followed. About 20 small- and medium-sized dams should be constructed in addition to the treatment of watersheds and tributaries. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement. Mr. O'CONNOR. I wish to insert in the record at this point a prepared statement that I have made with reference to this problem, and attached thereto a copy of a letter which I received from Major General Reybold, Chief of Engineers, dated December 11, 1943, covering the same subject. The CHAIRMAN. That permission is granted and that statement may appear as made, and if you have any additional statement you wish to make at this time you may do so, Mr. O'Connor. Mr. O'CONNOR. I think it has been generally observed what my attitude has been from the questions I have propounded. The statement I have made is an elaboration of the questions I asked of the various witnesses with reference to flood control. I contend, of course, if we are going to have effective flood control that we must take into consideration soil conservation and the silt problem, which is very important. The CHAIRMAN. You may pass your statement to the reporter and it will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE O'CONNOR OF MONTANA Mr. Chairman, the people of Montana have been vitally interested in the conservation of water ever since the first settler camped on our plains and in our mountains. This conservation for use of our waters, as I have said before, is vital to our daily lives. Since being a Member of Congress I have constantly worked to obtain the necessary legislation to use our existing water resources for the maximum beneficial results to our people. In 1937, through the cooperation of the distinguished chairman of this committee, I sponsored a resolution calling upon the Corps of Engineers to review their "308" report on the Yellowstone to determine what, if any, modification should be made respecting the use of the water of the Yellowstone and its tributaries for irrigation, power, flood control, and allied purposes. This investigation was made. In addition, such proceedings were had before this committee as that and passed resolutions directing further investigation to be made by the Army engineers, and finally last August the division engineer of the Missouri River division, Col. Lewis A. Pick, submitted a report. This report was never submitted to the Congress, being held in abeyance for comments and reports from the Bureau of Reclamation, Agriculture Department, the Federal Power Commission, and the Bureau of the Budget. The plan submitted by Colonel Pick, to use the words of Maj. Gen. E. Reybold, "gives full consideration to all of the water uses in the basin." General Reybold goes on to say in a recent letter to me, a copy of which is herewith attached: "The report proposes projects to provide a large amount of storage in multiplepurpose reservoirs on the main stem of the Missouri River and on tributaries for all of the beneficial water uses of the area. The plan contained in the report is designed to be a framework on which all Federal and State agencies concerned with the development of the Missouri Basin can build additional projects for the best use of the stored water. The plan is entirely flexible to meet changing conditions and to meet the unforeseeable needs of the future, and it provides for desirable modifications as the projects are built and as other conditions show to be advisable. It provides also for further expansion by all agencies in the fields with which they are directly concerned. A definite part of the plan is the use of existing storage for multiple purposes. "Throughout its investigations in the Missouri River Basin and, in fact, everywhere in the West, the Department cooperates fully with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Power Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and other Federal agencies in order that the plans proposed in the Department's reports may be fully coordinated with the plans of all other agencies and that they may * * * * * clearly fit into the best development of the water resources of the region. For several years the Department has had definite agreements of cooperation with these agencies which provide for free interchange of factual data, cooperative investigations, and review of conclusions. The Missouri River report is now with the Commissioner of Reclamation for his review and comment. The Department of Agriculture has advised the Department of its concurrence with the plan contained in that report." Thus it will be seen from the interpretation of the Pick plan by the Chief of Engineers that it is a plan sufficiently elastic to serve all multiple purposes. It applies in the several locations along the river the theory of dominate use, which, of course, would mean in the Northwest section of the country, including Montana, that irrigation and reclamation and power would be given first place. I see no substantial disagreement with any of the departments to the framework of the engineers that cannot be easily solved by the Congress and cooperation of the departments. The testimony submitted to the committee clearly shows that if dams are constructed as contemplated on the Missouri River below Fort Peck and above Sioux City that more water will be released from the reservoir at Fort Peck for irrigation and power purposes. The testimony further shows on the part of the Army engineers that the plan for a proposed dam or dams on the Yellowstone and on the Big Horn is an elastic and flexible one. Colonel Reber in his testimony stated that if more than one dam was required on the Yellowstone and Big Horn to accomplish the purpose of irrigation and development of power, that such would be looked on with favor and would be developed. He also made the statement that irrigation would be the primary use for the water impounded in such