PROCEEDINGS
of the
Thirty-fourth Annual Convention
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
Kansas City, Missouri -
• - November 7-12, 1965
Reclamation will aid in alleviating malnutrition and possibly averting a famine which could
become a worldwide catastrophe.
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
897 National Press Building
Washington, D. C. 20004
NO
COLORADO
WATER
CY DISTRICT
Proceedings of the
THIRTY-FOURTH ANNUAL CONVENTION
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
November 10, 11, 12, 1965
Kansas City, Missouri
RECLAMATION will aid in alleviating malnutrition and possibly averting a famine which could become
a worldwide catastrope.
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
897 National Press Building
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
34th ANNUAL CONVENTION
Kansas City, Missouri
November 10, 11, 12, 1965
GENERAL SESSIONS
Wednesday Forenoon - November 10
PROGRAM
STATE CAUCUSES
Colonial Ballroom
COLOR FILM "Rural Holiday", courtesy Soil Conservation Service USDA
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
Reverend Forrest Haggard, Overland Park Christian Church, Overland Park, Kansas
ADDRESS OF WELCOME
Ilus W. Davis, Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri
MESSAGE from the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, Lyndon B. Johnson
MESSAGE from the VICE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, Hubert H. Humphrey
ADDRESS -- THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
Hugh A. Shamberger, NRA President and Nevada Director ADDRESS
--"BIG RED" (Colorado River), Lawrence Mehren, Chairman of the Board
Central Arizona Project Association, Phoenix, Arizona RECESS FOR LUNCHEON
Wednesday Noon - November 10
LUNCHEON- -Grand Ballroom
Honorable Joseph McDowell, Mayor, Kansas City, Kansas
INVOCATION
Monsignor Henry Gardner, Superintendent of Schools Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas
GOVERNORS' PANEL -- "The Water Problems of the Great Plains States"
Honorable William H. Avery, Governor :of Kansas
Honorable Nils A. Boe, Governor of South Dakota Honorable Frank B. Morrison, Governor of Nebraska
Wednesday Afternoon - November 10
GENERAL SESSIONS — Colonial Ballroom
Frank Raab, NRA Director, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, presiding.
POWER PANEL DISCUSSION — "Recent Developments in Hydroelectric Power Generation
and Transmission in Relation to the Reclamation Program" James F. Sorensen, NRA Director, Visalia, California, moderator.
PANEL MEMBERS:
Newcomb B. Bennett, Jr., Assistant Commissioner of Reclamation, in charge
of power and engineering, Washington, D. C.
Ralph Sargent, for Robert T. Person, President, Edison Electric Institute
and Public Service Company of Colorado, Denver
Alex Radin, General Manager, American Public Power Association, Washington, D.C.
ADDRESS
Honorable Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C. RECESS
Thursday Forenoon - November 11
Color Film - "The Flying Fisherman", courtesy Gadabout Gaddis Productions, Inc.
GENERAL SESSIONS — Colonial Ballroom
Guy C. Jackson, Jr., former NRA President and Texas Director, presiding
REPORTS
Nonreimbursables - Frank Raab, Chairman
Outdoor-Recreation - Reginald C. Price, Chairman
Power Advisory - James F. Sorensen, Chairman
Right-of-Way — Porter A. Towner, Chairman
ADDRESS
--"Recent Trends in Federal-State Relationships in Water Resources Development" Honorable Frank J. Barry, Jr., Solicitor, Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
REPORTS
Land Limitation -- James F. Sorensen, Chairman
ADDRESS
--Lieutenant General William F. Cassidy, Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C.
REPORTS
Small Projects -- Doyle F. Boen, Chairman
State Water Rights -- Harvey 0. Banks, Chairman Sugar Beet - Sid Flanagan, Chairman
RECESS FOR LUNCHEON
Thursday Noon - November 11 LUNCHEON -- 4th Floor Continental Hotel
Chris C. Green, NRA Director, Courtland, Kansas, Toastmaster. INVOCATION
Reverend E. Russell Lynn, D. D., First Presbyterian Church, Kansas City, Kansas ADDRESS
--"The Importance of Reclamation to Agriculture" Honorable Frank Carlson, U. S. Senate, Kansas RECESS
Thursday Afternoon - November 11
GENERAL SESSIONS -- Colonial Ballroom
Lorin W. Markham, NRA Director, Spokane, Washington, presiding. ADDRESS
"Water Research and Reclamation Development"
Dr. R. R. Renne, Director, Office of Water Resources Research,
Department of Interior, Washington, D. C. REPORTS
Auditing -- Wesley A. D'Ewart, Chairman
Agricultural Research - George L. Crookham, Jr., Acting Chairman ADDRESS
"Western Reclamation -- Eastern Money"
John T. Booth, Eastman Dillon, Union Securities & Company
New York, N. Y. ADDRESS
Irrigation in the Rain Belt" -- Howard M. Ellis, Extension Agricultural
Engineering Specialist, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. Car. REPORTS--STATE CAUCUSES
RECESS
Thursday Evening - November 11
ALL STATES BANQUET
C. C. (Bud) Kilker, Executive Vice President, Kansas State Chamber of
Commerce, Topeka, Kansas
INVOCATION
Reverend Ralph E. Keller, Pastor, Ridgeview Christian Church, Kansas City, Mo.
INTRODUCTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND LIFE MEMBERS
Hugh A. Shamberger, NRA President
MUSICAL INTERLUDE -- FAR WEST SINGERS
ADDRESS
--"Speak Up For America" -- Dr. Kenneth McFarland, Topeka, Kansas Courtesy American Trucking Association
Friday Forenoon - November 12
STATE CAUCUSES
Color Film - "Flaming Gorge", courtesy Bureau of Reclamation
GENERAL SESSIONS -- Colonial Ballroom
Hugh A. Shamberger, NRA President, presiding.
ADDRESS
--"Large
Scale Nuclear Desalination--Present Status and Future Prospects" Dr. R Philip Hammond,Director, Nuclear Desalination ProgramOakridge, Tennessee
REPORTS
Water Resources Planning Act -- Guy C. Jackson, Jr., Chairman
Water Users -- J. R. Barkley, Chairman
ADDRESS
--Honorable Floyd E. Dominy, Commissioner of Reclamation, Washington, D. C.
RECESS FOR LUNCHEON
Friday Noon - November 12
LUNCHEON -- Grand Ballroom
Harold H. Christy, First Vice President and NRA Director for Colorado, Toastmaster
INVOCATION
ADDRESS
"Water Resources Policy in Transition -- What Should be the Federal Role?" Honorable Wayne N. Aspinall, Colorado
Chairman, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee RECESS
Friday Afternoon - November 12 BUSINESS SESSION
Hugh A. Shamberger, NRA President, presiding
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
ELECTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MEMORIAL RESOLUTIONS
REPORT
Resolutions Committee - William S. Holden, Chairman
PROCEDURES
AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION
RECOMMENDATION for AMENDMENT to CONSTITUTION
APPRECIATION OF RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION IN
APPRECIATION OF BILL WELSH
SELECTION OF CONVENTION CITY FOR 1967
ADJOURNMENT
GENERAL SESSIONS
Wednesday Forenoon - November 10, 1965
HUGH A. SHAMBERGER, President - Presiding
Prior to the opening of the General Meeting, a color film, "Rural Holiday" was shown, courtesy of the Soil Conservation Service, USDA.
