Page images
PDF
EPUB

STATEMENT OF FRED J. FREDRICKSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NORTH DAKOTA RESOURCES BOARD

The CHAIRMAN. What is your name, sir, and whom do you represent?

Mr. FREDRICKSON. Fred J. Fredrickson, the North Dakota Resources Board.

The CHAIRMAN. And your residence?

Mr. FREDRICKSON. Valley City, N. Dak.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your interest in this Missouri River project? Mr. FREDRICKSON. The diversion into the Sheyenne River Basin.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you indicate on the map, Colonel Reber, the diversion of which he is speaking?

(The diversion was indicated on the map.)

The CHAIRMAN. You are interested in that diversion?

Mr. FREDRICKSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you opposed to it or not?

Mr. FREDRICKSON. We are for the diversion.

The CHAIRMAN. You are in favor of the diversion?

Mr. FREDRICKSON. Yes, sir. We are for diverting water into the basin.

The CHAIRMAN. As recommended by Colonel Reber?

Mr. FREDRICKSON. Generally speaking; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further statement you desire to make at this time?

Mr. FREDRICKSON. No, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. Do the laws of the State of Minnesota permit a diversion?

Mr. FREDRICKSON. They do.

Mr. CURTIS. That is well established, is it?

Mr. FREDRICKSON. In the present Water Conservation Act, it specifically mentions the diversion of water.

The CHAIRMAN. If you would like to enlarge upon your remarks, you may do so, sir.

Mr. HALVORSON. I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that the diversion into Sheyenne is not for irrigation; it is for sanitation purposes for the cities located on the Sheyenne, as well as the cities of Fargo and Grand Forks. It will be an inconsequential amount of water, as the engineers have advised us.

The CHAIRMAN. But it is a beneficial use of the water?

Mr. HALVORSON. Very beneficial; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And Colonel Reber says they have undertaken to provide for the beneficial use of the water out in that part of the country.

We are very glad to have had your statements.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, I think that is all the witnesses the States of North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana have.

The CHAIRMAN. We have next the mayor of Sioux City, and the former president of the Sioux City Barge Lines. We will have a number of witnesses from Nebraska also. We are coming down the river just as fast as we can. You will appreciate our situation.

STATEMENT OF FORREST M. OLSON, MAYOR OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Olson, is there anyone here with you from your area? If so, will you give us their names.

Mr. OLSON. We have with us Mr. Carl L. Fredricksen, president of the Livestock National Bank and the Sioux City Chamber of Commerce.

We have Mr. Fred P. Saulsback, commissioner of street and public improvements for the city of Sioux City.

We have Mr. Harvey Rice, who is associated with the Lionel Co., nationally known contractors and river enthusiasts.

Also we have with us Maj. George R. Call, of Sioux City.

The CHAIRMAN. What connection has Major Call with the program?

Mr. OLSON. We would like to have Major Call testify, because Major Call has been a fine worker and has majored in river development. The enthusiasm he has shown and the work he has done and the knowledge he has gained along that line are of such importance that we, as a city, are requesting that he be allowed to testify. As a representative of the city of Sioux City, Iowa, I feel that the proposed plan for the development of the Missouri River Basin is a very comprehensible and feasible plan. I also feel certain that this program is going to be of a very distinct benefit to our agricultural interests, and in addition will be of great benefit in helping to solve any post-war employment problems, in our area and therefore because of its beneficial effects on agriculture and labor, I am happy to give the plan my wholehearted support.

I do want to say that our testimony will be very, very short. I also want to say we are in accord with the plan as proposed by the Army engineers, 100 percent. We have talked about a plan on the Missouri River for a long, long time. We have seen the damage that has been done in our area by floods. We have observed what happened to our good neighbors to the south of us, and we think it is time something is done about it. We want to endorse the Army engineers' plan 100 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Mayor, your name is Forrest M. Olson, and how long have you been mayor of Sioux City?

