OMNIBUS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORIZATIONS 1970 THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1970 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL-RIVERS AND HARBORS, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Stephen M. Young (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Young and Cooper. Staff members present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director, Joseph F. van Vladricken, professional staff member, Harold A. Symes and Margie Powell, staff members. Senator YOUNG. The subcommittee will come to order. We are going to continue the hearings on the 1970 river and harbor and flood control omnibus bill. I might say at the conclusion of this hearing we will recess until May 12 at which time we will hear local Interests on the projects which are being presented to us today and on those which we heard yesterday. Following that hearing on May 13, we will receive testimony from the Corps of Engineers on any additional projects that have been transmitted to Congress by the Chief of Engineers. We intend to hold additional hearings in June on dates which I will announce later. At the conclusion of these hearings I would expect that we will be able to report a bill to the Senate sometime in late June or July. This morning the assistant director of Civil Works for Atlantic Divisions, on a we are going to hear from Col. Leonard Edelstein, number of projects proposed for construction by the Corps of Engi neers along the Atlantic coast. Following the Colonel's testimony we are going to hear from our colleague, Representative Berry of South Dakota and a number of witnesses from that State on the drawdown problem associated with the Fort Randall Reservoir. I will probably of Representatives for four terms some years back, I am partial to the House of Representatives, and so undoubtedly I shall reverse that reverse that, because having served in the House order, and first shall hear from Representative Berry from South Dakota and witnesses on that State on the drawdown problem associated with the Fort Randall Reservoir. Is Congressman Berry here? Glad to see you, Congressman. Bring your staff or anyone asso ciated with you. STATEMENT OF HON. E. Y. BERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, ACCOMPANIED BY KEITH WILCOX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES OF SOUTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATION, AND DONALD HAGGAR, VICE PRESIDENT Representative BERRY. I have two gentlemen with me, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be before your subcommittee, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce the gentlemen who accompany me. First, Mr. Keith Wilcox, who is executive director of the Great Lakes of South Dakota Association, and Mr. Donald Hagger, vice president of the association, and practicing attorney in the city of Pierre, our State capitol. They will testify, also. Senator YOUNG. We welcome you all gentlemen. Representative BERRY. Mr. Chairman, we have brought with us a report with pictures concerning the effects of the drawdown at Fort Randall Reservoir. We hope you will accept it as part of the record. Senator YOUNG. Without obiection, it is so ordered. We will include the report at the end of your formal statement. You may proceed. Representative BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee regarding the prob lems which have resulted from the annual fluctuation of the water level in the Fort Randall Reservoir. The Fort Randall Reservoir, which is now known as Lake Francis Case, is one of the five main-stem reservoirs on the Missouri River authorized and constructed under the provisions of the 1944 Flood Control Act. All five of these dams are now serving the four primary functions originally outlined under the provisions of this act. Two of the functions, irrigation and generation of power are obligated to return monetary payments to the U.S. Treasury while the benefits derived from flood control and navigation are charged off as nonreimbursable costs of the project. Recreation is one of the more important benefits derived from this project, but one to which no costs were allowed. At the time the 1944 Flood Control Act was passed, recreation was not considered as a prime benefit, and consequently, none of the nonreimbursable charges were written off for this item. But since that time, recreation has become one of the principal purposes for reservoirs across the country and a sizable chargeoff of approximately 15 to 20 percent is made against the cost of these projects. If this chargeoff were allowed on the Missouri River reservoirs, particularly Fort Randall, thereby obligating the Corps of Engineers to maintain a stable pool level, the normal revenues from increased recreational opportunities would many times compensate for the $325,000 which the Corps estimates would be lost in power revenues under a stable pool elevation at the 1,350-foot level. A stable pool elevation, Mr. Chairman, is the crux of the problem. During the years since completion of the Missouri River mainstream project, the Fort Randall Reservoir has been called upon to contribute a larger share in water regulation than should be required. The operating plan of the Corps has required the drawdown of the lake in the fall in order to provide storage capacity for high-power discharges from the upstream projects. This drawdown period extends from the first of September to midJanuary, and during this period giant mudflats, which in some cases extend for half a mile from the summer water-level shorelines, have had a drastic economic effect on communities along the reservoir that benefit from fishermen. During this drawdown period these mudflats make it virtually