PAGENO="0001"
(~::~O (~f3~1'i
RIVERTON EXTENSt~YN UNIT'~i
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER AND POWER RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES~ SENATE
NINETIETH CONGRESS
FIRST SES~ION
ON
S.670
A BILL TO REAUTHORIZE THE RIVERTON EXTENSION
UNIT, MISSOURI RIVEE EASI~PROJ~JOT, TO INOLUDE
THEREIN THE ~NPIRE Rflt~RTON FEDEcaAL REOLAMA-
TION PRO~EOT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
NOVEMBEW 30, 1967
Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON 1968
GOVERNMENT DEPOSITORy
PROPERTY OF~P~RS, THE STATE U1~IVEflSJTy
COLLEG'~~thJTH JERSEY LtBRARY
CAM'bEN, N. J. O8102
DOG.
U S86
I') ~/I!:~
9%~ISi
PAGENO="0002"
I
[JAR AFFAIRS
PAGENO="0003"
6
3
127
138
43
26
8
131
15
29
CON TEL
S.670
Departmental reports:
Budget
Interior
STATEMENTS
Barnes, Oscar K., special project leader, Agricultural Extension Service,
University of Wyoming
Davison, Gideon W., additional remarks
Dominy, Floyd E., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, accompanied
by Kermit K. Kober and Maurice N. Langley, Department of the
Interior
Harrison, Hon. William, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State
ofWyoming
Hathaway, Hon. Stanley, Governor, State of Wyoming
Long, Reno M., Riverton, Wyo
McGee, Hon. Gale, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyomi~g~~
Peck, Roy, executive director, Wyoming Natural Resources Board
White, Donald, attorney, Board of Commissioners, Midvale Irrigation.
District, accompanied by Fred Anglen, Carl Welty, Edward L. Bogacs,
Roy Reid, and Gideon W. ~ 68,70
COMMUNICATIONS
~tter to Hon. Clifford P. Hansen, U.S.
rdP.
142
irman, Water
PAGENO="0004"
I
i.
PAGENO="0005"
RIVERTON.'Ex!VENs~oN : u~n~ ~
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1967
U.S. SBNATE,
STYBCOMMrII~EE oic WATER AND Po~i~ RES0UROES OF
THE Co~Mim~E ON INTERIOR AND INStMR AFFAIRS,
Wa8hiiigtoii, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a;rn., in:room 8110,
New Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson, chairman
o:t~ the subcommittee, presiding.
Present : Senators Anderson, Moss, Jordan of ~ Idaho, Hansen,
Fannin, and Hatfield.
Senator ANDERSON. The hearing will come to order.
The hearing this morning is for the purpose of receiving testimony
on S. 670, a bill introduced by Senator McGee and cosponsored by
Senator Hansen to reauthorize the Riverton e~tensiOn unit, Missouri
River Basin project, to include therein the entire Eiverton Federal
reclamation project, and for other purposes.
The Riverton project has been before this committee several times.
Hearings have been held in Wyoming and in Washington, D.C. These
were for the purpose of permitti~ the Secretary of the Interior to
continue to deliver water to lands in the third division during 1960,
1961, 1962, and 1963. These attempts to irrigate the third division were
unsuccessful and culminated in relief legislation in 196'l under which
the Federal Government subsequently purchased the lands of the
third division.
These lands ~were reclaimed to afford relief from the serious financial
and production problems the landowners experienced in the third divi-
sion~ S. 6~7Q is an attempt to rectify these problems by providing the
means for the Se~retary to dispose of the lands so as to allow progress
in the economiO development of these lands.
I hope that the testimony presented here will resolve the important
issues and satisfy all concerned.
Before proceeding with the witnesses, a copy of the Ji11 and the
reports from the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of the
Budget will be placed in the record at this point.
(The data referred to follow:)
[S. 670, 90th Cong., 5r~t sess.]
