« PreviousContinue »
Crop yield report_7-316 (May 1936)-Continued WATER USER OR PROJECT: BELLE FOURCHE PROJECT. YEAR OF 1936-Continued
1 For remaining grain crops. See note 1, Form 7-332. 2 List 2 most important other seed crops, like sugar beets, beans, peas, etc. Use Item 14 for the sum total of all remaining seed crops. 3 See note 3, Form 7-332. See note 4, Form 7-332.
List 2 most important other forage duplicate crops, like beet tops, bean straw, etc. Use item 23 for sum total of remaining other forage crop.
List 2 most important pastures, like ladino, tame, and alfalfa. Use item 30 for sum total of remaining pastures.
7 List 2 most important truck crops, like lettuce, tomatoes, or cabbage. Use item 4210 sum total of other remaining truck crops.
Includes all other nuts.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CROP YIELD REPORT
1. The crop yield report shall be included in the annual operation and mainte-
2. For sake of uniformity, the unit of yield shall be the ton for forage crops
3. The value per units of yield shall be the local market price of the crops.
4. Pastures shall be included under areas irrigated for crop purposes, and the
5. Duplicated areas resulting from growing grass and grain on the same land,
6. In reporting areas irrigated for other purposes, there shall be included:
7. There shall be deducted from areas irrigated for other purposes, areas of
8. Owing to the general nature of the information given in this report, the use
Bonus payments, 1936
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Crop yield report 7–316 (Nov., 1924)
WATER USER OR PROJECT: BELLE FOURCHE. YEAR OF 1934
12.50 $262, 412 $24. 12
15.00 .60 57,979 14. 24 5. 22 331, 752 41. 39 3.00 24, 045 3. 00
. 73 Hay, mixed.
271 Bushel. 30, 315 112.0
Bushel.. 39, 014 17.66
470 2. 2
Total and average
7, 520 39, 828 39, 584 22, 736 35, 112 4,700 3, 677
.55 8.00 .75
90 10.00 26. 00
9. 11 9.95 15. 70
8.00 84.00 15.90 22.06 26.00
1,022, 446 23. 56
Less duplicated areas.
Total irrigable area farms reported:
With class 5.
Under water-right applications.
Under rental contracts.
5,705 43, 405
980 975 818 710 108 848
100 81 58 50
Sugar beets, initial payment $4.25; bonus 1933 crop 97 cents; total, $5.22.
1. The crop yield report shall be included in the annual operation and maintenance report, and an advance copy shall be sent to the Commissioner as soon after its compilation as possible.
2. All crops shall be listed separately in the report in alphabetical order.
3. For sake of uniformity, the unit of yield shall the ton for forage crops and sugar beets, the bushel for grains and other vegetables, and the pound for fruits.
4. The values per units of yield shall be the local market price of the crops.
5. Pastures shall be included under areas irrigated for crop purposes, and the value thereof per acre shall be considered to be the same as that of an acre of hay land on the same farm.
6. Duplicated areas resulting from growing grass and grain on the same land, from raising crops in bearing orchards, and from other similar methods of cropping shall be carefully ascertained and deducted.
7. In reporting areas irrigated for other purposes than cropping there shall be included nonbearing orchards, fall-seeded grass fields, and fields irrigated for the purpose of cultivation only.
8. There shall be deducted from areas irrigated for other than cropping purposes, areas of crops raised in nonbearing orchards and other similar areas.
9. Owing to the general nature of the information given in this report, the use of decimals shall þe reduced to the lowest practicable minimum consistent with reasonable accuracy.
10. When the spaces on one sheet are not sufficient to list all of the different kinds of crcps raised on the project, an additional sheet should be used and the totals and areas entered on the last sheet.