The meeting was called to order and presided over by Hugh A. Shamberger, President.
The Invocation was presented by Reverend Forrest Haggard, Overland Park Christian Church, Overland Park, Kansas.
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
"The unparalleled legislative accomplishments of our 89th Congress in the area of conservation are now history.
Their successful implementation remains an unfinished task.
I am happy, therefore, to have this timely opportunity to address the 34th Annual Convention of the National Reclamation Association, and to express
to your members my confidence in your continued efforts toward this vital
end.
I have signed into law many bills affecting our natural resources. These bills reflect a concern which has been important to me since my boyhood days on a Texas farm. It is a concern which I carried with me to my work in the Congress. And it is one to which I have pledged the support of this Administration.
Among the legislative proposals currently enacted into law is one which
provides for water conservation through desalinization and intensive re-search into our atmospheric water resources. Our rapidly increasing population demands that we seek additional water from the sea and atmos-phere in order to ensure the prosperity of our people.
Such far-reaching programs as this need wide national understanding and acceptance if they are to succeed.
I know that with your help we will continue to translate the laws we now have into vigorous action. And I know that we will thus bequeath to future generations a richer and a more productive land.
MESSACT FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
"Hugh A. Shamberger, President National Reclamation Association Convention, Care of Convention Headquarters.
Excellence in Reclamation is one of our most significant foundations in building the Great
Society. I am so pleased, therefore, to convey my warmest greetings to you, your fellow officers
the Board of Directors, and assembled members of the National Reclamation Association. It would have been a joy to be with you and to greet anew so many old and dear friends. While, un-fortunately, other official commitments prevent that pleasure, I want you to know I will be follow-ing your proceedfollow-ings with deep interest. The American people are rightly determined more than ever before to protect and to strengthen our soil and water resources. Let us continue in this vital objective. May this year's NRA convention be the greatest ever. Best regards,
Hubert H. Humphrey."
ADDRESS
THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
Hugh A. Shamberger, President
I suspect that most of us here, if we were asked what was most memorable about the year , 1965 from the standpoint of Reclamation, would answer that this is the year when both Garrison alic Auburn-Folsom at long last were authorized.
Both of these projects are indeed giant landmarks. Auburn-Folsom South is a main mern-of the plan commenced about 30 years ago with the launching mern-of the Central Valley Project. The Garrison Diversion Unit is the first major Reclamation fulfillment of the Pick-Sloan Plan of the 1940's. The Corps of Engineers' portion of that plan is about 95 percent complete, measured by dollars invested, while Reclamation's portion is still less than 10 percent complete. We have all° known that the Army's main-steam projects would have first priority, but I don't think any of us realized that the lag between the two elements would be quite so pronounced and prolonged as it proven to be. Major Reclamation investment in the Missouri River Basin is long past due.
There were other memorable events this year. We lost C. Petrus Peterson, who for four
years was our President, and for 20 years one of the strongest, wisest leaders of the Reclamation cause. I suggest that some important Reclamation development should be named for him. If the e Mid -State Project in his own State of Nebraska is authorized soon, it may provide a suitable featur If not, some portion of the Garrison Unit in his home basin might be chosen.
Moreover, it appears that this will be Bill Welsh's last year of full-time service as our Executive Director in Washington. From a selfish standpoint, we regret his impending resignati°a, as a major loss. Yet I know that not only everyone here, but everyone concerned with the Reclanl movement will wish Bill a long and happy retirement. Few men have earned rest so well by their t careers of service. I do not have to, and probably could not adequately tell you what he has meari to our Association and our cause. Suffice it to say he has been one of the builders of the modern West, and has left his mark on his Nation and his times. However, knowing Bill as we do, I can
-2-hardly imagine his losing any of his great interest in Reclamation and I know that -Ive can expect a great deal of advice and assistance in the critical Reclamation years ahead.
This year has also seen the adoption of important new Federal policies on recreation, and the passage of the Water Resources Planning Act, which provides for regional and
national coordination of policies through joint councils, approximately as proposed in the first Conservation Conference in 1908. No sooner did Congress pass this Act than it turned around and began considering a different approach to the same problem in the form of a bill calling for a single Federal Resource Agency.
This fact dramatizes the state of flux in which the water resource field seems to have been thrown in recent years by the great upsurge of present and prospective needs for water availabilities to support the soaring growth of population, enterprise and production.
Let us look back at the past eight years or so. In retrospect, we can see that they have been perhaps the most revolutionary years in the water field since the middle thirties. In these years, recreation, municipal and industrial water supply, water-quality control and Pollution abatement have been accepted as full-fledged Federal functions with far reaching consequences. A new land -acquisition policy has been adopted. Broader and more liberal standards, policies, and procedures have been proclaimed in place of the restricted ones embodied in the old Budget Circular A-47. Comprehensive planning with the river basin as the basic unit is replacing project-by-project planning. Along with this has come broader Participation in planning, with States and localities playing a part that could hardly have been anticipated a decade ago.
The Soil Conservation Service has become a third major Federal water resource con-struction agency, already approaching Reclamation in dollar volume, and now seeking new legislation which would greatly broaden its range and scope of functions. The ballooning of emphasis on upper watershed activities not only injects another set of feasibility standards into the water picture, but adds new facets and dimensions to the old downstream versus Upstream problem. And the Appalachia program opens the possibility, at least, that still different standards of justification may be applied when redevelopment considerations are involved.
Here in the West, a Western States Water Council has been created spontaneously and voluntarily by State action in the same year that a National Water Resources Council was created by Federal law. Ideas much like the old United Western Proposal for Interbasin Water Transfers are being revived, arid along with them, the still unsolved question of how to protect areas of origin. Even a vast proposal like the North American Water and Power Alliance, instead of being derided or dismissed as it would have been a few years ago, now receives Continuing interest. Meanwhile, a series of devastating floods in the western two-thirds of the country have accelerated interest not only in flood control but in such related matters as flood-plain land -use regulation, and the incorporation of flood protection into urban renewal, development and reconstruction programs.
In the East, near-crisis conditions created by four cumulative years of drought in the rilost heavily populated areas of the Nation have suddenly confronted millions of people with
problems which they are not prepared by their previous experience and understanding to cope with. The result is a series of emergency proposals, and what sometimes looks like a stam-pede after panaceas that are expected to provide instant answers to problems which we of the West know can be solved only by the patient effort of decades and generations. Out of this ex-perience will undoubtedly come a greater nationwide understanding of the complexities of water resource planning and construction, and a greater realization in the East of what we in the West have been trying to explain for years with all too little success. Let us hope that this understanding will be won with a minimum of costly confusion.
Meanwhile, a new factor has been brought to the forefront—that is, natural beauty. Nobody that I know of in the water resource field has any objection to natural beauty. On the contrary, I doubt that any other body of people has done more for the beautification of barren lands, of flood -blighted valleys and communities, of turgid, muddy streams, of economically unstable regions, of withering farm towns or drought-stricken river basins, than have the devoted men and women who have worked and fought for sound water conserva-tion undertakings that bring life-given bountiful waters to areas that need them.