A BILL To reauthorize the Riverton extension unIt,. hLlssourl River Basin project, to
include therein the entire RI'verton Federal reelareation project, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate an~Z Hou8e of Repre8ewtatives of the United State.9
of America in Congress assembled, That the general plan for the Riverton exten-
sion unit, Missouri River Basin project, heretofore authorized under section 9
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
ude relief to
reclamati
e designati
y of drains
ses and the
tory
!the
~ers who
That the
- - ~, 1964,
~upplernent the
PAGENO="0007"
3
U.S. DI~PA1VrMENP OF TIlE INTE~UOR,
O~'tCE OF TEE SEdR~A~t3~
~ Wci~sMngtoi~, D.O., November ~7, ~
Hon~ HE~NEY M. JAO~sO~,. . ~ ~ ,
Okairman, Committee O~i It~er~or a~uZ, Insular Affctirs, ~
U.S. $enate,
Washingto~i, D.C.
DL~u~ SI~NATOR JACKSON : This res~ond~ to your request for the views of this
Department on S. 670, a ~i11 `To reauthorize the Riverton extension unit, MissOuri
Ri\~er Basin project, to include therein the entire Riv~erton Federal reclamation
project, and for other purposes." ~ ~
We recommend that this bill be enacted, if amended as suggested herein,
~ The Riverton project was first authorized as an Jnditui project by the Act of
March 2, 1917 (39 Stat. 969) . It was placed under the jurisdiction of the Bureau
~ of Reclamation by the Act of June 5, 1920 (41 Stat. 874, 915) ; the first and
second divisions of the project, encompassing some 45,000 acres of irriga~le land,
were brought in during the next 20 years. The general plan of develoisnent of the
third division of the project was reauthorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944
(58 Stat. 887) , under the designation "Riverton extension unit of the Missouri
River Basin Project." Because of the difference in time between the construction
of the third division and the first two divisions of the project, the third division
has been more or ies~ consistently treated as a separate entity by Congress. S. 670
would reauthorize the entire unit and establish the consolidated unit as a part of
the Missouri River Basin project.
The third division presently contains 11,831 irrigable acres of which 8,913 acres
are presently capable of sustained production under irrigation and 2,918 acres
will require construction of drains or other betterment works to be capable of
sustained production under irrigation. All but a small portion of this acreage is
~ owned by the United States, which acquired the lands under the pro-
blic Law 88-278 (78 Stat. 156). These lands were acquired because
a1 and production problems which bad been encountered by
i~ unit. One purpos~ of 5. 670 is to permit the Secretary to
in such a way as to permit their use and development luau
S a 50-year repayment period for the ameauatory
PAGENO="0008"
4
Subsection 2(c) authorizes retentiQ~i of the rates of charge to existing land
classes ~ the acreage as~e~ab1é in each land class during contructing and
te~ng Qf ti~% water cons~r~ttion, works. Thereafter the rates of charge and
a~es~tble ~ acreage would be determined in accordaru~e with the amortization
capacity and classification of quit la~ç~sas determined by tl~e Secretary.
Subsection 2(d) provides `for credit to the District for amounts paid on the
repayment obligatiens under~ prevtlous contracts and a commensurate reduction
In the repayment period of individual tracts to reflect credit for amounts
formerly paid by the District and attributable to such tracts.
Subsection 2(e) provides that for the first 10 years of the repayment period
the annual obligation of the District would be reduced by the amounts the Dis-
trict has credited to water users who have provided drainage tile at their own
expense, to a total . of fl~t to exceed $50,000. The project has run into serious
problems of waterlogging and salinizatlon. The District has undertaken the task
of repairing or replacing deteriorated project works, lining canals and laterals,
and installing an effective drainage system under a rehabilitation and better-
ment program. A sum of $4,464,925 has been obligated under that program by
the District by June 1966 and lQcal farmers themselves have spent almost $50,000
for drain tile. In future drainage programs landowners will not be required to
furnish tile at their own expense and it seems equitable to give credit to those
who have already contributed for such purposes. Pursuant to this subsection the
irrigation district will credit individual water charges over a 10-year period
until the farmers' contributions have been repaid and the United States will
in turn reduce the District's obligation by the amounts so credited.
Subsection 3 (a) provides nonreimbursable treatment for construction ~ and
rehabilitation and betterment costs of the unit assignable to land classified as
permanently unproductive. If these lands should be reclassified as productive,
the repayment obligation of the District would be correspondhigly increased. ~
Subsection ~(b) óommits application ~ of net revenues of the Riverton unit to
irrigation costs which are not assigned to be repaid by water users.
Stibsection 3 (c) provides that net revenues of the Missouri River Basin
project w~ould be applied to * reimbursable costs not assigned to be repaid by
irrigators or returned from net revenues of the unit.
