STATEMENT OF HON. CARL T. CURTIS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, may I first express my gratitude to you, the members of the subcommittee, to Mr. Aspinall, chairman of the full committee, and all of the full committee for the consideration that you have already given to the Mid-State project.

This project has the wholehearted support of my colleague, Senator Hruska, as well as the Congressman. The Legislature of Nebraska has passed a resolution favoring it. Likewise, the Nebraska Reclamation Association has endorsed it. It has the active support of a host of well-known conservationists, including Mr. C. Petrus Peterson, former president of the National Reclamation Association. The departmental reports are favorable.

The Mid-State project is well conceived and well engineered. Under Nebraska law its sponsors formed a conservancy district several years ago. As a result, the district has contributed very substantial amounts of its own money to the engineering development of this project. In my time in Congress I have never before sponsored the authorization of an irrigation development which has had the years of thorough study and preparation preceding this presentation today. One of Nebraska's outstanding resources is its supply of ground water. To preserve it, we must be vigilant to hold runoff water and return a portion of it to this supply. Dr. E. C. Reed, director of the conservation and survey division of the University of Nebraska, and a nationally recognized water expert, recently reaffirmed this need in a speech before the faculty of our university school of agriculture. He pointed out that both protection and development of this resource make necessary the constant recharging of ground water by both natural and artificial means.

In this, the Mid-State project is unique. Its geographical location and its system of reservoirs can contribute perhaps more to the recharging of our ground water than any system in our State.

I want to read just briefly from the Grand Island Independent editorial page of June 20, 1962, referring to this hearing and speaking of the presentation of the local interests. They say this:

Among the most eloquent of the exhibits they will present is a graph illustrating that the underground water supply of this area is doomed to depletion unless it can be recharged through the Mid-State project. If that underground water supply is lost, many, many millions of dollars invested in this area also will be lost. The most important single reason for the construction of the MidState project is the need to replenish and stabilize the ground water supply which when accomplished will preserve the large present investment in leveled lands, farm buildings, pumps, and machinery and in the public and private facilities which are dependent upon the use of the surface water, the subcommittee will be told. The people of this area in two elections 9 years apart said emphatically that they want the Mid-State project constructed and they are willing to make the highest repayment of construction cost of any unit in the Missouri River Basin project.

They have backed up their feelings financially. From 1943 to 1948 a total of $180,000 was subscribed by private individuals and business firms for the project. Since that time the taxpayers of the district have approved levies totaling $1,110,000 for the further answer of this project.

In addition, every conceivable governmental agency from the most local level to the Department of the Interior has given the project its blessing.

A year ago I asked the Bureau of Reclamation to tabulate for me the irrigation costs and percentage repaid by water users on 16 existing projects in Missouri Basin States. Average repayment by water users for irrigation costs on these 16 is 21.1 percent. Five of these 16 projects are in Nebraska and the average repayment of these 5 is 28.4 percent.

The bill before your committee today, if enacted, will provide a repayment by water users of 59.2 percent or almost 60 percent of the irrigation costs of the Mid-State project.

This is substantially three times the average in the Missouri River Basin States.

Mr. Chairman, the construction of this project will not bring new farmland into production. A great portion of the land to be served is already irrigated. It will not complicate or add to the surplus problems. Considerable diversification exists in that area already. A sugarbeet factory is located at Grand Island. A great deal of alfalfa is raised in the area, and the cattle feeding that goes on there is sizable, and this cattle feeding fits in with Nebraska's great ranch country nearby where so many cattle are raised.

The local witnesses will be able to cover all the details that the situation might call for. I concur with Chairman Aspinall that a complete understanding of repayment possibilities should be reached and I shall not go into that at this time, myself, but I think it should be done by the people who will pay the bill and by the Government.

In closing I want to again thank you for your consideration in the past and for your consideration today, and express the hope that the bill can be speedily advanced.