All this makes me wonder why the proponents of beauty and beautification so often single out water resource programs as their special targets for criticism. It can only be b ecause they do not fully understand those programs, which in turn means that they do not fully understand conservation itself, nor the part that water conservation and
develop-ment must play in any true conservation endeavor. Without such understanding, their efforts at beautification cannot result in any effective contributions to beauty; in fact, may often re-sult only in more ugliness-paradoxical though that may seem. Moreover, beautification proposals are often advanced without the slightest consideration for feasibility or of costs versus benefits derived. On the contrary, their avocates seem to scorn consideration of costs as being stupid, material-minded, and mcney-grubbing. As long as the beauty
move-ment is influenced by such notions, it can, of course, have no relation to sound resource planning, resource conservation, or resource development.
As we view these trends and developments of the past few years, it is apparent that we are going through a period of considerable upheaval in the resource field—a period of
enormous gains and enormous progress, but also of inevitable turbulence in which we must take care less in our zeal to reform and rebuild, we lose or destroy more than we mean to. Some aspects of our water policies are basic and should not be altered, but rather preserved and strengthened. Here, for example, are some that occur to me:
For one thing, we must always keep in mind the ultimate purpose or objective of all our water resource endeavors; and that is to make sure that our Nation and its people always have available all the water they need to carry cut their various needs and act ivities. This is why we conserve water, why we channel and distribute water, why we allocate and
apportion it, and why we spend increasing amounts of our time and treasure on water-related programs. For our economy and our society simply cannot survive and flourish unless supported by adequate availabilities of the most fundamental and versatile of all natural resources--water.
It is with this in mind that I confess to some misgivings about the present heavy emphasi,ac
being given to wild nature values. It is not that I do not fully appreciate the worth and import bf these things--I do. I am sure we all do. But there is no point in planning to meet any one a few water needs, no matter how attractive, if we do so at the neglect or expense of other Ile
-4-perhaps less publicized at the moment, but at least equally vital in the long run. Can we truly say we have a sound and well-balanced national water program when recreation and beautification are treated like princes or movie stars, while irrigation and power and water supply are treated like pariahs? We cannot have favorites in our family of water needs and functions if we expect the family to thrive.
We must also continue to expand our resource construction and development programs at all levels. We will hear many reasons advanced for halting or curtailing them. Reclama-tion, we will hear, produces unwanted crops in a time of surplus; it is socialistic; it
under-mines private power and private enterprise; its land limitation policies, or its repayment or cost-allocation or justification policies, are unsound; it destroys scenery and wildlife; it gives to farms water that should go for cities or for recreation; and so on and so forth. I don't mean necessarily to reject all these criticisms. The Reclamation program, like all human endeavors, is always subject to improvement, and will benefit from improvement When it is sound and considered. I only say that while we debate and improve, the programs Should continue to function and accelerate. There is nothing so badly wrong with the Recla-mation program --or with any of our great national water resource programs, in my opinion,
that
we should have to shut down the program in order to overhaul the machinery. We cannot afford the loss of time and momentum. The backlog of authorized but unstarted work in all three of the major Federal water agencies is sufficient evidence of that. So are the ever increasing demands of our economy and our society.In particular, we should continue to build dams and reservoirs. I know it is fashion-able in some circles today to consider these as forms of desecreation. But what good is a resource if you cannot rely on it? And how can you rely on it if you don't have some means of Control over it? Even the wildest of wild rivers loses half its value if it is here today and gone tomorrow, rampaging in the spring, and stagnant and stinking in the fall. Reservoirs are our principal means of water storage; and storage is just another word for saving; and saving against time of need is the very essence of the idea of conservation. Dams and reser-voirs are the key to the basic national objective I cited a moment ago--the objective of ensur-ing that our country will always have available the water it needs. The bulldozer is an invalu-able tool for nature-lovers themselves, if they can cure themselves of their pathological fear of it and learn to use it to obtain their desires.
We must also bear in mind that we are all citizens not of just one community, but of Many. Each of us is bound up in, and dependent on, many radiating concentric circles of self-interest. We have our personal and individual interest. We are also members of local communities, and our individual interests are bound up in the interests of those localities. Similarly, we are members of, and affected by the welfare of our State communities, our river-basin communities, our regions, our Nation, and even the entire world with its vast currents of war and peace, prosperity and starvation, struggle and aspiration.
I think that somewhere in this idea is the solution to the problems of areas of origin.
This is
a problem we should be looking at now, before competition and conflict is heated; for I think we all realize we will have to deal with it sooner or later. Its solution will require much thought and discussion and debate, and probably some trial and error, before we canconsider that we have it in our grasp. But if we can keep before our minds that we all have a stake in both ends of the problem --that the people of the areas of origin have a stake in the welfare of the areas of destination, and vice versa --I think we can solve this problem through our democratic institutions, as we have solved so many others.
And when we consider that aspect of our lives in which we function as members of a world community, another vexing problem takes on its true proportions. I mean the problem of the so-called crop surplus. It has always been an error to relate this problem to the Reclamation program, as we here fully realize. But apart from our own concern v ith the issue, it is time all Americans realized that there has never, since the dawn of history, been a world food surplus; and there is none now. Instead, there exists today a vast shortage of food which intensifies as teeming populations crowd even more densely on limited acreages, and which contains seeds of strife and suffering that could engulf even us Americans with all our wealth and power. In this threatened world, America's abundance of food and fiber offers perhaps the most promising single means of relieving rampant starvation and of building for peace, stability, and safety among nations. So let us not be so blind to bemoan our abundance. Certainly let us not be so insanely blind as to hold back our Reclamation program and our other water and land resource problems because, in a hungry world, we for the moment are well fed.
While we pass new laws, and rework and expand our programs, we should not overlook the technological aspects of water resource development. The changes in water-related technology during the past eight years or so have been at least as revolutionary in their implications as the changes in laws and programs; but much of the value of this technological advance remains in the form of unfulfilled promises which cannot be realized without further and accelerated research. We are approaching, but have not yet entered, the era of desaliniz-ation, of cheap nuclear power, of earth -moving with nuclear explosives, of water re-use, of new means of storage--I note the Corps of Engineers is considering the construction of three surface reservoirs whose waters will in turn be fed into an underground reservoir to escape the high Texas evaporation rate--and of who knows what other great achievements. Any one of these could represent a major breakthrough. Taken together, they might have the most profound effect on our programs, concepts, and national welfare. Yet, we must remain poised and tantalized on the threshold without being able, so far, to take the last final step to success. Let us for heaven's sake give these efforts the really vigorous push they need to get off the balancing point. Perhaps the unprecedented authorization Congress has given the desalinization program will be such a push in that field. Why not tackle the others with equal vigor.