Section 4 modifies the excess land provisions of the Federal reclamation laws
to permit delivery of Water to owners of 160 acres of Class 1 land or their
equivalent in other land classes,. as determined ~ by the Secretary. Public Law
88-278 permitted modification of the excess land provisions of lands in the
third division alone. This bill would extend that modification to the entire
unit and is jpsti~ed by the same conditions-all these lands are located at high
altitudes with a relatively short growing season and are limited In their adapta-
bility for crops.
Subsection 5(a) authorizes the Secretary to sell lands on the unit at public
or private sale in tracts of any size at not less than their appraised then fair
market value so lopg as ii~o one owr~er holds more than 160 acres of Cl~s~ 1
lançis or their equiv~Uent as classified under section 4.
: Subsection 5 (:b) gives a ~ priority to resident landowners on the unit who
have not sold their lands to the United States under Public Law 88-278. Those
persons eptitled to priority may purchase lan4s to supplement their existing
farms.
The following statement reflects the financial accounts of the Riverton unit
as they would be if S. 670 is enacted and the entire Riverton extension unit is
reauthorized as a unit of the Missouri River Basin project:
I. Project costs
Plant and equipment to June 30, 1966
Land costs
Miscellaneous costs to~June 30~ 1966
Estimate to complete ]~t,. & B. and minor fac1litie~
Estimate for additional construction for Midvale area___
Fish and Wildlife lands Snd facilities
II. Allocation of costs:
Irrigation 40, 975, 523
Power 528, 241
Fish and wildlife 1,565, 00&
Total 43,069, 664
$25, 295, 319
14,262, 98c~
734,465
108, 000
11, 103, 000
1,565, ?00
43, 069, 664
I
I
PAGENO="0009"
5
Iu~ ~roj~ct ~j~&yjne~it : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ A. 1?ower : ~ power revenues _ ~ ~ ~ 5* 241
~ E. ~r~,i~tjon ; ~ ~ . . ~ . ~
~ 1. i3y Irrigators : . ~
~ ~a1d through June 30, 1966_~ ~ $1, 192, 406
~` ~ `., ~ ~ &uticipited _ 2, 959 924;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~. Ity power revenues : ~
~ ~ ~ Rivertofl-N1Qt Butte _ 49~, 563
Missouri lUver Basin power_ 19, 875, 648
~ 3. Ooiitributions ~nd other rei~enue_
4. Ohar~eoffs to unproductive lands:
Authorized to. date _ 817, 757
Anticipated _ ~-~--- ~~E':~E1i' °~, 176
5. Nonrelmbursable costs:
Land costs ~ 4, 262, 980
Administration of Public
Law 83-258 116,501
~ liwestigatlon report re- ~
qnested by 88th Congress__ 25, 992
~ . . - 4,405,473
Total-Irrigation 40, 975, 523
0. Fl~h and wildlife:
1. By Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 782, 950
2. Nonreimbursable costs 782, 950
Tota1-~U~ish and wildlife 1~ 565, 900
Grand tM-~1 48, 06~ 664
1 Cost of acquiring Indian lands under Public Law 83-284 and 3d division lands under
Public Law 88-278.
2 Includes repayment from other sources, such as grazing lands
~ Writeoff of 3d division land costs is limited to lands found permanently nonprodue-
tive. Costs assl~nable to the 8,913 acres still irrigable would be transferred to the reim-
bursable Irrigation allocation for the unit.
4 These costs will be reduced by the amount of returns from sales of acquired lands.
The 1~orego1ng tabulation establishes that $1G~875,648 would be requIre~t for
financial assistance from net power revenues of the Missouri River Basin project.
The sufficiency of such revenues to meet the reimbursement and financial assiSt-
ance obligation of the overall Missouri River Basin project was dealt with most
recently in our "Report on Financial Position, Missouri River Basin Project,
December 1963," Which was transmitted to the Congress on December 17, 1963.