dams. He further stated that they would leave open the exact location for the dam or dams in order that the needs and wants of the people would be met. Therefore, you will see that there is no foundation and no reason for apprehension on the part of the people of the Northwest that they will be denied of the proper uses of their water as a result of the framework of the Pick report, and nowhere in the record on the Pick report do the Army engineers attempt to place irrigation and reclamation at a disadvantage or in an inferior position. Remember the Pick report is before the Committee on Flood Control of the House, on which no official action has been taken. The only threat to the use of the waters of the upper Missouri River and its tributaries in such States as Montana is contained in a bill reported out by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House, whose chairman is Judge Mansfield of Texas, which provides for the deepening of the channel from 6 to 9 feet and widening the channel from 200 to 300 feet. This proposal is independent of the Pick report entirely. This threat, however, I am sure will be removed by either the Committee on Rivers and Harbors or by the House or the Senate by adopting a proposal made by the President in substance as follows: Page 21, line 13, after the word “Congress,” substitute a colon for the semicolon and insert the words: “Provided, That the use of waters of the Missouri River for municipal, domestic, and livestock water supply for irrigation of arid and semiarid lands, and for mining and industrial purposes shall not be adversely affected thereby ;". A committee of Congressmen representing the 17 Western States, of whom I was appointed chairman of the steering committee, have endeavored to add the following: Page 21, line 13, after the word "Congress" substitute a colon for the semicolon and insert the words: "Provided, That the use of waters of the Missouri River and its tributaries for municipal, domestic, or livestock water supply, for irrigation of arid or semiarid lands, and for mining and industrial purposes shall not be adversely affected thereby and that any use of such waters for the maintenance of a navigable channel shall be subordinate to and shall not interfere with any of the foresaid uses heretofore or hereafter established." You will see at a glance, however, that this bill has nothing whatever to do with the Pick report, which deals with flood control, whereas the bill reported by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors deals with navigation. The Bureau of Reclamation, through its Commissioner, Mr. Bashore, made the statement before this committee that the Bureau's complete report would be in by May 1. Also in a communication to me that Department made this statement: "The Bureau of Reclamation is prepared to integrate the results of its surveys with those of the Corps of Engineers, War Department, for the early recommendation of a comprehensive program for the development of the water resources of the Missouri River Basin. This program will comprehend irrigation, power production, and flood control, navigation, silt detention, and other purposes." The Bureau of Reclamation surveys include the main stream of the Yellowstone River, the Powder River, the Tongue River, Big Horn, Clarks Fork, Stillwater, Boulder, and Shields Rivers and minor tributaries. The development of these various projects, the Department says, would increase the total irrigation acreage about 100 percent, being now a little less than 100,000 acres. Multiplepurpose reservoirs would be installed which would include power as well as irrigation. The Bureau of Reclamation's plan would include also, as with the case of the Army engineers' plan, a dam at Boysen, Wyo., which would be the key structure, and the Bureau of Reclamation recommends the 13 dams on the Big Horn system, making possible the expansion of irrigation to about 440,000 acres in the Big Horn Basin both in Wyoming and Montana. The Bureau of Reclamation also brought into the picture the survey which was made of the proposed site at Mission, Montana, on the stem of the Yellowstone, east of Livingston. The estimated capacity of the reservoir would be 890,000 acre-feet and a power installation of 50,000 kilowatts. It would extend irrigation to about 165,000 acres. Then surveys in the Missouri River Basin by the Bureau for the development of the water resources from Great Falls to the mouth of the Yellowstone River including the Milk, Musselshell, Marias, Teton, and Judith Basins are brought in. In this area the irrigation acres could be incerased by a fourth million acres, or nearly 100 percent, over what it now is, and the same is true by the Three Forks at Great Falls, including the Sun, Smith, and Dearborne Basins, increasing the irrigation acreage by about 50 percent. Above Three Forks including the Madison, Gallatin, and Jefferson Basins, an increase of 145,000 acres from the present approximate one-half million acres and with two reservoirs on the main stem of the River in the Helena valley area which would have a total capacity of 2,002,600 acres. It is expected that when the final report of the Bureau of Reclamation is at hand that it may elaborate on these proposals. It might be properly added that power at Fort Peck is already produced and that it, were it not for the war, would be distributing power now to points in eastern Montana and western North Dakota for irrigation pumping, rural electrification and other purposes. It was planned to serve irrigation projects in operation, under construction, or proposed in the vicinity of Miles City, Glendive, Glasgow, Poplar, and Medicine Lake, Mont., and Williston, N. Dak. The power output on account of the war is being sold to the Montana Power Co. for distribution over eastern and northern Montana. I wish to make some general