We, as I said a moment ago, are in favor of a basin-wide development, but we are opposed to piecemeal development of the same. If you will look at the map you will find one dam proposed by the Army engineers with a storage capacity of 2,250,000 acres. That will not prevent floods. We have floods in Montana that do considerable damage along the Milk River and along the Yellowstone. The one dam provided is hardly a drop in the bucket. The Bureau's plans call for a large number of reservoirs and several power projects or multiple-purpose projects, and that is the plan that we believe will best serve the interests of the State. Now, I know it has been said that this is a flexible plan, but the time to coordinate the ideas of these various interests is now, before authorization is granted to the Army or any other agency to undertake the development of the Missouri River. It seems to me that that is the only logical, the only reasonable, and the only sensible procedure; to coordinate now. It will be much easier to do that now than after authorization has been granted. Now, whether the dam in Montana will interfere with the Bureau of Reclamation's plan, I do not know, and I do not believe the Bureau knows, or anybody else. We are fearful that it will and that it will prevent the full utilization of the waters of the Missouri in Montana, for the beneficial use of the people of the State. I was very much impressed with the comments of Commander Bashore. His attitude represents the thinking of the people of my State. Now, there is another consideration, and that is that if we provide these dams, these structures that the Bureau of Reclamation has in mind, that that will largely answer your flood-control problem. The two work together. If you store water for reclamation, you are taking it out of the river at a time when it is going to cause serious flood damage below. I urge that this committee defer action on this proposed plan until such time as the Bureau of Reclamation has submitted its report and until such time as the report of the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation may coordinate those reports and those plans in a general over-all plan for the development of the Missouri River for all beneficial uses. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement, Governor. Would that apply to the Lower Missouri River from Sioux City to the mouth? Those people down there had three successive floods last year. I wonder whether you would care to make any comment concerning delay encountered, with regard to protection for the lives and property along that part of the river. Governor FORD. Well, I may be in error, but I do not believe that that is going to make any material difference. The CHAIRMAN. What is not going to make any material difference? Governor FORD. This delay of 2 or 3 months might not make any difference, because the bill that is now before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors has to do with navigation and not flood control, and that is not going to answer your flood situation. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am speaking about the works recommended in this report that we have under consideration from Sioux City to the mouth of the river, which consists of levees. Governor FORD. I do not believe that it makes any material difference, Mr. Chairman, a delay of 2 or 3 months. The CHAIRMAN. You do not suggest a delay longer than 2 or 3 months for the consideration of getting together on all of these items? Governor FORD. That is my thought. The CHAIRMAN. You are an optimist, Governor, according to my experience. Governor FORD. Well, you have to be an optimist if you live in Montana. Mr. O'CONNOR. I cannot agree with the Governor there. Governor FORD. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman. Just to show you why we are so concerned, during the dry years of the thirtiesThe CHAIRMAN (interposing). Do you mean concerned about the matter from Sioux City to the mouth? Governor FORD. No; I am talking about the whole river. Governor FORD. During those dry years in some of the northern and eastern counties of Montana, 80 percent of the people in those counties were on some form of Federal relief; approximately 80 percent in several of those counties. Now, if we can get reclamation, if we can get some of those fertile lands-and nowhere exist more fertile lands anywhere in the United States-and if we can get water on them, then the Government is not going to be called upon to come in and provide money to take care of those people. The CHAIRMAN. We very much appreciate your statement, Governor. Any questions by any members of the committee? Mr. CURTIS. May I ask a question or two? The CHAIRMAN. You may. Mr. CURTIS. Governor, as you see it, mechanically, and from an engineering standpoint, flood control and irrigation may be harmonious, may they not? Governor FORD. I do not think there is any question about that. Mr. CURTIS. But there is a very definite conflict as to the use of water, whether it is for navigation or