That report illustrated that With an increase of $0.25 mills per kilowatt-hour
in the sale price of firm commercial power marketed in the Eastern division of
the project, and adoption of proposed interest rate criteria, adequate revenues
are in prospect to retire all reimbursable investments and meet all requirements
for financial assiStance, inclpding defrayal ~ of irrigation costs of the Riverton
extension unit which are beyond the capacity of the irrigators to repay. The
required rate increase has been promulgated by administratite action and the
proposed interest rate c~lteria have been authorized by the Congress through
enactment of section 4 (b) of the Act of August 5, 1965 (79 Stat. 438) . Such
financial assistance would be accomplished on or before the 50th year following
Lonfirmatlon of the above-discussed amendatory repayment contract.
We recommend that:
(1) Section 1 of the~ bill, page 1, line 7, be amended by inserting the
words "fis1~ and Wil~life conservation and development, and recreation,"
following the words "water conservation,".
(2) Subsection 2(b) , page 2, line 13, be amended by changing "conhirmed"
to "executed". This amendment conforms the bill to existing procedures of
this Department.
(3) SubsectIon 2(e) , page 3, lIne 10, be amende4 by changing "title" to
"tile".
~(4) A new set~tion be added and nuitthei~ed section 6, tc~ read as follows:
"Sue. 6. The provision of lands, facllitie~, and project modifications which
furnish outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement benefits in
connection with the Riverton extension unit shall be in accordance with the
Federal Water Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213)."
4,152,330
20,373,211
157, 576
11, 880,933
PAGENO="0010"
6
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman, Committee on Interior an
United States Senate,
Ii~ooin ~l1O6, New Senate Office Bnilding,
Washington, D.C.
Dn~&i~ Mn. Oix~xRMAx: This Is in reply to your request for the views of the
Bureau of the Budget on S. 670, a bill "To authorize the Riverton extension. Unit,
PAGENO="0011"
PHILLIP S. HUGHES,
Dei~uty Director.
Senator ANDEI~SON. We have as our first witness this morning, our
colleague, the Honorable Gale McGee from the State of Wyoming. We
shall be pleased to hear from you now, Senator.
Senator M0GED. I would like to defer to Governor Hathaway. He
has to catch a plane. He has to be in Wyoming tonight, and if we may
do that I will follow him, if that is all right with the committee.
Senator ANnERSON. Yes.
Senator HANSEN. If I may be permitted to do so, let me just take a
moment to introduce Gov. Stanley K. Hathaway, and say a word
about, his background. I think it will be of interest to you and Senator
Jordan.
~ Reclamation and farming is nqt a new experience to Governor Hath-
away. He was raised in southeastern Wyoming, having been born in
the State of Nebraska, but he quickly saw the light and ~he merits and
moved to Wyoming.
Senator ANtERSON. I have heard that.
Senator HANSEN. He followedthe advice of Horace Greeley. He was
raised in Goshen County, one of `the most important farming and
irrigating counties in the State. He was raised on a farms and since
his graduation from high school and service in the Air Force during
World War II, he has been, among other things, county prosecuting
attorney for Goshen County, and he has continued his close contacts
with people in the farming business.
He is well qualified, both by earlier training and experience and
by first-hand knowledge of the Riverton project, to speak on this
subject this morning. I would like to express my gratitude to him for
having made the effort he has to be here this morning.
Governor Hathaway.
Senator ANDERSON. We are very glad to have you here.
7
~iiirW~er .~as1n;~projee*~tQ~ jj~1~tLdè ther~1t~ the entire Rivert*zi ~`ederai
re~l~on projeet~and for Gtberp~rp~oses." ~
S. ~O; ffeact~, ~ouJd provic1~ fö~ the saié'te private interests ~f lands lathe
Third. ~iyisj~of~tlie ~verto~uj~roject and would permit such lands to be again
put under irrigated project development. The bill is similar to S. 1746, 89th Con-
gress, on which we furnished views to your committee by letter dated June 8,
1966. A copy of t~iat letter is enclosed for iour convenience.
The question of public i~olicy involved In the Riverton project proposals con-
tamed iu~S, ~7O are complex; On tj~e one hand, the lands of the Third Division
are currently being successfully frri~ted under leasing arrangements, and the
withdrawal ~ of these lands from prod~icti~u c~uld have adverse consequences
from a regional standpoint. On the other hand; the project proposals in S. 670
would not significantly increase overall project repayment by irrigation water
users, considered in relation to the Federal investment, and the fact remains that
an earlier attempt to Irrigate the Third Divisioa was unsuccessful, culminating
in relief legislation in 1~64~ under which the l~'edera1 Government subsequently
purchased the lands of the Third Division.