Mr. SVENDBY. On Thursday, June 1, 1944, our South Dakota Reclamation Association held a meeting at Huron, to which were invited State officials, businessmen, and farmers, for the purpose of discussing the present flood control and Bureau of Reclamation programs for the development of the Missouri River. Nearly 200 of the leaders of the State, representing over 30 of the interested cities, were in attendance. During this meeting, a resolution was adopted, requesting as follows:
Whereas there appears to be a controversy as to the merits of different plans proposed for the development of the Missouri River Basin, we hereby respectfully request that the Congress of the United States, which gives directives to all divisions of Government, including the War Department and the Bureau of Reclamation, before taking action on any plan, direct that the War Department and the Bureau of Reclamation and other interested agencies, get together and develop a unified integrated plan, assuring optimum use of the river and its waters for all of its multiple purposes.
This is the thought and gist of the meeting as formerly stated: That Congress make no decision as to which program to adopt, but rather, to integrate and correlate the two programs, so that they may work together for the best good and the greatest consumptive use of the waters of the great Missouri Basin.
This follows the policy as presented to the Missouri River States Committee hearing at Pierre by myself July 21, 1943, at which time we stated that the water should be used, first, for the irrigation of land wherever it can be feasibly and economically used; second, that hydroelectric power should be developed wherever it is economically feasible; third, that consideration should be given to the construction of dams on all the tributaries of the Missouri River when the over-all plan is drawn for harnessing and controlling that river; fourth, that the water flowing through the pen stocks in developing the power for industry be ample for the transportation of such goods as can be economically and feasibly hauled on the Missouri River. In this connection, it is our thought that the Fort Peck Dam in Montana might be utilized for irrigation, power, and flood control, in developing the multiple-purpose idea and yet provide the water needed to maintain navigation in the lower regions of the Missouri River.
Further, we stated that we believe that waters from the Missouri River Basin can be diverted to the head of a tributary of the Missouri River Basin, as in the case of the James River. This association recommends such stream diversion as would adequately serve the James River Valley, and, if found feasible, the development of control dams for the purpose of irrigating portions of that valley.
Also, we stated that the South Dakota Reclamation Association is opposed to the type of legislation that would create a Missouri River Valley Commission.
Further, we stated : The over-all program should then be undertaken through the joint cooperative efforts of those existing agencies having had the greatest background of experience. We refer to the Corps of Army Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. Chairman, it has been my intention to inform you as to the necessity of irrigation in South Dakota, and it is my belief that the thoughts expressed by the large group of people at the Huron meeting 10 days ago represent the interested and considered thought of the leaders in agriculture, business, and civic interests of the State, and I again repeat their thought was not which program, but, rather, the integrated programs of the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation as represented by the Pick plan and the Sloan plan.
Both these plans propose huge storage reservoirs in South Dakota for the control of floodwaters on both the main stem and the tributaries of the Missouri River.
The Pick plan suggests irrigation incidental to the stored waters and the Sloan plan definitely assigns over 2,000,000 acre-feet of water for irrigating the proposed irrigation projects of in excess of 1,000,000 acres.
This irrigation complements the whole flood-control program by using these floodwaters to rebuild the economy of these semiarid lands which have been cultivated for 35 years or longer and have not been consistent in properly providing to the economy of the State and Nation due to varying drought conditions. It does not bring new lands into cultivation.
We of the South Dakota Reclamation Association have found no allocation in the Pick plan for any definite amount of water to be made available for irrigation in the Missouri River Basin and in South Dakota ; nor have we been advised of any policy written into this bill whereby we may be assured of adequate water being available when it is needed from the proposed multiple-purpose dams to be constructed under this plan; nor is there included in the Pick plan any policy for repayment of the irrigation works to be proposed.
These policies should be established now within the broad outlines of this bill, as otherwise there can be no assurance to the farm irrigator that he will get enough water to raise and finish his crop; and after having completed his harvest, he would have no basis for calculating his payments.
It is the belief of the South Dakota Reclamation Association that amendments correcting those items of which I have spoken be placed in the flood-control bill, and we find those submitted by Senator Millikin agree with the spirit of an amendment recently drawn up by our association, and we recommend these amendments proposed by Senator Millikin be adopted.
Senator OVERTON. Thank you very much.
Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask permission to have included in the record when it comes a statement from Mr. John McCall, of Texas?
Senator OVERTON. Who is he?
Senator MILLIKIN. I don't know who he is; he wishes to have a statement included in the record.