Finally, there is a particular test and challenge that confronts us of NRA in this turbulent period. It is to strengthen our National Reclamation Association. The NRA is surely one of the permanently valuable national assets that must be preserved in this time of change. It is needed, now perhaps as never before, to help our country steer a sound course through the white-water of changing times. For we of the NRA represent an accumulation of experience, and a range of practical knowledge, and a distillation of discussions and views, such as can be found nowhere else in this land. We have, I think, been able to cooperate with all other interests in the water resource field, while still preserving the integrity and inde-pendence which have earned us their respect and confidence. Thus the NRA has become an
institutional organization which fulfills a useful and, indeed, an essential role. And we--we here at this convention, and our fellow-members throughout the West--have the responsi-bility to maintain and develop and use this unique instrument which we and our predecessors have fashioned. We must help it grow and expand, in strength and scope, in step with the overall progress of Reclamation and the Nation'.
Introduction of the next speaker, Lawrence Mehren, was made by Northcutt Ely,
Prominent water lawyer, Washington, D. C.
"BIG RED" (COLORADO RIVER)
Lawrence Mehren, Chairman of the Board
Central Arizona Project Association--Phoenix, Arizona
This is the story of Big Red, an affectionate nickname given to the swirling, silt-laden Colorado River, by men who stand in respect of its might and its bounties. The river has been much in the news and will continue to be until the sound and the fury over rights to its use one day give way to understanding and peace among the seven States which comprise its great basin.
Congress has before it a series of bills dealing with the Colorado. Another has been
in
the drafting stage this fall as a suggested alternate, reflecting further progress in the tortuous process of men and political entities coming closer to an appreciation of the prob-lems, rights, and aspirations of others. All of these pieces of prospective legislation, al-though they revolve around the Colorado, envision a magnificent regional planning concept for the ultimate solution of the water scarcities of the Southwest.The genesis of this program is most interesting and of vital importance. Today Want to organize the pieces of information you may have acquired from time to time, so
that they fall into place and emerge in a cohesive pattern. An important part of the
story concerns the Central Arizona Project, for it has been the irritant, the grain of sand, around which has laminated what I hope will become a major pearl in reclamation history.
Before we examine the developments of recent months, it is essential that we sketch
the
history of the river, then pinpoint the extent of Arizona's critical problem, and alsorecognize the water needs of other areas in the basin.
The Colorado and its tributaries drain one-twelfth of the area of the United States and dominate the economy of the Southwest and southern California. Rising in Wyoming and Colorado, Big Red marches in varied mood and erratic strides across broad, alluvial Plains and through some of the most desolate yet fascinating canyon country in the world for a total run of 1, 400 miles.
Despite its mysteries, moods and meanderings, the Colorado is indispensable to life in our part of the world. Without it and its tributaries there would be no irrigated wonderland
in the Salt River Valley where Phoenix booms, no adequate water supply for Los Angeles and San Diego, no hydro-electric power to turn a million wheels of industry from Tucson to Torrance.
Full well realizing the enormous potential of Big Red, men long ago began contending for its use. With an average annual water yield of something between 14 and 18 million acre-feet, and a tremendous drop from 9f.300 feet to sea level for generating energy, the river is an economic gold mine. Almost as if aware of its destiny, the Colorado back in the mists of antiquity set forth on a patient process of erosion, which now, millions of years later, has resulted in a perfect series of canyons and gorges for reservoir and powersite purposes.
Modern history of the controversy over rights to the river dates back to 1922 when
the basic and most famous document was formulated. This Santa Fe Compact established
two divisions of the total basin, made a lump sum allocation of water to each, leaving final determination of individual state amounts to the "Upper Basin" (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming), and to the "Lower Basin" (Arizona, California and Nevada).
The drafters at Santa Fe allocated to each of the two basins 7,500, 000 acre-feet of
water per annum for "beneficial consumptive use. " Remember, there are losses from reservoir evaporation and seepage to consider before water can be put to such "beneficial and consumptive use." Estimates are that when all the contemplated projects in the two basins are built, these losses could conceivably run to a total of 1,500, 000 acre-feet per year.
The Compact also recognized that Mexico is entitled to some of the waters of the Colorado. In 1944, an international treaty set this annual quantity at 1, 500, 000 acre-feet.
Let us recap for a moment, for here is a cardinal point that will recur later in our
discussion. The SantaFe Compact thus envisioned a basic 15, 000, 000 acre-feet for the seven
states --7, 500, 000 for each basin if both eventually claim their full entitlement--to which must be added potential river losses of possibly up to I, 500, 000, a -id another 1, 500, 000
acre-feet for the Mexican obligation. And so, a minim= annual average of somewhere around
18, 000, 000 acre-feet must be available to make the Colorado "whole," and today's hydrolo-gists, forty some years later, insist that such a quantity just isn't there.
Perhaps these few figures over-simplify a complex situation, but I have no intention of tangling with the technicians at this point, and confusing you -- and me.
The next basic document is the Boulder Canyon Project Act, passed by Congress in 1928. Aside from providing for the construction of Hoover Dam, the Act took on the vital
job of apportioning the 7,500, 000 acre-feet awarded to the Lower Basin by the Santa Fe
Compact. The legislators earmarked 4, 400, 000 for California, 2,800, 000 acre-feet for
Arizona, and 300, 000 acre-feet for Nevada.
The final basic document on the River is the agreement reached in 1948 between the
four Upper Basin states for the division of their 7, 500,000 acre-feet.
After the Boulder Canyon Project Act, California progressively completed the
Projects to consume its agreed-upon 4,400, 000 acre-feet--and more, from what was
believed at the time to be surplus water, until its current use has reached the 5,100, 000
acre-foot figure.
Arizona, too, was anxious to put its share of the River to use, and in the late 1940's the Central Arizona Project crystallized, envisioning the diversion of 1, 200, 000 acre-feet for the great central basin of the State. It should be pointed out that this Project has always
been planned as a rescue program to provide supplemental water for existing acreage and municipalities, and not a single acre of new land is to be brought into cultivation.
We have found, to our sorrow, that planning our Central Arizona Project and realizing it are two vastly different things. The authorization bill passed the Senate twice in the early 1950's, but met an impassible road block in the House because of the determined oPposition of California, who insisted that the rights on the river had never been properly
adjudicated. We had our own interpretation of the Santa Fe Compact and the Boulder Canyon
Project Act; Californians had theirs. The House Committee agreed that adjudication was
necessary, and we then began, in 1952, the long arduous process of a major suit in the Supreme Court of the United States.
It serves no useful purpose to try that case again today. Suffice it to say that Arizona
emerged with clear title to 2,800, 000 acre-feet of mainstream water. The day after the
Supreme Court opinion was handed down, the Arizona delegation in Congress re-introduced the original Central Arizona Project bills.
Let us examine now the water predicament in Arizona. In its vast central sector, stretching from the Phoenix area east and south through Tucson, and including the Safford area on the Gila, live almost 80 percent of Arizona's people. We consume in that basin about 4,500,000 acre-feet per year.
Our intra-state surface streams yield an average of about 1, 000, 000 acre-feet a year.
The Geological Survey tells us that the groundwater recharge of the basin from rains and streamflow amounts to about I, 250,000 acre-feet. Thus the total yearly water harvest
comes to 2,250, 000 acre-feet.