After weighing these factors, and for the reasons' expressed in greater detail in
our letter of June 8, 1966, the Bureau of the Budget continues to hold the view
that while another attempt to irrigate the `lands of the Third Division would be
risky, we would not object to the enactment of legislation providing assistance to
the farmers of the First and Second Divisions on the basis discussed in that letter.
Sincerely yours,
`I
I
I
I
I
PAGENO="0012"
8.
STAT~EMMIT O~F' HONG STAN1~EY EATRAWAY, GOVERRG~ OF THE
ST4TE O~ 1~TYQ~IR~, ~ $~ ~ BZE~TTX~VZ
DICTOR~iWYJOiV[INf NATURAL RESOURCES ROARD, OHETENNE,
Govori~o~ HATLL&W~ 1~L~ Oha!rp~tui a~ic1 members of th~ suboom-
mitte~, ~ I~fl~ay ~ I w~u1d* liketo call up here with me th~ ~zecutive
director of th~ Wyothing Natur~1 Re~orn~s Eoa~d, Mr Peck
Senator ~N~ERSON We will b~ gTad to have you do so
Govern9r ~ yo ., u~ ~ ~ ~ `
Mr. Chairna~iandi~members of the~ubcommittee,. .1 have traveled to
Washington with several o~f i~y fellow citizens of Wyoming to testify
in favor of the enact~n~nt of 8 ~tO, ~ bill to reauthorize the Riverton
extension unit, J~[issou~i River Basin project, to include the entire
Riverton reclamation prnject.
Wyoming is a.l~xig way from Washington, and we are appreciative
of the many efforts~d improve our ~gricultural economy wInch have
been made by the Congress. Just this last September, Members of Con-
gress and repreaentative~s of the Bureau of the Budget and the Depart-
ment c~f the Iflt4~rior visited the Riverton project and, I believe, came
away impi~sed; by the aMrm~tive changes they saw on the prQject
and the need for this legislation to keep the momentum of these
changes.
Agriculture is a fundamental part of the Wyoming economic base.
And the Riverton project, with nearly 60,000 acres under cultivation,
is an integral part of our Wyoming agricultural economy. By the
~ Riverton project I make reference to the Midvale Irrigation District,
which comprises the ~rst and second divisions of the Riverton proj.
ect, and the third division of the project. rfhere are another 30,000
acres of land under irrigation in the Riverton-Fremont County area,
making a total of about 100,000 acres of irrigated croplands in the
Wind River Basin.
We do not unde~restimate the magnitude of the problems associated
with the irrig~tion of these lands, a~nd we do not try to hide some of
the failures which have occurred in the nearly 70 years of agricultural
endeavor in the lands of the Wind River.
But in that span of time, we have learned much about making
these lands productive, and mo~o ii~portant than anything else we
have the land technicians, the farmers, who ~can make a profit from
these lands, given a fair breal~ in, the economic winds which buffet
agriculture in all parts of the~ Nation.
I mentioned affirmative changes earlier in this testimony that were
observed during the recent tour of the conunittee to the project. By
"affirmative changes," I mean especially people, people who have the
capability to earn a wholesome and productive living from these
lands, people like Mr. Bogacz, Mr. We~ty, Mr. Anglen, and Mr.
Davison who are testifying here today. These are capable, qualified
farmers ~ho have devoted their whole lives to these lands with
heartening reward, and who; along with many others, are willing to
dedicate the rest of their lives to these same lands.
This, then, is the fundamental difference that we see now as we
ask favorable action on S. 670.
PAGENO="0013"
Peop1e~ mak~ the real difference in farming. Whéti we ~lia1k about a
reauthorizat~oja o~ th~ Riverton ptoject, w~ are really ta&ing about
~tuthorizing the future of these agricultural people.
. S. 6W and its xm~anion bill in the House, H.R. 3~62, ~ will allow
for fw~damental and important changes in the method of administer-
ing and caring for the lands of the Midvalo Irrigation District and
the third Uivision of the Riverton project as we'll. Through these
changes, th~ future of the lands will be mucih improved, the economy
of the area will receive major benefits and the Federal Government
will be placed in a much mo~re profitable and tenable position relative
to these lands.