irrigation; is that not true? Governor FORD. Under present plans, I would say "yes." Mr. CURTIS. Well, I am not referring to any plan, but I mean that basically there is a problem between navigation and irrigation. Governor FORD. That is very true. Mr. CURTIS. Have you Governors made arrangements to appear before that committee which does have jurisdiction of navigation? Governor FORD. We are hoping that we will be given the opportunity. Mr. O'CONNOR. I will say to the gentleman from Nebraska that I have made arrangements for the Governors to appear tomorrow morning before Judge Mansfield's Committee on Rivers and Harbors. Governor FORD. Mr. Curtis, if I may volunteer this information, as suggested in the joint statement, we believe that by the construction of dams and locks on the lower reaches of the river, that every interest will have adequate water for whatever purpose they desire. Mr. CURTIS. But that, again, would be the matter dealing with navigation. Governor FORD. That deals with navigation. But it is so related, and all of these subjects are so related that it seems to me to be abso lutely essential to coordinate the various plans and the various reports of the Federal agencies. Mr. CURTIS. Governor, there is one portion of the basin, the territory on the Republican River, where we have met that problem. We have had a compact by Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas dividing the water, in which Federal representatives sat in with the commissioners, and which compact has been duly ratified by the Congress and signed by the President. Has there ever been any movement in the upper Missouri River States to reach this problem by means of compact? Mr. O'CONNOR. May I answer that question, Mr. Chairman? The bill passed the Senate the other day, and will, we hope, pass the House very shortly, providing for compact between Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. Mr. CURTIS. On what? Mr. O'CONNOR. On the Yellowstone. The CHAIRMAN. Was that South or North Dakota? Mr. O'CONNOR. North Dakota. Governor FORD. That is one the Yellowstone. Mr. CURTIS. I mean, to reach this greater problem of the upper Missouri River. Mr. O'CONNOR. No, sir. Governor FORD. There has been no definite action taken there. There has been more or less talk. But, Mr. Congressman, if the rivers and harbors bill passes, placing a burden on 32,000 or 35,000 second-feet of water at Kansas City, then there is no reason for a compact, as I can see it. There will be so little water left that we won't need a compact. Mr. CURTIS. I think your testimony should be placed before that committee. Mr. O'CONNOR. Just one other question. Did I understand you to say that the Bureau of Reclamation said that it was felt that possibly the construction of the dam on the Yellowstone might interfere with the use of the waters on the Missouri River? Governor FORD. No; I did no mean to say that. I said that I did not know and I did not believe the Bureau knew or anyone else knew whether it would, and that was one reason why the report should be coordinated. Mr. O'CONNOR. Of course I want the record to show that the Yellowstone River flows into the Missouri River below Fort Peck, and the dam up there could not possibly affect the use of the waters of the Missouri River; that is the point. The CHAIRMAN. Any other members of the committee desire to ask the Governor any questions? Mr. POULSON. I would like to ask the Governor a question. I realize the conflict between irrigation and navigation. Have you had any comprehensive report in Montana and the other adjacent territories as to a fair estimate, not an optimistic estimate, of the potentialities of the development of that agricultural land, taking into consideration climatic conditions and everything else? They say a farmer can live on 160 acres of irrigated land. In other words, we have to figure value, as to whether we are going to get more value out of the transportation facilities, or whether we are going to have a lot of projects up there which won't be, from an economic standpoint, successful! I probably traveled through Montana at the wrong time of the year; I do not know. Governor FORD. We think with these reclamation projects that they are vested and that the Government will be repaid for their installation. You spoke of a 160-acre farm. Very few of our farms are as small as 160 acres. We have a large livestock interest, and your irrigated land is handled in connection with large users of grazing land. When I say that only 22 percent of our area in Montana is reclaimed, that will give you some idea of the other purposes to which the land is applied. Mr. POULSON. Well, I personally have a great deal of affection for the State of Montana, because I have been through there. Now I am coming back to the next question which follows up. You said that it is correlated with other interests which work with the grazing land. As I understand it from previous testimony given on some other projects which we have in the State I represent at the present time-California-that