Apply this to the water budget of 4, 500, 000 acre-feet and the simple arithmetic says
that there is a deficit of 2,250, 000 acre-feet to be met from somewhere. At the moment it
is being done by mining residual underground water that has accumulated over centuries. This supply is obviously limited; there inevitably comes the day of atonement. Just when it Will be, I can't tell you; but I can tell you from personal experience on my own farm that the underground water level has dropped 373 feet since we wrested the land from desert in 1930.
I Can tell you that over 350, 000 acres of prime agricultural land in our basin have already
..,one out of cultivation because of insufficient water supply. Our personal problem becomes,
can we possibly hold out for ten years more, until relief comes via the Central Arizona Project?"
I can tell you that Arizona metropolitan centers, like Tucson, which has groundwater as its only supply, are equally concerned over their future.
There is an area of meagre rainfall which has known water shortage from time immemorial, where the grim struggle to conserve water is part of our daily lives; where the entire basin has progressively been declared a "critical area" under state law, thus preventing the drilling of wells to bring new land into cultivation; where the lining of canals, laterals and ditches, the installation of pump-back systems, programs of watershed modifica-tion, intensive studies of sewage effluent reuse, a brackish water conversion plant for the City of Buckew, all fit into the pattern of "save water."
This is a state where the copper mines, acutely conscious of conservation, reclaim water from their tailings dumps and in some cases reuse it as much as seven times before it eludes them in evaporation or seepage.
Aside from actual conservation practices, economics forces the husbanding of water; with an eye on highly competitive agricultural markets, an Arizona farmer does not go to the
tremendous expense of equipping big irrigation wells to pump from depths of over 450 feet in
many cases and then pay heavy energy costs to waste groundwater by willy-nilly- ptimping. To round out the Arizona water picture, I should point out that against the annual
overdraft of 2, 250, 000 acre-feet on dwindling underground supplies, the Central Arizona
Project envisions providing only slightly more than 1, 000,000 acre-feet from the mainstream of Big Red. Obviously this is no complete solution for Arizona's water problem. It would still leave us over 1, 000,000 acre-feet short of balancing the water books for our present
economy. On top of that, we must look to water requirements for an ever-expanding
popula-tion in the future. Do you wonder at the intensity of our plea in Washington?
We do not have a corner on water problems. Added to our own concern is the
situa-tion in Southern California, where the populasitua-tion even with the OwensTRiverAqueduct, even with the substantial quantity in prospect from the California State Water Plan, the area still must look to additional supplies for the future.
As a final facet in the problems of the Colorado River states, the Upper Basin is acutely conscioio of its own population growth, its needs for the future, its plans for orderly, un-interrupted development.
This, then, is the great backdrop against which the current drama in Washington is being played. The actors in the Central Arizona Project affair had long been just Arizona and California. Suddenly, the cast of characters has grown substantially, the stalce has broadened tremendously. Let's develop that story.
Flushed with its success in the Supreme Court suit two years ago, Arizona con-fidently looked forward to speedy Congressional endorsement of its Project. But in the inter-vening years, Californians had increased their uses of the Colorado, the second tube of the Metropolitan Aqueduct for the myriad of communities of Southern Califbrnia had been built and was running at capacity. They were understandably no happier over the Central Arizona
Project and the prospect of a cutback to 4, 400,000 acre-feet than they had been years before.
With a big Congressional delegation and considerable influence, their reluctance was a major deterrent.
Into this murky stalemate came a ray of light in the form of Secretary Stewart L. Udall's Pacific Southwest Water Plan. It created an uproar, was soundly condemned by many, but without question it was the catalyst that forced us to think, and "think big" on water problems.
From that seed emerged water statesmanship contrasted to water selfishness. A Lower Colorado River Basin Bill began to crystallize, built around several cardinal features. The Central Arizona Project is to be constructed as the first works. 'Pen a Lower Basin Account is established, to roll into one pot the power revenues from Hoover, Davis, Parker and the proposed Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams after construction pay-out periods, the joint fund to be used for the benefit of the entire Lower Basin.
The bill moves on to recognize that the Colorado alone can never meet the water
requirements of the Southwest. Remember, even with the approximately 1,000, 000
acre-feet from the Central Arizona Project, my State would still be short each year over
1,000, 000 acre-feet of enough water to maintain its present economy, to say nothing of
the future. California's needs are magnified proportionately. With this in mind, the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to immediately begin intensive investigations of sources of supplemental water from outside the basin to make the Colorado whole.
The proposal then assures California that in years when the mainstream is short
of water, her right to 4, 400,000 acre-feet is to be considered senior to the requirements of
the Central Arizona Project, until a minimum of 2, 500,000 acre-feet is actually delivered
into the river from sources outside the basin.
This has been a tough one for many Arizonans to swallow. Their agonizing and understandably angry plea has been, "why do we have to negotiate and give? Why don't we just take our share without a state water plan?"
On the west bank of the river, the cry, although perhaps not openly expressed,
has undoubtedly been, "why give in to a Central Arizona Project? It will cut us back to
4,400, 000 acre-feet and eliminate half the current supply for Los Angeles from the
Colorado, and almost the entire supply of the City of San Diego. Why don't we just sit tight, and try to defeat any projects on Big Red? Then, we can continue to use 5,100,000 acre-feet for a long time to come."
Negative attitudes don't solve anything. I have likened the situation in talks before Arizona audiences to the case of a man who may have bought a ten-acre piece of desert way north of Phoenix forty years ago. Under basic law and human rights it's his property to do with as he wishes. Suddenly, today, after a lovely residential area of the city has engulfed his property, he decides to build an oil refinery on it. I have news for my mythical friend: he isn't about to build the oil refinery. The rights of his neighbors would definitely be in jeopardy, and he would be hauled into court so fast it Would make his head swim.
"No man is an island" to exercise his rights to the disregard of others in modern society, and certainly no State is an island either.
-11-So we had to go through the painful process of growing up on water matters on both sides of the Colorado and achieving a degree of maturity. Each had to give -- California had to abandon its traditional opposition to any Central Arizona Project; Arizona had to recognize certain basic uses and needs in our sister State.
I am proud of the new alliance between California and Arizona. I am proud of the statesmanlike way in which the water leaders of both states have finally settled their problems.
After the lion and the lamb had bedded down together last spring, Arizona's hopes soared once more. But now onto the stage stalked another group of players -- the Upper Basin States. They were as determined in their opposition to the joint plan as California had once been to the original Central Arizona Project bill. Why?
The answer lies in the figures I sketched for you earlier on river flow. The Santa
Fe Compact confidently envisioned 18, 000,000 acre-feet or better. Although only the
Almighty knows the future flow, hydrologists are pretty well agreed that, based on perform-ance, we probably have a 14,900,000 foot river -- over 3,000, 000 acre-feet short of what is needed to take care of all the claimants.
Understandably, the Upper Basin States have said, in effect, "hey, wait a minute, fellows, if you build the Central Arizona Project, and the Lower Basin puts to use the full
7, 500,000 acre-foot entitlement, where do we come in when we want to build all our
projects; there won't be enough water; don't forget, we have rights, too, under the Santa Fe Compact, and our rights are valid, too." We in the Lower Basin are fully well aware of these rights and certainly we intend to recognize and respect them.