It is not my intention to go into thei technicalities of the project,
or examine S. 670 in detail. There are technical experts on hand today
~to speak to you in these areas.
But, if I may, I would like to make comment on several aspects of
~th~ bill and itsbenefits.
First,. I am s~ire you are well aware of the major contribution which
the State of Wyoming has made to the Federal Government from its
mineral royalties. The Federal Government holds the mineral rights
on 72 percent of iands within Wyoming's borders.
Nearly $600 million in mineral royalties has been paid into the
Federal Government from lands within the borders of Wyoming and
~ more than half that amount has gone to the Bureau of Reclamation.
Wyoming contributes 38 percent of all Federal revenues collected from
minerals by the United States. rfhat is a rather staggering figure, but
I am sure it can be substantiated. Down through the years, less money
has been loaned to us than we have paid into the reclamation fund.
And I would emphasize the word "loan," for the great majority of
these reclamation monies are tied to repayment contracts, such as the
one we propose for the Riverton project, and the present Midvale
contract.
We would like a greater return of these mineral royalty monies to
Wyoming, perhaps for many purposes including education, highways,
water development, and industrial development, but that is another
sub~ect. Under present law, 3T1/2 percent of these minerals' royalties
are returned to the State while ~2i/2 percent go to the reclamation
fund and for administration purposes.
We feel that the Riverton project should participate in the net
revenues of the Missouri River Basin project with these revenues ap-
plied to reimbursable costs not assigned for repayment by irrigators.
The Wind River is one of the mightest tributaries ~ of the Missouri
system, and the Riverton project has had to bear unreasonable repay-
ment costs because of its exclusion from the Missouri River Basin
project. S. 670 will include the entire Riverton Federal reclamation
project in the Missouri River Basin project system.
Midvale farmers have already made giant strides in the rehabilita-
tion of the first and second divisions. Th~ Midvale farmers have
obligated themselves for $4.5 million which has provided for the rec-
lamation and protection against waterlogging and salithzation of
over 20 percent of the project. In addition, these farmers b~ve spent
much of their own money for tiles and drains, desi~lting andy diversion.
But the burden of reclamation cannot be acce~erated fast enough with-
out the benefits of S. 670.
PAGENO="0014"
~`ie there was a recommendation that
Is that different now?
PAGENO="0015"
11
Gove~xior HATHAWAY. Sei~ator, there has been considerable 4iscus-
sion, of course, and a lot of it before. my time. I am not familiar with
the d~tai1s of the repurchase provisicn There ar~ productive lands
there A portion of the project is now owned by the Bureau of R~c1a
mation, and we feel that by. making larger units for the people that
are on the first and second divisions who have had no trouble-they
ha~v~ always paid their commitments to the United States, and it is
a healthy farm econo~ny-and by including all under one project that
th~ntire matter can be healthier.
Senator ANDERSON. Would there by any writeoff of the present
indebtedness?
Governor HATHAWAY. No ; they expect to fully pay the balance of
the construction charges on the first and second divisions.
Senator ANJThESON. Is the Shoshone projeot included in that ; that
is, the part of the reservation lands ? ~ ~ . ~ ~ ..
Governor HATHAWAY. I am not familiar. with that. Perhaps, some
of the other witalesses will he~
Senator ANDERSON. Do you know of any opposition to this?
Governor HATnAWAY. I know of no opposition to it.
Senator ANDERSON. Are there grazing lands within the area?
Governor HAPHAWAY. Mr. Peck could answer that.
Mr. PECK. I will answer that. There are grazing lands adjacent to
this, in the third division, which have never been brought into irriga-
tion. That is part of the overall picture. These were purchased from
the Shoshone-Arapaho Tribes, and they would like to recover them if
they could. This was a purchase from the tribe at the time that the
was with `rawn from the reservation, which you
hat whole area. It was a withdrnwal
have already
t in t'
v what I was going
ie and Arapaho
.e, that it be in-
PAGENO="0016"
12
is to return to the former owners land not needed for recia~nation pur~po~es.
The 68,000 acres is tiot so needed or nsed~ The Burea~u h~ reftsed toMur~i~ the
land to the tribes withough the tidbes now own the miuerais .an~Ij st~aud ready
to pay ~or the surface. We urge that t1~e project not be reaulho~ized ~in1~s
provl~ioi~ Ia ma~ie to ins~e that the ~e~r~tai~y resolves this con1~ie1~ oi~ li~te~est
by eIther returning land to Indian use or reselling it to the tribes.
