(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BROOKS HAYS, OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Mr. Chairman, I shall not impose an elaborate statement upon the committee but, because of the tremendous importance of the proposed flood-control projects I respectfully urge the committee to act favorably upon the recommendations submitted by the Chief of Engineers.

I have listened with great interest to the statements of General Reybold, Colonel Goethals, and others and it is my opinion, based upon a rather intimate knowledge of the Arkansas River which traverses the district it is my honor to represent, that these proposed improvements will contribute a great deal to the control of floods, which have brought so much destruction in the past.

I, therefore, respectfully urge the committee to approve these recommendations. Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Chairman, going back to this Budget matter, I am very much interested, because I have been there time and again and could get no satisfaction. In the case of the Army engineers, their report will come out August 2, and then it goes to the Bureau of the Budget.

Could not this committee report that out as a separate item?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is a matter for the committee to decide. But, to answer your question at this time for the record, the gentleman has been on the committee a good long time and he is familiar with the rules that obtain, that it is always the policy of the committee to recommend reports that have been favorably submitted to the committee in the regular channels.

Mr. Barrett, did you have a statement you wished to present at this time?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. BARRETT, CONGRESSMAN AT LARGE, WYOMING

The CHAIRMAN. What particular phase of this project are you interested in?

Mr. BARRETT. I am interested in the Missouri River project, representing the State of Wyoming.

The CHAIRMAN. You represent the entire State?

Mr. BARRETT. The entire State.

Mr. Chairman, we consider that water is the greatest natural resource in the State of Wyoming. We contend that the State alone has the right to determine the beneficial use that may be made of the waters rising in our State.

We are not opposed to the harnessing of the Missouri River. We feel that action should be taken to control the waters of the Missouri for flood purposes, and we do not pretend to take any position other than that.

However, we are very solicitous, Mr. Chairman, that any action taken by your committee and other committees of this House will not interfere with the development of the potential irrigable land in our State. Three-fourths of our State drains into the Missouri River. In the Big Horn Basin alone there are 369,000 acres of land that can be irrigated.

Now, we are somewhat fearful that some preemption will be made of the waters of our estate by the action of this committee and other

committees of the House during the present session. If the water is stored and used for other purposes, it is obvious it cannot be used for the irrigation of very fertile lands in our State.

We contend that while we agree with the objective of the Army engineers, nevertheless the Bureau of Reclamation should have come in at the same time as the engineers did and presented a comprehensive plan for the development of this basin, which would achieve the same objective, to wit, flood control on the Missouri River from Sioux City to the mouth.

Now, our main concern perhaps is with another committee of this House, but that committee, the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, had this matter that concerns us under consideration, and I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I understand that they have adopted an amendment to their bill which reads about as follows, referring to the Missouri River Basin―

The CHAIRMAN. That is in connection with navigation of a 9-foot project?

Mr. BARRETT. That is correct. [Reading:]

Provided, That such improvement when accomplished shall not create any demand on the water resources of the Missouri River Basin over that now authorized by existing law.

Now, Mr. Chairman, our concern with that amendment comes back to the fundamental question as I stated before, that Wyoming has, all told, about 900,000 to 1,000,000 acres of land that may be irrigated from the upper reaches of the tributaries of the Missouri River. In the States of South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming there are 4,400,000 acres of land that may be irrigated.

We are concerned about this amendment, because apparently they claim that they don't enlarge any more rights than they have at the present time.

Now, I know that the engineers differ about the matter, but I think that it has been reliably estimated that at Yankton, S. Dak., the Missouri River furnishes about 15,900,000 acre-feet in order to provide even a 6-foot channel presently authorized, which would take 20,000 cubic second-feet at that point.

The 20,000 cubic second-feet at Yankton would take 9,600,000 acrefeet, to which must be added about 1,000,000 acre-feet for evaporation purposes and another 1,000,000 acre-feet to correlate it with navigation purposes and for distribution for other sources, making a total of 11,600,000, so that the upshot of recognizing the presently authorized projects on the river, and no more, they have a total of 11,600,000 acrefeet authorized if that is taken as the basis, and it leaves out of the total supply there of 15,900,000 something over 4,000,000 acre-feet.