So back to the conference table again. Out of the discussions this fall has emerged the draft of a new bill, not yet formally before the House Committee. But its provisions, hammered out by earnest men from all the basin states -- Upper and Lower -- could well bring peace at long last to Big Red.
Without going into all of its provisions, the draft is far broader in scope than the com -promise legislation agreed upon by California and Arizona. It retains the key features of the Lower Basin bill currently before Congress -- the Central Arizona Project, the Lower
Basin Account to pool revenues, the assurance of priority for California's 4,400, 000 in
case of shortage until import water is available, the provision for import water studies. The draft bill adds several very important things, of vital concern to the Upper Basin States. The import studies contemplate an additional supply of 8,500, 000 acre-feet, 2.5
million of which would be used to satisfy the Mexican Treaty obligation and attendant losses, 2 million for Lower Basin use, 2 million for Upper Basin use, and 2 million for areas en route from the importation source.
Assuming that the import water would be delivered to Lake Mead, the 2 million acre-feet for the Upper Basin would obviously be handled by the exchange mechanism, allowing greater retention of virgin waters above Lee's Ferry than provided for in the Santa Fe Compact. The target date for the planning of this program is set for 11920.
The Mexican Treaty requirements are declared to be a broad national obligation and tile Colorado River Basin States are relieved from the burdens imposed on them by the Compact.
-12-This is an eminently fair proviston, since you well remember, for instance, that the requirements of Texas from the Lower Rio Grande entered heavily into the negotiations for the Mexican Treaty on the Colorado.
The draft then authorizes a series of Upper Basin projects upon findings of feasi-bility by the Secretary of the Interior, so that these works may take their rightful place in the total scheme for the Colorado.
It also involves the determination to build on the lower river not only Marble Canyon Dam, but also Bridge Canyon Dam, which has been suggested for deferment by the Bureau of the Budget. Bridge is vital to the success of the whole program as a big revenue producer to make a water import program possible.
This new draft has been approved in principle by California and Ari7ona. It is the subject of considerable study and debate in the Upper Basin at this moment. I have only
this comment to the water statesmen of these four States: I feel for you, because I know
the difficult process you are going through to bring your people to the degree of understand-ing of the "big picture" which we in Arizona and California have had to reach in the last few Years. Compromise is a give-and-take situation, and a negative status quo position will solve no problems nor produce a drop of water to slake the thirst of any of the seven basin
states. The moment for greatness is upon us. May we not let it slip away:
Of course, we do not know how the House Committee or the Congress as a whole Will view this new draft bill. But I would venture that if the seven basin states came as a united group to present their plea for the solution of the entire water problem of this vast area, Congress could not help but turn an attentive ear.
One would think that this greatly expended case of characters and stage for the drama
of Big Red were big enough as things now stand. But in the wings, poised for their cues,
are two other players -- the Pacific Northwest States, and various outdoor groups opposed to any dams on the Colorado.
With regard to the latter groups, they have been referred to many times as "conser-vationists," but I don't think this is precisely descriptive. Conservation implies wise use, rather than non-use. You men of reclamation are thus the true conservationists. Perhaps
the more
accurate designation for these groups is "primitivists" -- they want nothing touched.I do not question the sincerity of the primitivists. But I do deplore the deliberately Misleading propaganda which has been pouring from their various headquarters. In an appeal to emotions rather than to reason, they continue to loosely bandy about the charge that we plan to "flood the Grand Canyon" with the Bridge Canyon Dam. The inference to
the
public is that the reservoir will submerge the great temples of that vast canyon, andthat in
a high wind the waves will lap over El Tovar. How preposterous can one get:We are talking about a dam 80 miles downstream from the Grand Canyon you and I
know, a structure so insignificant in the majesty of that gorge, and so buried in the inner recess of the chasm, that one couldn't find it even from an airplane unless he knew exactly What he was looking for and where it was.
-13-True, the reservoir would reach a very few miles along the western boundary of the National Park, in its most inaccessible area. But this was very frankly envisioned by Con-gres in 1919 in creating the Park, for it specifically authorized the Secretary of the Interior to utilize such area for a reclamation project.
Bridge Canyon's reservoir would provide a waterway for hundreds of thousands of Americans to enjoy this fascinating canyon area. Herein lies the real motive of the primi-tivists. They want to reserve to themselves the exclusive use of this part of America, and other parts as well, and "the public be damned."
In the Phoenix paper a month ago, a primitivist exulted in the former 100 - mile boat trip or 13 mile hike over rugged mountains necessary to reach Rainbow Bridge before Lake Powell came into being. He is outraged at the many tourists who now find the trip an easy one, their conduct and litter, their relative lack of reverance for the great arch. He longs for the "good old days."
Something, I suppose, like a trip to Washington this summer to take my young children for their first view of the Nation's capitol. The Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial,
Capitol, Supreme Court Building, Archives, Arlington Cemetery, all were swarming with thousands of Americans. I was swept with nostalgia for my old college days in Washington 35 years ago when the city was a leisurely southern town, without mob scenes. But then I told myself that these Americans had as much right to the halls of Washington as I did, and that if I thought there were too many people in this country, it was just too bad about me.
Nonetheless, the primitivists will raise a powerful cry in Congress, preaching the fallacious doctrine of desecration, and brushing aside the thirst and economy of the basin States. As reclamationists and conservationists we must meet their challenge.
We turn, last, to the concerns of the Pacific Northwest States. Although none of the
current bills indicate to the Secretary of the Interior the areas he is to study as possible sources for import water for the Colorado Basin, one obvious potential is the Columbia River, Here a vast quantity of unused water flows into the sea, and the suggestion has been made that a minor portion of this surplus be diverted near the mouth of the river, after it has flown past any area of possible use.
It is quite natural that any proposal of this sort raises questions, doubts and fears. I think I can unequivocally state the position of the Colorado Basin States on this matter. First' we fully realize that exhaustive studies must be made of every potential use of the Columbia' and its tributaries in the northwest, and that those uses must be adequately provided for, looking far into the future.
Second, the draft bill itself sets forth the provision that any uses, now or in the future' in those States shall have a perpetual priority of right over any uses of water delivered by exportation works.
The proposal is not an unreasonable one, provided, of course, the studies indicate there is a surplus of water in the Columbia system. The history of our Nation has been that
-14-when -14-when there is distress in one area, the country musters its resources to help. When a hurricane deals a savage blow to New Orleans and the Federal government steps in, where does the tax money come from to sustain the effort? Just from Louisiana? Obviously not. When help is needed in Appalachia, where do the Federal funds come from? Just from sources within Appalachia? Certainly not. In exactly the same way, it is entirely logical to suggest that surplus resources of water in one area be considered to relieve a desperate situation in another.
It is our hope that we may work with the Northwest, or other areas, on this matter of import water in the spirit of full cooperation, fair play to all concerned, and as water statesmen jointly seeking the solution to difficult national problems.
This, then, is the story of Big Red. It churns and tosses along much of its length, just as have its peoples in their quest for the solution of their problems. Our great river finally achieves peace as it slides serenely into the lakes behind its dams. May the tran-quility of those quiet waters be symbolic of the not too distant future as we seek to calm the turbulence along its banks.
