F. A. Stezig, Fayetteville. John I. Hlinshy, Fayetteville. J. C. Syptak, Fayetteville; carpenter. Emil Prehoda, Columbus; carpenter. Monroe Scheel, Ellinger; grocery store clerk. F. R. Hruska, Ellinger; merchant. Mrs. Linda Roesler, Ellinger; grocery clerk. Mrs. Lee R. Walla, Ellinger; housewife. Joe M. Hrackony, Ellinger; lumber clerk. Frank H. Svoboda, Ellinger; dairy and general farmer. J. L. Syptak, Route 1, Fayetteville; pecan grower. C. F. Hrachony, Ellinger; retired. Joseph A. Hrachony, Ellinger, retired. Mrs. Alton J. Koehl, Ellinger; housewife. Joe F. Janish, Ellinger; cafe operator. Harold Ilse, Ellinger; garageman. Joe Orsak, Ellinger; telephone cont. J. C. Loew, Ellinger; service station attendant. Mrs. John Josik; housewife. Mrs. and Mrs. Jerome Walla; cafe operator. Mrs. Harold Ilse, Ellinger; housewife. Fred T. Zapalac, La Grange; stock farmer. Morris F. Zapalac, La Grange; stock farmer. Mrs. Morris F. Zapalac, La Grange; housewife. Mrs. Fred T. Zapalac, La Grange; housewife. Rudacia N. Rolas, Route 2, Fayetteville, Catholic pastor. C. J. Fritsch, Route 2, Fayetteville; store owner. John Supak, Ellinger; clerk. Adolph Cepcar, La Grange; truckdriver. Mrs. Howard Fine, La Grange; housewife and secretary. D. A. Schwegman, La Grange; store manager. Rudolph Voss, La Grange; store manager. E. G. Albera, La Grange; store owner. Elroy Zimmerman, La Grange; hatchery manager. Bernard D. Vasert, Fayetteville; barber. Michael T. Smith, La Grange; farmer. Ross Dagerman, La Grange; store manager. Vastine H. Gebert, La Grange; clerk. W. E. Moerbe, La Grange; butcher. Paul Lidiak, La Grange. Henry Dalyad, La Grange; merchant. Mrs. Alfred E. Kaiser, La Grange; housewife. Helen Bambuch; day labor. Herman Eichler, Burton; farmer. R. C. Weishuhn, La Grange; farmer. Edward Schielad, La Grange; barber. Lee Roy Knippel, Box 117, La Grange. Herbert Steinman, La Grange; beer distributor. Werner Willrich, La Grange; clerk. W. G. Schroeder, West Point; farmer. P. J. Barnec, La Grange; merchant. D. Koopmann, 239 West Travis, La Grange; merchant. John Krenek, La Grange; cafe owner. James V. Zimmerland, La Grange; merchant. Albert Seifert, La Grange; clerk. F. A. Rupe, Route 3, Weimar; sales clerk. Alton Dippel, La Grange; cafe operator. Harvey Dippel, La Grange; clerk. E. J. Sallen, La Grange, merchant. E. L. Mertz, La Grange; merchant. Charlie Jungmichel, Box 8, La Grange; insurance agent. Ray Huelsebusch, La Grange; ginner. W. C. Moore, La Grange; jeweler. C. Fluders, La Grange; merchant. Howard White, La Grange; merchant. G. W. Werth, La Grange; plumber. Michael Lehmann, 997 North Franklin Street, La Grange; dealer. Mrs. Ed. J. Supak, Route 1, Fayetteville; farmer. August Thiel, Route 1, Box 72, Fayetteville; farmer. Edmund T. Thiel, Route 2, Box 10, La Grange; retired. Henry J. Storenahan, Schulenburg, tobacco warehouse. Alfred J. Zapalac, La Grange; farming and ranching. Mrs. Alfred J. Zapalac, La Grange; housewife. Mrs. Bertha Zapalac, La Grange; housewife. Fred E. Miestschin, La Grange; tire dealer. George Boehm, La Grange; tire repair man. Edwin G. Baumbach, La Grange: grocery store operator. John F. Kaspar, La Grange; tire salesman and repair. J. Stanley Webb. La Grange; retail market and locker plant. Mrs. J. Stanley Webb, La Grange; bookkeeper. Ben Zapalan, La Grange; meat cutter. Mrs. Ben Zapalac, La Grange; housewife. A. R. Elilers; cotton merchant. Wem. F. Hofmann; banking. Edmond Wessels, La Grange; banking. H. W. Roetsch, La Grange. Monroe H. Tolle, La Grange; miller. Doroty L. Schramm, Fayetteville; package store. Arthur Frank, Fayetteville; labor. E. A. Baca, Fayetteville; merchant. E. J. Baca, Fayetteville; clerk. Richard L. Wallace, Houston, Texas; junior accountant. Angela Wallace, Houston. Mavarina Wallace, Houston. Joanne Wallace, Houston; housewife. Mrs. Leonard Baca, Fayetteville; housewife. Carol Baca, Fayetteville; schoolgirl. Leonard Baca, Fayetteville; farming and ranching pecans. Mrs. Ore Nell Frerichs, Route 3, La Grange; housewife. Mrs. Virginia Ulrich, Route 3, La Grange; housewife. Leonard Stech, Weimar; farmer. Mrs. Leonard Stech, Weimar; housewife. STATEMENT OF A. J. EASTHAM, HOUSTON, TEX. I am A. J. Eastham, of Houston, Tex., and make this statement on behalf of the Fayette-Colorado Counties River Association, consisting of over 250 active members as well as many other organizations and individuals who oppose the Columbus Bend project. I have practiced law in the city of Houston since the year 1927 and am the senior partner of the firm of Eastham, Williams & Meyer. By reason of my representation of several clients who supply surface water, I have some knowledge of the increase of demand for surface industrial water in the gulf coast area during the past 18 years and should be qualified to throw some light upon the probability of a need of an additional industrial water supply proposed to be provided by the Columbus Bend project. I am now and have been for many years a member of the Water Laws ComImittee of the Texas Water Conservation Association. This committee has drafted and proposed several amendments to the water laws of Texas which were adopted in whole or in part by the Texas Legislature. I am now the attorney for, and a director of, American Canal Co. of Texas. I have handled all of the legal matters for this company and its predecessor American Canal Co. since the year 1942. This company has a permit under which it is authorized to divert approximately 100,000 acre-feet of water per