaneda project (formerly Kenton). Oklahoma, heney project.

Kansas. hoska project

Oklahoma. limarron River subbasin.-

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado,

Kansas. learwater project-

Kansas. olmor project--

New Mexico. nglewood project

Kansas, Oklahoma. ufaula project.

Oklahoma. isher project-

Do. ort Gibson project-

Do. ort Supply project.

Do. ort Supply pumping project.

Do. rand (Neosho) River Basin.

Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas. unnison-Arkansas project-

('olorado. ardesty project--

Oklahoma. odashon project.

Do. averne project.

Do. ponard projectFons project

Do. liami-Fairland project.

Do. lami project-

New Mexico. lora project.

Do. Tulberry project-

Kansas. 11-kogee project...

Oklahoma. orth (anadian River subbasin.. New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas. alo Duro project.

Texas. ryor-Chot au project-

Oklahoma. Hd River-Eagle Mist project.

New Mexico. alt Fork project.

Oklahoma. pringer project

New Mexico. rinidad project.

Colorado. ulsa project-

Oklahoma. uttle project-

Texas. pper Arkansas River Basin.

Colorado, Kansas. nion project-

Oklahoma. eroligris River Basin.

Kansas, Oklahoma. ermejo project.

New Mexico. ebber's Falls project

Oklahoma. Tichita project.

Kansas.

Do.

RED RIVER BASIN

Red River Basin... Barnitz project---Broken Bow projectCaprock project--Cheyenne project.. Chickasha projectCrowe project--Dead Indian Creek projectDenison-Colbert project_ Elm Fork project-Finn Creek project. Fort Cobb project-Foss project--Gracement project-Hereford project. Hobart project-Hugo project Lawton project.. Mangum project. Mountain Park project-Mountain View project Nine Mile Creek project. Otter Creek project--Panther Creek project-Pond Creek project--Purdy project. Quitaque project--Rany Mountain projectRed River project--Roaring Creek project-Saddle Mountain project. Scotland project---Tony Hollow project-Tupelo project--Turkey Creek project-Vernon project--Washita River sub-basin. West Bitter Creek project. West Quartermaster Creek project. Wichita Falls project--Wildhorse Creek project-Yarnaby project---

Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana
Oklahoma
Do.
Texas
Oklahoma
Do.
Texas
Oklahoma
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Texas
Oklahoma
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Texas
Oklahoma
Do.
Do.
Do.
Texas
Oklahoma
Do.
Do.
Texas
Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Do.
Texas
Oklahoma
Do.

35,000 35,000

Texas-Oklahoma.
Arkansas

do.
do.

do.
Oklahoma.

35,000 35,000 120,000 75, 000 17,000 45, 000 34,000

1949 1949 1953 1954 1950 1953 1953 1954

Denison
Norfork.
Bull Shoals
Blakely Mountain.
Narrows
Fort Gibson
Tenkiller Ferry.
Table Rock
Ozark.
Dardanelle
Greers Ferry
Lone Rock
Water Valley ?
Markham Ferry.
Oologah.
Eufaula
Webbers Falls
Short Mountain.

105,000

70,000
200,000

0
8,500
22, 500

0
84,000
18,000
30,000
52, 000

do

Millions

73.5 34. 5 89.0 31.0 14. 2 51.6 24.3 80.1 41.2 69.3 35.7 37.5 28.0 37.1 31.1 118.5 53.0 73.0

Missouri.
Arkansas.

do.
do
do.

do
Oklahoma

do
do.
do
do

175,000 140,000
140,000 108,000
320,000 414, 400
75,000

93,400
25, 500 16, 500
67,500 94, 600
34,000 60, 400
168,000 329,000
24, 000 108, 600
60,000 167, 300
78,000 75,000
90,000 99,000
47,000
72, 000 85, 800
14,000 28, 000
45,000 118, 300
28,000

61,300
72,000 160, 300
1, 535,000 2, 159, 900

296,000
168,000
568,000
131, 500

25,000
190,000
102, 400
372, 000
143, 000
240,000
131,000
144,000
170,000

41,000
245,000
112,000

250,000
3,328, 900

1955

1954 1953

47,000 36,000 14, 000 45,000 14,000 36,000

Total, Arkansas, Red, and White River Basins..

922. 6

70,000

361,000

782,000

Federal power projects of the Corps of Engineers in the Arkan8018-Red and White River Basins for which the Southwestern Power Administration

is the marketing agency

Capacity, in kilowatts

Energy, in 1,000
kilowatt-hours

Project

State

Total
estimated

cost

Present

Completion

date of
capacity
under con-
struction
or initial
capacity

(10)

Additional
authorized
or initial

Under con-
struction

Total ulti

mate

Firm

Average

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(6)

(8)

(9)

1 1956 or later. 2 Power not yet authorized.

« PreviousContinue »