Noon Luncheon - Wednesday, November 10
Honorable Joseph McDowell, Mayor, Kansas City, Kansas, Toastmaster
The Invocation was given by Monsignor Henry Gardner, Superintendent of Schools, Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.
GOVERNORS' PANEL - "THE WATER PROBLEMS OF THE GREAT PLAINS STATES"
PANEL MEMBER: Honorable William H. Avery, Governor of Kansas
Regarding our water supply, here in the middle west we are confronted with a problem of instability -- we are confronted with either a feast or famine or an over supply or scarcity. In the eastern part we have a flood control problem. Our average rainfall
there approaches 40 inches per year; in the western part we drop down to below 20 inches
Per year.
We have accomplished a great deal in the last 10 years in the way of stabilizing our
Water supply. We ran pretty high in the number of irrigated acres, but much of this irriga-tion is from underground pumping. This makes our problem somewhat different than that in many of your western states.
Now, another point I want to make is this: I haven't very much quarrel with an attempt to stabilize or upgrade the available water supply to existing acres that are now in Production. As Governor of a great agricultural State, I have some very serious reserva-tions as to how long we should stand idly by and see our acreage control tighten every year.
Now
the irony of this situation is that during the last year that I was in Congress underacreage controls which were carried out under the direction of Secretary Freeman we were
the Congress by the Bureau of Reclamation for two projects -- one in Colorado and one in New Mexico to put 485 thousand more acres in production under reclamation projects. I don't want to belabor this point, but I think I have indicated to you a concern that many of us have regard-ing the economic feasibility of irrigatregard-ing new land.
This does not mean that things don't have to change. Things do have to change, but call:
other hand, I think it is a responsibility that those of us in public office, whether in the Congre of the United States or in the State legislature or in the Executive Department, to make certain that there is not an undue shift around of agricultural production due to new land coming into production at the same time that we are sacrificing production here in this particular middle western section of the United States.
I would like to conclude with this one observation: I think it is going to be necessary for this particular area along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to pursue with diligence this matter of water conservation and I recognize that in this conservation program there will be some recommendation, and whether or not it is entirely helpful to our particular economy, we are going to have to accept it as part of the whole batch, regardless of v hat the objective is -- whether it is the water transportation, whether it is for irrigation, whether it is -flood control -- we do have a common objective and I think we almost unanimously agree that we do need to retain the water that falls in this marginal area at every possible geographic' location.
•
PANEL MEMBER: Honorable Nils A. Boe, Governor of South Dakota
In South Dakota we have become of age and with the experience we have already gained and with the knowledge of what can be done and especially done in certain sections of the State, we seriously want a better rate of return from our investment than we have had in the past. And to accomplish that I think everyone will agree that we have no other place to turn except to the great, broad Missouri River which intersects our State running through it from north to south. To date there have been four great dams constructed on this river. They are Fort Randall, Gavins Point, Big Bend, and the Oahe, I am sure that everyone here knows that the primary purpose for constructing these dams was first, flood control for the benefit of downstream areas and downstream States on both the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and secondary, of course, was to regulate the flow of the river for downstream navigation.
These four large dams upon the Missouri River flooded approximately a half-million acres of good, fertile, agricultural lands within the State of South Dakota -. they they were com -pensated for the loss of these lands by dollars and cents, but ladies and gentlemen, you do not compensate for the taking of land which has belonged to people for years and years and years , This land was given up by the people in South Dakota for the benefit and the welfare of this
area and particularly for the benefit of the area of the United States further on downstream so
that they could be relieved from the turbulent onrush of waters as they came rushing down the
Missouri River and its many tributaries. It is my understanding that when these reservoirs have b een filled to capacity we will have impounded within the State of South Dakota alone
more than 34 acre-feet of water.
At the present time water is being released from these reservoirs on the Missouri Fivei and is flowing down the river and flowing out of the State of South Dakota at the rate of 17 to
-16-ERRATA
Pa.gp 16, next to last paragraph, last line; behind figure "34" insert word "million".
Page 17, beginning paragraph, first line; strike "daily" and insert "annually".
30 million acre-feet daily. To me, this is astonishing. I don't think that we would be asking too much if we should request that some of this water which is being impounded in the reser-voirs within our State should be saved and used to help develop the greatest industry that we have in South Dakota and in America -- and that is agriculture -- the most basic industry of all. It seems to me that would be far better than to permit the waters of the Missouri River to flow through our State and flow on down the Missouri and the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico.
It is for the purpose of accomplishing such a worthy objective that I would hope that the agencies of government -- the Federal and the State agencies -- together with Associa-tions such as the National Reclamation Association and others could work side by side not Just for the purpose of bringing a better and healthier economy to the State of South Dakota but for the purpose of benefitting the entire United States of America. I feel, ladies and gentlemen, that if we increase our economy by the development of irrigation projects and esPecially by the development of the Oahe irrigation unit, which we hope to have approved and implemented by the Second Session of this Congress, we will also be doing something for the United States of America, for Kansas, Nebraska and for the entire Great Plains area. It is with this idea that I hope we can improve our relationship to the end that we can join hands in support of the reclamation program for the use of the waters of the Missouri River as it flows through our State and that we, in turn, can join hands with the rest of you in sup-Port of all the many worthy reclamation projects throughout the entire West.
PANEL MEMBER: Honorable Frank B. Morrison, Governor of Nebraska
We had a severe flood on the Missouri River in the Omaha area a few years ago as
a result of which millions of dollars worth of property was destroyed, and some lives were lost. Certainly a tragedy of this sort is unnecessary. I believe for the first time in history, roan has acquired enough knowledge and know-how to prevent such a tragedy. It is my be-lief that man should exercise that knowledge constructively.
I am sure you share my belief that acreage restrictions upon the production of hard
winter wheat are ridiculous, especially in view of the fact that there is a shortage of this kind of wheat all over the world. The way to attack that problem is by constructive mobiliza-tion ,of our political forces and our political know-how. We can no longer afford to allow Over half the children born into the world to suffer from malnutrition. This is not only a great challenge but it is a great opportunity for us. We have the knowledge and know-how to attack this problem and to solve it.
I am sure that you and I as reclamationists believe that the unnecessary loss of Water and the unnecessary loss of soil that is taking place in this nation every year will prove t° be a burden on our children and our grandchildren that is many, many times greater than all of the Federal debt that has been accumulated over the years. We are making some pro-gress toward correcting this situation but we are not satisfied with the propro-gress to date.
I
t've have seen the ingenuity of man make this Great Plains area, which we represent here
°clay, one of the most productive regions in all the world. The Great Plains States not only
satisfies the needs of their own people, but also its production helps to feed other parts of Or nation and other parts of the world. Now, we in Nebraska like to pride ourselves that We have come a long way in reclamation. We rank third or fourth among the States in the abillount of land, three million acres, that we have under irrigation but that is only the seginning. Every single year, on the average, six million acre-feet of water leaves the
re-tamed in the State of Nebraska to serve some useful economic purpose if we would apply the knowledge and the know-how that we have. There are those who are against reclamation, water conservation and soil utilization on the grounds that we are already producing more than we need. You and I know that in the years immediately ahead with our expanding popula-tion -- populapopula-tion explosions all over the world -- that the demands for food will become increasingly critical, especially in view of our efforts to achieve a decent standard of living among all people. We must be prepared to meet this situation and to take adVantage of the potential market.