annum from the Brazos River for municipal, industrial, and irrigation purposes. This company also has the right to divert 18.000 acre-feet of water per annum from Oyster Creek. Its canals extend into Harris, Fort Bend, Brazoria, and Galveston Counties, Tex. Since the year 1942 I have represented this company and its predecessor, American Canal Co., in every hearing that has been had before the Board of Water Engineers of Texas upon applications for major appropriations of water from the Brazos River, and for the building of large reservoirs on the Brazos River. I have represented Richmond Rice in all legal matters during the past 10 years. This association has the right to divert 40,000 acrefeet per annum from the Brazos River, of which 12,000 acre-feet can be used for industrial purposes in Fort Bend County, Tex. It has been a party to many hearings before the board of water engineers during which I represented it. During the past 15 years, I have represented Richmond Irrigation Co., which has the right to divert 33,000 acre-feet of water, in every hearing that has been held before said board on an application involving a major appropriation of water from the Trinity River. I have represented Roy Seaberg, who has a permit to appropriate water from the San Jacinto River in nearly every hearing before the board of water engineers that has been had upon any major project or the building of any major reservoir on said river. I have represented the Southern Canal Co. which has a certified filing under which it is authorized to divert approximately 45,000 acre-feet, partly for industrial and partly for irrigation uses, and have represented in several matters Devers Canal Co. which has the right to divert 86,000 acre-feet of water per annum from the Trinity River, partly for industrial and partly for irrigation uses. All of my clients except Roy Seaberg have been actively seeking customers to use large quantities of industrial water in the gulf coast area for more than 10 years in the past and they have had very little success. Richmond Rice Association supplies cooling water to Houston Lighting & Power Co. and Southern Canal Co. supplies a substantial quantity of water for the purpose of leaching out salt in domes to make storage caverns for liquefied gas. My clients have now, and for the past 10 years have had, large quantities of industrial surface water that could be furnished to sites that have better shipping and other facilities available to industries than the three-county area served by the lower Colorado can offer. By reason of their difficulty in obtaining customers who use large quantities of industrial water, I am convinced that the need of industrial water predicted by the Bureau of Reclamation on the Columbus Bend project, if it ever arises, is far in the dim, distant future. The proponents of this project seek to convince you of the need of a great part of this supply in the near future, and all of it within the next 20 years, by asking you to assume that: 1. The 3-county area to be served by this project will enjoy the same rate of industrial expansion as the 20-county area that includes the counties extending from the Houston area to the Corpus Christi area will enjoy, and the industries that move into this 3-county area ultimately will be users of 290,000 acre-feet of surface industrial water per annum. 2. The present supply of 100,000 acre-feet per annum of industrial water now available to this area from the Colorado River during the most critical times will be used before the project is completed. In support of their contentions, at pages 75 and 76 of the report of the Bureau of Reclamation which was made in March 1960, it is stated: "Evidence of the magnitude of new industrial water requirements is provided by available estimates of water needs for installations currently under consideration by two major chemical manufacturers for location in the area. One of these concerns has taken an option on a 1,000-acre tract adjacent to the barge channel near Bay City and expects that the plant it plans to build thereon will have ultimate water requirements of about 140,000 acre-feet per year, including cooling water that could be reused for irrigation or by another industrial plant. A second company now considering development of a plant in the area would have an initial consumptive water requirement of 80,000 acre-feet per year. Thus, the combined annual water requirements of the two interested companies for which estimates are currently available would exceed the additional water supply of 190,000 acre-feet annually that would be provided by the Columbus Bend project. "The LCRA estimates that a major portion of the Columbus Bend project water supply will be needed to supply new municipal and industrial water requirements within the next 10 years, and that all of that supply will be needed for municipal and industrial use by 1980." Based upon the rate of the growth of demand for industrial water in the Houston area and the character of sites selected by users of large volumes of industrial water in the past, it appears to be obvious that said estimates and assumptions are grossly exaggerated, unrealistic, and improbable. Testimony at the hearing before your subcommittee in La Grange, Tex.. reflected that one of these plants referred to in this report of the Bureau of Reclamation had contracted with the Lower Colorado River Authority for 5 million gallons per day, with delivery to begin upon completion of the