observations on the flood control, soil erosion and silt which in my opinion are inseparable, and I think these observations generally have been developed in the course of my examining witnesses who have appeared before the committee and who have agreed in the main with me. Flood control, to be fully effective, should, I believe, originate as close to the source of the headwaters as possible. By numerous dams close to these headwaters the silt problem will be greatly modified. In examining the engineers' report I feel that that view is shared by them and that the proposed plan is flexible and constitutes a framework around which can be built an effective program of control. Two factors which would go a long way in arresting the devastating floods, which seem to be more numerous in recent years, and which have been greatly overlooked, are the proper care of the top soils to prevent erosions and the keeping of as much silt as possible out of the main streams and tributaries. The Rio Grande is at the present time a perfect example of what silting does for a river. Also on the Mississippi we see how the silt deposits have built up the level of the river until the river gradually becomes higher than the surrounding country. Now if these unnatural deposits of silt were kept from the main stream and tributaries by means of checker or other large dams the problem of flood control would be helped greatly as the times of high water are silt times and should be checked from entering these main bodies of waters for two very good reasons. One, it is at high-water time, due to an unusually large runoff of rain waters or melting snows, that much of the silt is carried into these streams and, secondly, it is at this same time that it is necessary to keep this unusually large volume of water from joining the already swollen waters farther down stream. Thus these dams would have a twofold purpose. One, they would arrest silt which in turn would keep the stream from building up so quickly, and, two, they would hold off abnormal volumes of water from flowing into streams already swollen by rain and melting snows downstream. I have always maintained that one of the big reasons for these ever-increasing floods downstream has been the utter disregard for any proper or planned program of soil conservation upstream. Much of our land has been denuded of trees by fires and by the acts of man and erosion has developed momentum by droughts and overgrazing and improper use of farm lands. These soil-erosion losses may in time prove to be far greater and more costly than flood losses. The whole picture is so broad that it seems to me, to be effective, we should use every available service and proposal to the end that the fullest possible use may be made of all the water available. Accordingly, I would suggest that it is imperative that a plan of cooperation be developed between the Agriculture Department, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army engineers. In the eastern part of the State of Montana there are almost only two principal times of flood. Those two times are in March and June. The March flood and run-off is occasioned by the rapid melting of snow in the plains area, while the June run-off is occasioned by the melting snow in the mountains and from rainfall occurring in the plains. Now, with the exception of the June run-off, when some moisture for irrigation is necessary besides the normal rainfall, the waters of both these times is lost beyond recall. Not only is that water lost but it is neither needed nor wanted downstream in the volume in which it is received at that time. The soil of those States through which the Missouri and its tributaries flow is potentially very productive and those States could stand out like green gems if only the water now being wasted were impounded to be made use of when needed. However, the people of Montana and the people of those States who are first users of those waters insist-and rightly so that they be allowed to continue to be first users of their own water for their own purposes and needs. And in that insistence I do not see where any unreconcilable controversy should ensue. We would be merely storing up waters at a time when they were neither wanted nor needed downstream to be released for our own and their use when both of us needed that water most-true, for two different purposes, but I do not think either use would harm or be at all inconsistent with the other, and it certainly would not be inconsistent if it was the intent of the Agriculture Department, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army engineers to recognize the rights and needs of all involved and be governed accordingly. I think they intend to do that, as they have so stated. As a member of the Flood Control Committee, I invited to come to Washington to appear as witnesses before your committee: Gov. Sam Ford; Wesley A. D'Ewart, president of the Montana State Reclamation Association; D. P. Fabrick, member of the State Water Conservation Board; and H. W. Bunston, president of Yellowstone Basin Association; who were very cooperative in presenting before the committee the Northwest problems, including Montana's. It is my firm belief. after reading the so-called Pick report and its interpretation by the Chief of Engineers and listening to the testimony offered before the committee from all the departments, that the Congress today may write an authorization or bill which, if it becomes law, will answer as nearly as humanly possible the irrigation and reclamation problems of arid and semiarid States, the development of power and flood control, and secure to the people of the State the primary use of water in my State for irrigation and power. It seems to me that the only sensible course to follow at this time is to take advantage of these flood-control and navigation subsidies