I want to say it is always a pleasure to return to the House of Representatives and see some of my old colleagues and also see a few new faces that it is not my privilege to get in contact daily. I certainly thank you for your courtesies today.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Senator. Do you have any questions? Chairman ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I do want to welcome Senator Curtis back over on this side of the legislative operations. This is where he got his first training and I, for one, will say he has not forgotten anything he has learned. You have heard my statement and you have stated you are in general agreement. As to the repayment of that 41.8 percent which is allocated to irrigation

Senator CURTIS. It is almost 60 allocated toward irrigation

Chairman ASPINALL. No, it is repayment of that 41.8 percent which is allocated to irrigation which must be paid by some other sources than the irrigators.

Senator CURTIS. Yes.

Chairman ASPINALL. Let me ask you this: How long a period do you think that the project should have in order to repay to the Federal Government that 41.8 percent?

Senator CURTIS. Through power revenues you are referring to? Chairman ASPINALL. Through power revenues or through ad valorem taxes or any other contribution?

Senator CURTIS. I appreciate the problem you face. I am not prepared at this time to say that it should be X number of years. I do think it is a matter of extreme importance and that a policy should be arrived at that will be quite consistent and uniform throughout the country, particularly in the Missouri River Basin States.

Chairman ASPINALL. Why should the Missouri River Basin area have any different policy when it comes to the repayment of reclamation charges than any other area of reclamation west?

Senator CURTIS. They have no right to more favorable treatment. The reason I qualified it, that at least it should be consistent within the Missouri River Basin, is that I do not know all the details about the projects elsewhere and the allocation of power. I was a member of the House committee that passed the flood control act of 1944 when all of these projects were generally authorized and some of them quite specifically authorized. I served as a conferee on that act of 1944. In our deliberations as conferees we went into the power question and the use of the revenues.

I am not trying to evade your question. My point is this, that if the Congress within a fairly recent period has approved construction of irrigation in the Missouri River Basin States wherin they would have to look to power revenues, say up to almost 80 percent of the cost, 75 or 80 percent of the cost, I would not like to see a stringent change of that policy when a project comes in here that the landowners are going to pay three times the general average.

Now may I also say something about the delay in this project. This committee is not responsible; Congress is not responsible. I hold no one responsible. It is one of those things that will happen. As a matter of fact, it was the administration of my own political party that announced plans for partnership projects. With good faith the Mid-State people proceeded to qualify for that under that plan because, as it has been pointed out, they have such a high repayment potential. That program did not materialize naturally. Probably there are many valid arguments and reasons why it should not have but it did sidetrack our efforts out there for authorization under the reclamation law for some time.

So, I am sure, while I want the details, dollar amounts, the years, worked out with the local people who are responsible for this, I am sure that they will comply and do more, way more than the average in all of these repayment factors.

I am not prepared to tell you what the income will be from power and how much is committed now and how long it will take. I do not have those figures.

Chairman ASPINALL. Off the record.

(A brief discussion was held off the record.)

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Wharton?

Mr. HALEY. Senator, this is a project costing approximately $81 million. Is that right?

Senator CURTIS. I think that is substantially correct.

Mr. HALEY. Senator, could you tell me how many days of hearings was held in the other body on this?

Senator CURTIS. Offhand I would guess five or six.

Mr. HALEY. Five or six days?

Senator CURTIS. Yes, because it has been back there several times. It has been a cumulative matter. Now maybe that is an exaggeration on a total if you count an 8-hour day. But when we solve these problems arising under the proposed partnership plan that never materialized, we were then asking for hearings and holding hearings there. These witnesses have been in on the Senate at least three times.

Mr. HALEY. Has the other body considered this bill any other time than on September 21, 1961?

Senator CURTIS. The Senate committee?

Mr. HALEY. No, the Senate as a whole.
Senator CURTIS. No, I think not.

Mr. HALEY. There was very little debate on this bill in the other body, was there not, Senator?

Senator CURTIS. That is correct.

Mr. HALEY. As a matter of fact, the statement of Mr. Mansfield, and the President of the Senate, that the Senate would proceed to consideration of this bill and your remarks, that merely required a parliamentary inquiry, that is all the debate that there was in the other body on this bill, isn't that true?