Now, 4,000,000 acre-feet will irrigate about 2,700,000 acres of land, whereas, as I have stated to you, Mr. Chairman, we have 4,400,000 acres in those four river-basin States of land that might be irrigated, so the upshot of it is, the way we see it, that we are going to be stymied as to future development and that we will only have water enough for about half of our land.

The CHAIRMAN. What percentage of the land in your State would that be?

Mr. BARRETT. About 211⁄2 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have water enough, according to your views, according to your mathematics.

Mr. BARRETT. At the present time?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; of about 22 percent at the present time.
Mr. BARRETT. About 5 percent, total.

Now, to bring it down to brass tacks, the way I see this questionMr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for an observation?

Mr. BARRETT. I will be glad to.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Speaking of the amendment that the gentleman just read to the committee, I have been informed that that amendment was written out upon the theory that the engineers have agreed that in order to make the improvements that are contemplated in the bill that is now reported out by the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House, that it would be unnecessary to make a greater draft on the waters of the upper Missouri River and its tributaries than is now made.

Mr. BARRETT. So I understand.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Now then, if that is a fact, our protection would be written into the bill.

Mr. BARRETT. Well, I cannot quite agree with you.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I say, if it is a fact; if it is a fact.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Of course, as I understand it, it is an engineering proposition.

Mr. BARRETT. That may be true. I might say to my colleague from Montana, as I understand the situation with reference to Fort Peck, that it is possible to store there about 19,000,000 acre-feet of water. Mr. O'CONNOR. That is the situation.

Mr. BARRETT. Now, in order to provide a 6-foot channel from Sioux City to the mouth it would still take somewhat over 11,000,000 acrefeet to keep that channel up during the 8 months of the year.

Now, with only 15,000,000 acre-feet available there we would still only have a little over 4,000,000 acre-feet of water for irrigation purposes, regardless.

Mr. O'CONNOR. What I am trying to get at, I have the same concern that the gentleman has, because we have the same problem.

Now, if the improvements that are contemplated to be made under this authorization, under the so-called pick plan were made, the testimony indisputably shows that if these dams, these impounding dams are put below Fort Peck and Sioux City as contemplated, that it would permit the drawing off of more water out of Fort Peck for irrigation or power purposes than is now done. The testimony shows that on the part of the engineers all the way through.

Now then, if that is the case, the impounding dams in South Dakota and North Dakota would be helpful to us in that region in permitting a greater use of the water in the reservoir at Fort Peck.

Mr. BARRETT. I cannot quite follow my colleague, although I see somewhat the same viewpoint there, but it seems to me that instead of these large reservoirs on the main stem of the Missouri at Garrison and Oahi, Yankton and Gavins Point, that the engineers could well have collaborated with the Bureau of Reclamation and placed, say, in our State, on the Big Horn, 11 smaller dams that would, in a measure, have aided, at least, in the flood-control proposition on the Missouri River, and possibly the same in your State.

Mr. O'CONNOR. May I suggest this? I would feel just as you do, but the testimony here shows on the part of the engineers that they will

cooperate with the Bureau of Reclamation in carrying out the proposed plan of putting in additional dams, if they are necessary to do the job. The engineers have practically committed themselves to that policy, as I understand it.

Mr. BARRETT. Now, that comes back to this proposition, I might say, to my colleague. If they put the big dams there in North Dakota and South Dakota for flood-control purposes and navigation purposes, then it is quite obvious to me that they won't need these other dams in Wyoming and Montana, which could be used for irrigation purposes, and I contend that the highest use that can be made for that water is irrigation.

Mr. O'CONNOR. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt about the highest use of the water in our section of the country, on the Yellowstone, the Milk and the tributaries of the Missouri River, and that is irrigation. Power is secondary.