Mr. OLSON. About 6 months.

The CHAIRMAN. And how long have you lived in that area?
Mr. OLSON. I have lived in Sioux City for nearly 40 years.
The CHAIRMAN. And what is your occupation or profession?

Mr. OLSON. I am the owner of a wholesale news distributing agency.
The CHAIRMAN. In Sioux City?

Mr. OLSON. In Sioux City.

The CHAIRMAN. You are familiar with the flood problem along the Missouri River?

Mr. OLSON. Fairly so; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You have heard the testimony here for the past 2 days with respect to the flood and related problems in the Missouri Basin, both the lower and the upper basin; have you not?

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. From your thought about this program, and the amount involved, five or six hundred millions of dollars, don't you

think it is a reasonable conclusion there will be ample time before we get on these projects of the smaller tributaries, to perfect any allocation of any water rights? Ordinarily flood-control projects are constructed in the order of their priority, and if this project were approved, and you were able to get $25,000.000 a year, it would take probably 25 years to construct the project. What do you think about there being ample opportunity to perfect and correlate all the agencies, particularly in the stretch above Sioux City?

Mr. OLSON. If you don't mind, sir, I would rather have Major Call answer that question.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEORGE R. CALL, OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Major, will you answer that question, please.

Major CALL. Mr. Chairman, my name is George R. Call and I am a resident of Sioux City, Iowa. For the purpose of the record I wish to state first that I am now serving in the armed forces of the United States as a major in the Signal Corps, and I am appearing here by permission of the War Department. However, the opinions which I will express are my own personal views and should in no way be construed as reflecting the opinion of the War Department on the subject now on hearing before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you in the Army prior to the present war? Major CALL. I was in the Army in the last war; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I say, were you in the Army prior to the present war?

Major CALL. No; I am a civilian soldier. I have been in about 2 years, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; go right ahead.

Major CALL. That you may know, Mr. Chairman, a little of my past interest and that I may perhaps qualify myself as a witness before this committee, I would like to say something about my past experience on the river. For approximately 20 years I have attended, as a delegate from my home State, the convention meetings of the Mississippi Valley Association, held in St. Louis, and for perhaps the last 5 or 6 years I have been a director in that association from Iowa.

For approximately the last 4 years before entering the armed services, I was president of the Sioux City-New Orleans Barge Line, a common carrier by water, operating on the Missouri River and the lower Mississippi and the Ohio, with headquarters at Sioux City, Iowa.

For approximately 2 years, I was general counsel for the Upper Missouri River Conservation Association, whose membership included representatives from the States of Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota, and as part of my duties as such attorney prepared some of the resolutions which were passed by this committee, which requested the surveys of the Missouri River and from these surveys, among others, this report of the Army engineers is based.

From this foundation of years of interest in river work and experience as a barge operator, it is my opinion that the plan as prepared and reported by the engineers is both feasible and needed. Our barge operations have shown the need of additional water to that which is now generously supplied by the Fort Peck Reservoir. The additional

dams and impounding reservoirs will supply this needed additional water and also aid in reducing the floodwaters, which, of course, is the important problem before this committee.

It is also my opinion that there is plenty of water in the Missouri River to be used for irrigation and power without adversely affecting the navigation interests on the lower river.

We from Sioux City wish to reaffirm our confidence in the great Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. It is our belief that the continued jurisdiction and construction of these projects should continue to rest under their authority and control.