S~o~ii~i~ ~A1~D A1~AP~1TOt1~EZBES,
WALLACE S~. CLAI~,
Chairman, ~h&~hone Buslne$s Council, Fort Waslvalcie, Wyo.
~, Ai~wou~ HE4DLEY,
Chairmai~, Arapahoe Buslnes~ Uo1uncil, Fort Washo~kie, Wyo.
Senator HANSEN. I think the wire furtJ~e~ indicates that we might
ask the representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation about this. I
think they can go into tha,t.
I would like to file this for the record.
Senator ANDZB50N, It will be rnadc:~ part ~f the record.
(The mail confirmation of the telegram incorporated herein im-
mediately pi~ecedingfollo~s:)
SuosHQuE A~3~ 4J~Ai~MoE TR~q~S,
Fort Wa~fl~ak~ W~yo., November 27,1967.
Hon. CUFFORP P. HANSEN,
U.S. ~nate~ Washington, D.C.:
The Shoshone and Arapaboe Tribes oppose S. 670 to reauthorize the `Riverton
E~tenaion Unit unless provision is ma4e to reqt~ire the Bureau of Reclam~t1on to
honor i~s long establishecipolicy and return or sell back't~q the Tribes 6~3,QOO acres
of former tribal grazing land not needed for reclarnatioli purposes.
` The Tribes sold 161,520 acres of tribal land tç ~tbe tljiited States for reelan3a-
tio~ ~urposes under the Act of August 15, 1953, 67 ST!~P 592, for $6.2~ per acre.
Some 63,000 acres of this land never has been useil for reclamation purposes.
The 63,000 acres are on the reservation and are coi~tiguous to 2 n~il1jo~ acres of
tribal land now administered `by the Bureau q~Jndian Affairs~ The. n~iner~ls are
in the Tribes. ~ `
Up to last year the 63,4X~O acres was in exc~sWe~ 1~dian use under peth~its
for substantial fees~ paid to the Bureau of Réciamation. Last sear the l3ureau of
Reclamation barred Indian use and turned tlie land over to the Micivale Tri~iga-
tion District for a nominal fee if any. The Bureau policy is to return to the
former owners land not needed for reclamation purposes. The 63,000 acres ~s not
so needed or used. The Bureau has refusei ti return the land to' The Tribes
although the `Tribes now own the minerals and stand rcad~. to ~ay for the surface.
We urge that the pro~ject not be reauthorized unless i~rov1sioft is~ ~ng~e to insure
that the Secretary resoives this conflict of interest by either r~ti~rning the land
to Indian use or reselling it to the Tribes.
W41~LA~n Sr. CLAr~,'
Chairman, ~J~oshone B~M~*e~ss Oou4icil.
ARNOLD HEADLEY,
Chairman, Arapalvoe J3~sMeus Couneil.
Senator ANDERSON. I wanted to be sui~e that th~ chief E~~ütive of
the State recognized the protest.
Are you worried about the financial security concerned ? ~
Governor HATHAWAY. Based on the information I have, I would
not be concerned about it. I have not receh~ed tht~t prote~t m~~.self rela-
tive to the legislation. There may be one in my offi~e. ` `
Senator ANDERSON. Senator Jordan?
` Senator JORDAN. Governor, the lands under the third division have
been irrigated before. This is not a new project. Is this true?
Governor HATHAWAY. That is correct. `.
` Sei~ator JORDAN. And I know that we have. had~this before us a
~number of times. I need to refresh my memoryon it:Wh~t did we do
in 1954? Do you recall?
PAGENO="0017"
13
Governor HA~U4WAY,~ W~11, :i am not sure of the exact dates, but
the Bureau of Reclamation purchased the lands on the third division.
Senator JORDAN. And that is the status that it is in now
. Governor HATHAWAY. It is owned by the Eure~u at ~ the present
time ; yes, sir. ~
Senator JORDAN. What you are seeking to do here isto have it resold
to the farmers who would go on the third division and go fo~ward with
the sale as wasintended to be 4one in the first place ?