We are thinking about not only today's needs or tomorrow's needs — we are thinking
about the needs of our children and our grandchildren and generations yet unborn and what we should do with our soil and water. We want to determine to a large degree the force of the economy, the force of the wealth, the force of productivity and the force of effective-ness of what we do to conserve our soil and water for those people who follow us on this land.
One of our major problems, of course, is the building of terraces and water retention structures on the farm and also the building of major dams such as there are now on the Missouri River. All of these are a necessary part of an integrated program necessary to retain water; thinking of what we could do in productivity of these Great Plains lands if this water were saved.
Governor Avery mentioned the fact that Western Kansas is semi-arid, well, I've seen a lot of crops burn up in Western Kansas and Nebraska. In fact, in those areas which are some of our most arid regions, almost every year we suffer from a lack of moisture and at the same time in those very areas, we have suffered most from floods and from ravaging clpud bursts. That was water that we should have saved, but we found droughts and we found floods existing side by side and that situation calls for a wise conservation and utilization of
our water.
As a result of our efforts, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Repub-lican River Valley in Nebraska and Kansas is probably the best managed stream in America from the standpoint of water conservation and water utilization. In the structures that have
been built on the Republican River and its tributaries, we have already saved in just a few years enough crops to pay for the cost.
We are looking forward to the day when there will be no more floods in the Great
Plains States. The wise conservation and utilization of water is important, more important to us simply because we have less of it at times when we need it and more of it at times whell we don't need it. I hope that all of us will mobilize our influence in increasing degrees in the years ahead to see that our water management program is accelerated.
I think that all of us in this reclamation movement, including individuals, organi2ation3 and every level of government has a role to play. There is no time left. States should stop quibbling with each other and enter into water compacts which are an essential part of this entire program. That is something to which we should all be dedicated. We believe that the local governments, State governments and the National government should all be partners'in this undertaking. We believe the United States Corps of Engineers, the United States De-partment of Agriculture and the Bureau of Reclamation should all be partners in this under-taking. They all have a vital and important role to play. I believe that as mature citizens
exercising dominion over this land, we should endeavor in increasing degrees co cooperate,
-18-to mobilize our resources in all levels of government in an attack upon this problem. Fur-thermore, we should bring about more complete and constructive dominion of man over his environment to make the land and water of this area serve not only the immediate needs, but also to serve our children.
Afternoon Session - Wednesday - November 10
Frank Raab, Oklahoma NR.A Director, Presiding
POWER PANEL - "RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN HYDROELECTRIC POWER
GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION IN RELATION TO THE
RECLAMATION PROGRAM"
James F. Sorensen, California NRA Director, Moderator
We have come a long way in the last two or three years in our efforts to resolve
some problems which have been apparent in considering reclamation power and its effect
O n reclamation and water projects in the West. We have to remember that we are talking
4
about the reclamation program. Primarily, reclamation means water, and over the yearsWe have watched the program develop we have seen the role of power become more im-Portant every day.
Certainly the reclamation program has changed, but as we heard from the three Governors today, there is still a tremendous need for agricultural production and when we talk about agricultural production on a high level, usually we are talking about the produc-tion or the utilizaproduc-tion of irrigaproduc-tion water. Now certainly the reclamaproduc-tion program changes.
We see more demand for municipal and industrial uses all the time as those uses fit into
the reclamation program, but at the same time we find the greatest need is for agriculture. Now, to go from the water program to the power program, we in the National Recla-illation Association certainly look on power as a very necessary part of the reclamation Program and I think we all do this with the feeling that power even more now than in the Past is necessary as the paying partner in a multipurpose scheme. We have seen great changes in the power development business as far as income from power is concerned, especially in the last few years. We have seen power go from almost a dump power pro-duction basis to one of peaking usage and this has enhanced the value of power when other-Wise there might have been some real problems.
I think it is well to note that the Reclamation Association has been interested in the Power business for many years, but about two or three years ago there was a very in-tense interest evidenced again and the Association has in the last two or three years taken a very close look at the power program.
I am reminded that Ted Riggins of Arizona in a presentation which the Board of Directors made to the Congressional Committees two years ago, pointed out some of the Problems that we as reclamation water users face. He especially referred to delays which took place in the authorization of a project mainly due to a squabble between two groups who Were seriously interested in the power production angle of the reclamation program. They Were so busy squabbling with each other that the water user, who is the primary party, was
eft in the lurch. It was only through long passage of time and a lot of hard work that it was P°ssible to bring about the authorization of the project.
PANEL MEMBER: Newcomb B. Bennett, Jr., Assistant Commissioner of Reclamation, in charge of power and engineering, Washington, D. C.
This is an important and significant panel session in which I am pleased to participate and discuss matters of mutual concern regarding electric power.
The basic role that electric power plays in supporting our economy and providing the conveniences of everyday living is well known. What has not yet been sufficiently recognized, however, is that in the Bureau's water resource development, power generation in itself is incidental and is added to water control and conservation projects when economically feasible.
We have always recognized that it is secondary to municipal and industrial water use, to irri-gation and other high priority uses of the available water.
Nevertheless, we must recognize a very important purpose is to provide an income with which to repay most of the cost of multiple-purpose water development projects. With-out this income, most water resource projects simply would not be possible. Hydropower is a necessity too for project irrigation pumping. As long as reimbursement of Reclamation projects continues to be the law of the land, means of securing revenue is paramount.
Since hydropower does play the key role in financing new (water resource facilities and assuring payout of many presently operating projects, we must assure that the maximum part of every power revenue dollar is made available for this purpose. This is why the Bureau of Reclamation in many respects is in the forefront in the drive to provide maximum econonlie in power generation, transmission, and marketing.
Efforts in this direction include activities in marketing, research, coordination of generation with adjacent systems by interconnections and through cooperation in the construe' tion of extra-high -voltage interties, use of joint studies and planning efforts, use of remotely controlled and automatic powerplants, and computer operation of systems.
Because of a basketball-size instrument, developed from the fertile brain of FR. Scbi
of our Denver research staff, system interties not previously possible can now be accomplish This little tool costing about $1, 000 looks down a transmission line, sees trouble coming, tells the generator's governor about it, and hence gives the governor 2-1/2 seconds earlier notice than it otherwise would receive. That is all it takes - 2-1/2 seconds advance notice. But because of this 2-1/2 seconds, power can now be exchanged between systems where it WO not otherwise possible.
We expect to save $620,000 annually through a program of automating generating and
transmission facilities now under way on older plants. Most new plants are being constructed
for remote control.
We have crossed the threshold of a period unprecedented in the history of power devel°P' ment. New technologies have brought about the construction of extra-high-voltage alternating and direct current transmission and the creation of huge steam electric generating plants unheard of until recently. Alternating current transmission lines with voltage as high as
735, 000 are now in use. More are being constructed. The use of 345,000-volt lines is
becoming commonplace.
The Interior Department has initiated construction of a 750,000-volt direct current line from The Dalles Powerplant in Oregon south to Hoover Dam. Planning and construction