It seems needless to elaborate upon the advantages of the impounding dams on the upper Misouri River above Sioux City, Iowa. These great reservoirs and irrigation districts will not alone mean new sources of wealth but the features of flood control, recreation, and power will be of untold value to the territory. The upper Missouri River Basin is rich in minerals and the development of cheap power to process these resources will be of great value to the country, both in time of peace and in time of war.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize a factor which is not the least of these many important advantages. That is the creation of a half billion dollars' worth of work, to which the returning soldiers of this war may come and have as a basis for essential and needed jobs. This work can further be justified as developing great national assets which will be used not alone by this generation but will be for the benefit and comfort of generations yet unborn. May I commend this committee and the Congress for taking time during these pressing war days to review and develop these projects of peace.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had your statement, and that of Mr. Olson.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I am glad to have before the committee, Mr. Chairman, a gentleman who knows something about this barge business. Major CALL. We have had actual experience, Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Let us assume, as has been suggested in the course of this hearing, that somewhere along the line we may run a little short of water in the Missouri River, say between Sioux City and Kansas City, that is, maybe we will not have enough water even to maintain a 6-foot-deep channel, 200 feet wide.

In a case of that kind, you, as a practical operator, could get along all right by simply reducing the load on your barges, could you notthe freight load?

Major CALL. You can do it as far as the operation is concerned but, of course, economical operation requires maximum loading.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I know that. But at times we all have to sacrifice a little. And in order to take care of everybody, the barge operators may have to make a little sacrifice by reducing the weight of their loads, if that is necessary in order to operate-if you know what I

mean.

The CHAIRMAN. If you don't, I do.

Major CALL. I don't know that I get the full import of your ques

tion.

Mr. O'CONNOR. It has been suggested at low-water time there might not be over 367,000 second-feet.

Major CALL. Is that with the proposed dams, or what we are having under the present situation?

Mr. O'CONNOR. No; it has not been suggested that that would cause anything like that; but it has been suggested that would be the amount of water in the river at the low-water time. But if we compare a situation where there is a little lack of water, the barge owners may still operate, perhaps not as successfully, but they may operate by reducing the load of their ships.

Major CALL. The minimum second-feet at Sioux City will get as low as 5,000 second-feet. You can walk across the water there and not get wet above your knees at certain times in dry years. So my answer to your question Mr. O'Connor, is, as best I can answer it, that there would be no operation on the lower river under the conditions you have illustrated, because I don't think barge operations under those conditions will be possible.

But I don't think that is the issue here, because we find in our actual experience that Fort Peck must be supplemented by additional reservoirs. We feel there will be adequate water not only for the barges operating now, but the bigger barges that will come up from the lower river system.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I am not suggesting you are not right, but I am suggesting that the situation might be met by reducing the loads on your boats.

Mr. CURTIS. What is the volume of your river shipping up to Sioux City now?

Major CALL. We have just got started up there, and when the war started, our boats went down in the lower region.

Mr. CURTIS. What portion of the time, during the 8 months that you can use navigation, is there enough water there at the present time for your barges?

Major CALL. I would say there are 8 months of actual operations, as far as the calendar year is concerned. But until there is additional to supplement the Fort Peck control, I think that after August, I would say, it would not be practicable to operate. In other wordsMarch, April, May, June, July, and August-approximately 7 months. Mr. CURTIS. What freight do you ship out during those 7 months? Major CALL. Well, grain, for example, from Sioux City, at one time to Memphis, Tenn., and we have carried grain at one time as far as Huntington, W. Va. It is primarily a grain movement there. As to the movement back up there, well, we brought in glass bottles for packing vinegar, and things like that, from Alton, Ill.; we have brought steel from St. Louis, and canned goods from Kansas City. There was unlimited oil offered us in southern Nebraska, Mr. Chairman, if we had not had the war facing us and the impossibility of getting equipment. The trouble on the upper Mississippi River is such that, in my opinion, it will completely justify any of the proposed expenditures now recommended by the engineers.

Mr. CURTIS. At the present time, the outgoing freight is largely grain?

Major CALL. Yes sir; as far as our line is concerned.

Mr. CURTIS. And did you put the dead line for the present shipping at the 1st of August?

Major CALL. With the present water conditions, sir. But with the adequate water supply that in my opinion these reservoirs would supply, we would remove stuff out of there from December, from Nebraska.

« PreviousContinue »