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Haley, the Senate has a number of people, like the House have, that are not in favor of expansion of irrigation. They are watching for unsound projects and costly projects and we face a situation much as referred to by Chairman Aspinall.

In getting these things ready for passage there is a lot of legwork to do in seeing that the people have the information they want. Now, if there was a lack of debate there, perhaps I am to blame. I was raised in a school that if the judge is going to rule your way, why, don't waste his time by talking. That is the reason that we did not consume a lot of hours in debating this bill.

Mr. HALEY. I thoroughly agree with you, Senator, when you have the votes, that is the time to vote. If you don't have the votes, then you begin to talk and try to scrape up some votes.

Senator CURTIS. If I may say something for the record because many people read this record, there are bills that the direct impact is somewhat local. It is true that they have a very significant effect upon national policies and national finance. But it is also true that the battle over those bills of that nature is in the committees, it is with objectors, it is with leadership, it is with Bureau of the Budget, it is with all of these very effective arms of the Congress rather than in the public forum that might be quite illuminating to somebody in the gallery.

Mr. HALEY. Well, Senator, the thing that disturbs me is that here is a bill carrying appropriations from the Treasury of the United States authorizing appropriations to the extent of $81 million and in trying to find out the ground that had been covered in the other body and realizing the financial situation and your own party, of course, is very much interested in that, at least they say so, I find-you say there were several hearings, I don't dispute that because there probably were in other years-I find there was a hearing of one day in 1961, I believe, a partial day at least, and here on a bill that is going to require the Treasury of the United States to go out and raise approximately $81.5 million there was no debate in the other body. We on this side are being charged with being close fisted, and so forth. I think, Senator, very frankly if we are going to accept bills from the other body, I think you have a little responsibility over there, too, to look into it.

Senator CURTIS. I certainly agree with you. I do say that the amount of consideration on the committee level in the Senate has been a continuing matter over the years. I know that there have been three

hearings that I arranged. I know that there are printed hearings onat least two of those, maybe more. That is a minimum. I know there have been others and a constant collaboration, supplying all the needs and raising all the questions that you people very appropriately are raising here today. I can't quarrel with your premise at all.

Mr. HALEY. Understand, Senator, I am not being critical of you in this particular instance. I just say that it seems to me, and I don't blame you, if you have the votes that is when you want to vote, but it just seems to me that for passage of a bill carrying the authorization of approximately $81.5 million, to have this much debate in the great Senate of the United States is just not too good.

Senator CURTIS. May I say that with due respect for the body in which I serve, that the volume of debate on a matter does not indicate the merits of the proposal.

Mr. HALEY. Not necessarily, Senator. I realize what you say. On the other hand, I think sometimes if the people of the country were informed of what is going on, probably we in the Congress of the United States would be on a little better ground, too, don't you think? Senator CURTIS. I agree with you. I think we do a very poor job of public relations, of sometimes establishing in the public hearings the long, detailed, conscientious effort that committees like yours and other committees put in on these matters.

Mr. HALEY. If this bill passes in the House of Representatives, Senator, I think that this committee will make a record on it where people in future years can go back and say, well, here is what somebody said about this project. I would just hope that our big brothers. on the other side would inform the people a little more. I am a great believer in you people over there talking as long as you want to. I think, going back over the years, people will be able to see what has happened and why and so forth. History, you know, is a fine thing, to go back to.

Senator CURTIS. I think your point is well taken. Committee deliberations in executive sessions, conferences, the records of those receive no wide distribution. I think your point is well taken. If I can in a lighter vein offer this one more extenuating circumstance, we have an awful lot of debate over there and there is not too much of a demand for somebody else to talk.

Mr. HALEY. As long as you keep talking over there, Senator, don't ever let anybody cut off talking because while it may take weeks or months to get the views before the public, I think it is good.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Westland?

Mr. WESTLAND. I have no questions.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. Hosmer?

Mr. HOSMER. No questions.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Nygaard?

Mr. NYGAARD. I would like to welcome the Senator from the neighboring State of Nebraska. He has made a fine statement in regard to this project which is important to the Midwestern States of this country.