the Bureau of Reclamation also has some definite ideas that there should be a division of land, and if they come under that, they won't own 160 acres; and then, following with Mr. Curtis' question, which I think was one of the important ones to date, let me ask to how far they carry this dominating influence over a project in this charge-off? I wonder if you have taken into consideration all those factors. Governor FORD. Yes, sir. The factors have been considered. As a matter of fact, the projects that have been constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation in Montana are being operated satisfactorily. There is no conflict between those people under the projects and the Bureau of Reclamation. They are working very satisfactorily. Now, there are some sections in the State where 160 acres of irrigated land would be ample. Senator WHEELER. There are many people making a living on less than 160 acres of land out there, where they are under irrigation; where they raise sugar beets and other things. They are down as low as 40 and 50. Mr. POULSON. And they probably take in some territory where they cannot make a living, that is, under a great many of our projects in the Northwest. Senator WHEELER. Any 160 acres of land in Montana a man can make a living on if he is a good farmer. Mr. POULSON. I think you are too optimistic. Senator WHEELER. Oh, no. Mr. POULSON. I used to be a farmer myself. Mr. O'CONNOR. Would the gentleman yield to me for just a moment? Mr. POULSON. Yes. Mr. O'CONNOR. The gentleman spoke about the importance of transportation. The gentleman does not want to forget, though, that there is no need for transportation unless you have something to transport. We raise something in Montana to transport, and that hrings in the transportation facilities you are speaking about, but you have to have something to transport first. Mr. POULSON. The reason for considering that bill is apparently that there is something to transport at some time. Mr. O'CONNOR. And we raise it in our country. Governor FORD. There are times when we do not have very much to transport, and that is during the drought years, when we have not had much to transport. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement, Governor. Should you desire to supplement your statement by sending in supplementary matter, you may have that privilege. Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, Governor Hunt also desires to be heard briefly. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. STATEMENT OF HON. LESTER C. HUNT, GOVERNOR, WYOMING The CHAIRMAN. You understand, Governor, we have under consideration the Missouri River report, and we will be glad to have any statement you care to submit, particularly on the matter that has been brought to our attention. Governor HUNT. Mr. Chairman, in addition to what my fellow Governors have said to the committee, my remarks will be very brief. I do want to read two short paragraphs from a recent report by our State engineer, dealing specifically with the Little Big Horn on which the Boysen project has been designated. [Reading:] The comprehensive plan for development of the Big Horn River Basin includes the construction of 11 potential irrigation units and 10 reservoirs, with an aggregate storage capacity of 1,217,500 acre-feet of water. One of the principal features of this plan is the construction of the Boysen Reservoir at the head of Wind River Canyon. I might say, in passing, that this will be the second such structure at this particular point. The other one was ordered to be destroyed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Ordered to be what? Governor HUNT. Removed. The CHAIRMAN. Who put it there? Governor HUNT. Put there by private enterprise 29 or 30 years ago. [Reading:] The irrigated areas of this basin may be increased by 396,000 acres, and a supplemental supply of stored water providing for 187,520 acres of land now irrigated but having insufficient water supply. The ultimate development of this basin will amount to about 752,000 acres, with an estimated cost of about $50,000,000 for the construction as proposed. This is the second paragraph [reading]: An additional 41,500 acres of new land may be reclaimed in the Powder and Tung River Basins, which are tributary to the Big Horn and Little Missouri, and a supplemental supply providing for 84,200 acres of land by the construction of 9 potential irrigation units and 7 storage reservoirs with a total capacity of 169,300 acre-feet with an estimated cost of about $16,000,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, the concern of my people--and I can tell you that I am representing, I believe, today 100 percent thinking of the people of my State-our concern is that the proposed development might place a priority designation on the waters of the tributaries as well as the main stem of the Missouri to the extent that in the future when these projects of which I have just spoken are ready for development, there will not be the water available to do the development, if we |