impossible to launch a boat. I submit to the committee pictures which give an idea of the problem which I ask be made a part of the file. I should also point out there have also been sizable losses of livestock over the years when cattle have become bogged down in the mud and mire and could not get out. This drawdown is also a severe handicap to countless farmers and ranchers along the reservoir who irrigate their lands. I have questioned the Corps operational policy on many occasions in light of the fact they have stated this policy is subject to change. In order to provide for a stable pool level, the Corps has estimated there would be a loss of power revenues amounting to $160,000 at a 1,340 foot elevation and $325,000 at 1,350. As I stated earlier, I am confident a 1,350-foot elevation would return to the Federal treasury the $325,000 lost from power revenues, several times over from additional tax revenues that would be derived from bait shops, restaurants, motels, grocery stores and dozens of other business enterprises that would prosper from a stable pool level and guaranteed year around recreation. The Corps acknowledges that recreational use at reservoir projects in the Missouri River Basin continues to increase, with more than 16 million visitors in 1969 as compared with 14,800,000 in 1968. These future recreation possibilities are immense and should be developed to meet the ever-increasing needs of our society. In order to do this effectively, I strongly urge the Corps of Engineers to change their operational policy in order to allow a minimum of fluctuation in all reservoirs, rather than zeroing in on Fort Randall to provide the necessary water discharges for downstream navigation. It is my judgment the Corps should do this without the urging of Congress, but it should be done by whatever means are necessary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The report presented by Representative Berry follows:) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, Corps of ENGINEERS, Omaha, Nebr., December 24, 1968. MR. KEITH WILCOX, Great Lakes of South Dakota Association, Post Office Box 786, Pierre, S.D. DEAR MR. WILCOX: In accordance with your letter request of November 26, 1968, we have analyzed operation of the Missouri River main stem system with Fort Randall drawdown limited to elevation 1,340 instead of the customary 1.320. A copy of this study was furnished to the Bureau of Reclamation: they estimate the loss of power revenue associated with the limited drawdown to elevation 1,340 at $160,000 annually. This compares with an estimated loss of $325,000 annually with no drawdown. To maintain strict comparability of results of the studies, the 1969 median year analysis prepared in connection with the Annual Operating Plan has been 45-781 0-705 used as the reference study. Studies of no-drawdown and ten-foot-drawdown are based on identical hydrologic conditions and comparable system storage conditions. The results will closely approximate long term average effects. I trust the above information meets your requirements. If additional information is requested, please advise. Sincerely yours, O. H. ROBINSON, FORT RANDALL DRAWDOWN-ITS EFFECT ON SOUTH DAKOTA This report is prepared for the purpose of establishing the effects of the present operational plan of Fort Randall Reservoir on the economy of South Dakota. Fort Randall Reservoir presently experiences an annual drawdown to 1320 m.s.l. every fall. Specifically, this withdrawal period occurs through the months of September, October, November and part of December. The Army Corps of Engineers, with the approval of the Missouri Basin Interagency Committee, have adopted the present operational plan as a sound revenue measure. It is their contention; that under present operational plans, a maximum return from power is received as well as providing a sufficient supply of water releases for navigational purposes. The Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation report that if Fort Randall Reservoir were to remain stable (1352 elevation), the revenue loss from power production would amount to $325,000 annually. An alternate plan proposed by the Great Lakes of South Dakota Association; wherein Randall Reservoir would reach a minimum of 1340-45 elevation would, according to Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation figures, result in an annual loss of revenue of $160,000 to the Federal Government computed at the 1340 minimum elevation. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT We must first consider the effects of the present reservoir operation, if any, to agricultural development in the counties of Charles Mix, Gregory, Brule and Lyman. Irrigation by private individuals along Fort Randall is effected directly by the fluctuating pool. The following chart establishes: 1. The number of acres that could be irrigated; 2. The net income from dry land practices; 3. Net income of irrigated land. From this chart we find that 463,000 acres could be irrigated in the five county area. It also establishes a net gain of annual income of $21,867,490. We must determine the main reasons for not developing this agricultural potential. The human factor, reluctance on the part of certain individuals to change practices, must enter into the final conclusion. We do find that an economic reason is a very important factor in the consideration of farmers for not converting to irrigation. In the results of a survey of Work Unit Conservationists in these counties, we find this statement : "As the reservoir level fluctuates it becomes next to impossible to install pumping stations." Another "Work Unit Conservationist" estimates an additional cost per pumping unit to be $3,000 to compensate for a fluctuating pool. R |