plant. I believe the other plant referred to in said report is now building a plant on Chocolate Bayou in Brazoria County, Tex., near Alvin, Tex. It plans to have a channel dredged up Chocolate Bayou connecting with the Houston Ship Channel. The manager of Briscoe Irrigation Co. which will supply all industrial surface water to this plant stated to me a few days ago that this plant would start with a use of 10 million gallons a day and had a right to later take as much as 25 million gallons a day. This would be a minimum of approximately 10,000 acre-feet per annum. It probably will be several years before the maximum is required, if ever. The 5,000 acre-feet per annum to be delivered by the LCRA is out of its present surplus of industrial water. At page 7 of the report of Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc. (opponent's exhibit A) which I believe reliable, it is shown that 100 million gallons a day of surplus surface industrial water were available from the Colorado River in this three-county area when this report was prepared in June 1961. Deducting the 5 million per day sold by the LCRA leaves presently available 95 million gallons per day of surplus surface water for which no customers are presently in prospect. In addition to a large ground water supply available to this three-county area from the Lower Colorado Basin (see table 6, p. 5, opponent's exhibit A) there are great quantities of water heretofore used for rice irrigation that are no longer needed for such purposes (p. 16, opponent's exhibit A). This surplus irrigation water could be used for industrial purposes with the permission of the Board of Water Engineers. Said report of Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc., reflects that there are now available from the Colorado River for irrigation 265 million gallons per day (table 7, p. 7, opponent's exhibit A). This report reflects that there are 2,060,000 acre-feet of conservation storage on the Colorado River. The major consumptive use of this water is by the city of Austin and a few other towns. A large percentage of the water used by towns is returned to the river as sewage. Most of this huge acreage of stored water is used for hydroelectric peaking power, a nonconsumptive use. In normal times much more water would be available for industrial use than the 100 million gallons a day. This quantity would be available in the most critical periods of droughts of several years duration comparable to those in the past. The flow of the Colorado is the best regulated and controlled of any river in Texas. It is highly improbable that the present available supply of industrial water from the Colorado River will be used in the next twenty years. The demand for industrial water in this three-county area couldn't possibly increase as fast as it will increase in the Houston area. Page 12 of the report of Freese & Nichols, well-known water engineers (opponent's exhibit 8), reflects that in the Houston-Pasadena-Baytown-La Porte industrial area, the demand for industrial water by new industrials will increase from 1960 to 1965 only 25 million gallons a day, from 1960 to 1970, only 50 million gallons a day and from 1960 to 1975, only 75 million gallons a day. This is the fastest-growing industrial area along the gulf coast. In it are many sites for deep-sea shipping facilities and many large consumers of industrial water are now located therein. The history of the increase of demand for industrial water in this area in the past corroborates the probable accuracy of the forecast of Freese & Nichols. If the three-county area served by the Colorado should obtain users of as much surface water as the Houston-Pasadena-Baytown-La Porte area will probably have by 1975, there will still be a surplus supply from the Colorado, without the project, of 25 million gallons a day. At the same rate of growth of demand it would be at least the year 1980 before the project would be needed in part, and it wouldn't be needed in whole before the year 2050. The three-county area in question has no comparable industrial sites to those afforded in the Houston area for users of large volumes of industrial water. One of the major factors is the lack in this three-county area of deep sea shipping facilities where tankers and other vessels can load and unload. The largest consumers of surface industrial water in the Nation have located where deep-sea transportation is available. A barge canal does not provide this now, and never will. The tankers are being built larger and with deeper draft today than ever before. Ninety-five million gallons per day of surface industrial water are enough to supply a large number of new plants. The largest users of surface industrial water are oil refineries, paper pulp plants, chemical and metal extraction plants. The demand for industrial water in the Houston area has not increased appreciably in the past 10 years. The Humble Oil & Refining Co. has one of the largest refineries and chemical plants in the world at Baytown, Tex. For several years it has been using some part of 25 million gallons a day under a contract with the San Jacinto River Authority (p. 9 of opponent's exhibit 8). I have been advised that it has installed methods and machinery which have decreased its consumption of water since this contract was made. This authority has another 25 million gallons per day of surplus industrial water it has been trying to sell for the past 15 years (p. 9, opponent's exhibit 8). |