which Congress has written into the law of the land. In this way, we in the upper States can get our irrigation and our power at considerably less cost than we could if those two uses of water had to pay their own way without these recognized and legitimate Federal subsidies. Hon. JAMES F. O'CONNOR, WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. O'CONNOR: Reference is made to your recent telephone conversations with this office regarding the Department's investigations in the Yellowstone and Missouri River Basins. As requested by you, I am pleased to furnish the following information to supplement the telephonic data given you on those occasions. In accordance with a resolution of the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives which you sponsored and which was adopted on August 18, 1937, and also pursuant to other directives from Congress, the district engineer at Omaha, Nebr., and the division engineer of the Missouri River division made thorough and careful investigations of the entire Yellowstone River Basin and a separate study of its principal tributary, the Big Horm River. The division engineer in August of this year also submitted a report on the entire Missouri River Basin made pursuant to a resolution of May 13, 1943, by the Committee on Flood Control which called for a review of previous: reports with a view to determining appropriate measures for flood control from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth of the Missouri River. All of these reports are comprehensive in scope and consider not only flood control but also irrigation, hydroelectric power, navigation, and all other beneficial water uses. The reports all recognize the necessity for the development of additional water supplies to meet water shortages for irrigation projects in the upper Missouri Basin and the projects proposed therein are carefully developed with the needs of irrigation in mind. In the Yellowstone River survey a number of proposed reservoirs outlined by yourself and upon which you submitted valuable data were carefully studied and the report of the division and district engineers stated that the proposed Lower Canyon Reservoir near Livingston, Mont., is a necessary unit in the continued development of the Missouri River Basin for all purposes. The report is also favorable to the construction of a reservoir on the Big Horn River in Wyoming to meet the urgent needs of that area. The division and district engineers also recommend local flood-protection projects at Billings and Miles City, Mont., and Greybull, Wyo., to provide positive flood protection for those important communities. The reports of the division and district engineers on the Yellowstone and Big Horn Rivers were referred to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors for review as required by law. As you will recall, the local interests requested a hearing and the Board, at your request, held this hearing in Billings, Mont., on January 30, 1941, at which time the interested local parties were given full opportunity to express their views. It appeared from the tenor of this meeting that the local interests preferred that the Board withhold its action on the reports until such time as they had had an opportunity to examine the reports which the Bureau of Reclamation was then preparing on those streams. Since the Bureau has not yet completed its reports, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is still holding the reports of the division and district engineers without final review by the Board. The report of the division engineer on the Missouri River made in response to the Flood Control Committee's resolution of May 13, 1943, is also a compre hensive report which gives full consideration to all of the water uses in the basin, The report proposes projects to provide a large amount of storage in multiplepurpose reservoirs on the main stem of the Missouri River and on tributaries for all of the beneficial water uses of the area. The plan contained in the report is designed to be a framework on which all Federal and State agencies concerned with the development of the Missouri Basin can build additional projects for the best use of the stored water. The plan is entirely flexible to meet changing conditions and to meet the unforeseeable needs of the future, and it provides for desirable modifications as the projects are built and as other conditions show to be advisable. It provides also for further expansion by all agencies in the fields with which they are directly concerned. It in no way precludes the development of single-purpose development may not be feasible. A definite part of the plan is the use of existing storage for multiple purposes. The report treats all water uses on a comparable basis and does not restrict the use of the projects to any single purpose. Throughout its investigations in the Missouri River Basin and in fact everywhere in the West, the Department cooperates fully with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Power Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and other Federal agencies in order that the plans proposed in the Department's reports may be fully coordinated with the plans of all other agencies and that they may clearly fit into the best development of the water resources of the region. For several years the Department has had definite agreements of cooperation with these agencies which provide for free interchange of factual data, cooperative investigations, and review of conclusions. The Missouri River report is now with the Commissioner of Reclamation for his review and comment. The Department of Agriculture has advised the Department of its concurrence with the plan contained in that report. The comments of the Federal Power Commission are expected to be received within a very few days. As soon as the views of these |