Of course, we are intertwining what is before the Rivers and Harbors Committee with what is before this committee. There is nothing before this committee, as I view the situation, except the so-called Pick plan and the interpretation placed upon it by the Chief of Engineers which seems to me an absolute commitment on their part to cooperate fully with the Bureau of Reclamation and its plans for the development of the entire area, for the dominant use in that area, which would mean irrigation.

That is the way the picture presents itself to me.

Mr. BARRETT. I can hardly subscribe to that statement.

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is, dominant irrigation or dominant flood control. Mr. O'CONNOR. The dominant use up there is irrigation in our section of the country.

Mr. BARRETT. I might say to our colleague from California, it is our contention, by exercising the rights of irrigation in our section of the country, that flood control would be incidental; that is, you would achieve the same purpose by storing water in our State and using it for irrigation and controlling the Missouri River to that extent.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Do you have flood control there? I mean, do you have floods?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes; we do have, in some measure. While I think the primary purpose of the Boysen Dam is silt control, nevertheless there is a question of flood control on the Big Horn there in our State.

The CHAIRMAN. Would there be anything to prevent the Bureau of Reclamation from constructing 10 or 15, 5 or 6, or any other number of dams along that river, if this project were adopted, before the waters reached the Missouri River?

Mr. BARRETT. I would say this much, Mr. Chairman, that if the water was not available for irrigation purposes that certainly Congress from a business standpoint, would not authorize another agency to use the water for that purpose if it had been preempted.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the water would still be up there, unless it comes into the Missouri River. Congress cannot keep it from being there unless it gets into the Missouri River, can it?

Mr. BARRETT. I agree with the chairman to this extent. The water falls up there and the snow falls on the ground, and we feel the water belongs to the people of Wyoming.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought you said this project would prevent you from using it?

Mr. BARRETT. Someone is asserting an interest contrary to our interest.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, this further question. Suppose the dam on the Yellowstone and the dam on the Canon were eliminated and you were not bothered with it at all out there; just left as is, what would you say as to your rights?

Mr. BARRETT. They would be interfered with in this respect, Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, if the water is appropriated by an appropriation act of Congress to the extent of even 6 feet at Sioux City for navigation, not alone 9 feet, it would be an allocation of that amount of water in the Missouri River, and that is what we are fearful of. The CHAIRMAN. If they would provide permanently that it should not interfere with your vested rights; how would it hurt you?

Mr. BARRETT. Well, they do not so provide. They provide that it shall not interfere with us only insofar as it is presently authorized by law, and they have an authorization for a 6-foot channel.

The CHAIRMAN. We cannot repeal that.

Mr. BARRETT. I do not know, but I think we can.
The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about this committee.
Mr. O'CONNOR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Is not this true that the apprehension of the gentleman is objective about the other bill rather than what is before this committee, which is the flood-control proposition, and the other is navigation, and that is what his concern is and what concerns me also.

I am not sure that the amendment is sufficiently broad that they have adopted over there, but that has nothing to do with this co-called development of this flood-control program as I see it.

Mr. BARRETT. Well, I quite agree, to this extent, that I think that the paramount use that might be made of the waters of the Missouri River, at least west of the ninety-seventh meridian, is for reclamation and irrigation, and I think if the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation had collaborated on this matter and brought in a comprehensive plan, that, instead of having these big storage dams on the main stem of the river, we might well have 11 in Wyoming and a dozen in Montana and some in North Dakota and do a better job.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Are you familiar with the fact that the Commissioner of Reclamation wrote a letter in which he pointed out that he would be prevented from constructing those additional dams out there?

Mr. BARRETT. I think it is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that the Bureau of Reclamation has not filed its full report on this Missouri River Basin before this time.

The CHAIRMAN. They did file one to the extent that did not preserve that objection.

Mr. O'CONNOR. As a matter of fact, they pointed out that it is proposed in the comments upon the so-called Pick report.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barrett, we are glad to have had your state

ment.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question? I have a statement that I want to make to the committee myself, and I suppose I will get a chance to do it before we close the hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Now, Mr. Case, I believe you are next.