Governor HATHAWAY. Seeking authorization for sales . with the
preference rights to those farmers on the first~nd second divisions to
purchase land on the third division ; yes.
Senator JORDAN. What reason do we have to believe that these
farmers, given the opportunity now to go on the third division, have
a better chance to succeed than, those who preceded them?
Governor 1L~LTIJAWAY. I think, because of the demonstration of their
success presently as farmers on the first and second divisions, they are
good farmers. A number of the~i have leased land~ from the Bureau
of Reclamation on the third division. The productivity of these lands
has increased greatly under.their stewardship.
Senator JORDAN. I notice in the bill that you are still sticking to the
160-acre limitation. Can a farmer make a living on 160 acres in the
Riverton Third Division ? ~
Governor HATHAWAY. Well, I doubt that a farmer ~an make a.
living on 160 acres in many places in this day and age. I think that
this limitation is unrealistic under present farming methods. The
larger unit is needea in almost an area of my section of the country..
Senator JORDAi~. If that limit~tion is goii~g ~ to prevail in this
legislation, as I understand it will, how about that?
Governor HATHAWAY. As I understand it, ~ they seek to cli~ssify the
lands and to allow more acres of lower class lands and still fit within
that limitation.
Senator JORDAN. But that limitation for~iarger acreage is for lands
of lower productivity ? , ~ ~
Governor H~Tz~w4r. Yes, I think. this is ~`realistic approach.
Senator JORDAN Thank you That is all, Mr Chairman
Senator ANDEIISON. Senator ~joss ?
Senato~ Moss. I am not sure I have any questions of the Governor. I
appreciate his testimony.
Like other members of the co~timittee, I ~an recall dealing with this
Riverton matter. Your faith in the ability of the fa.rmers in the first
and second divisions to be able to make a living, and a proper one, in
the third division is heartening, The investment having been made, it
is to `be hoped that we can make thei project go and not just let it
wither and die. So, I will go into a more technical discussion of it
when the other witnesses come up.
Thank you, GoVernor.
Governor HATHAWAY. Thank you.
Senator ANDERSON. Do you have any comment on the law that was
passed in 1964 which would, probably, be of help?
Governor HATHAWAY. I do not have any comments, sir, because that
was before I was active in my own State gover'mue~t.
Senator ANDERSON. As I understand M~ tb~ bill was to negotiate with
the owners of the land to buy back that land. Did they buy it back?
91-586-68---2
PAGENO="0018"
r river systems just as m
rt.
PAGENO="0019"
of t
mres that relate .~e ben_
Jf
concerned, they will present soii~
ratio.
Let me say, in conclusion, that I appreciate very much Our Governor
appearing here today and making a. very worthwhile contribution to-
ward a better understanding on the part of this committee and. ~.the
Government to a rather complicated problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator ANDERSON. Senator Fannin?
Senator FANNIN. I did not have the opportunity to hear the Gov-
ernor make his statement, butT will read it.
Thank
Senato]
me that we
~ct in ~
er proj&
,moui~ ~ water to the ~.issoui ~
bate 38 percent to the reclama-
system and
am in other, way
ANDERSON. You mean that 37.5 percent goes back to the
comes from minerals which is
pre
of the comm Iee to
ss my constituents with what~
15
you very
, but I --_-~--
t order that I be
PAGENO="0020"
STATEMENT O~' HON GALE MCGEE ~ ~tJ S $E~&T~R FRO1~I WYO~4I~G
~Mr. Ch~t4rman a~id Members of the Committee, wer1~a~e before iii~ a bill wi x
at first glance may seem a rather minor matter when one considers the ~. ~
range of~proi1en~s with which the Ser~ate Interior Oommittee:is concerned. 1~t
the testimony and ~the rather astounding performance of the Riverton Project
farmers shonld disabuseany notion that S. ~VTO Is a minor matter.
S. 6~O seeks tO reauthOrize the Riverton exten~1on unit of the Misso~irl River
Basin Project to include therein the entire Rive~rton F~cIeraI Reclamation Proj-
ect and for other purposes.
You have already heard Governor Hathaway's impressive testimony, and!
before we finish you will have heard from my colleagues Senator Hansen and
Congressman harrison, as well as membet's o~ the Board of Commissioners of
the Midvale Irrigation District, their~ttorn~y, the District Manager, the Presi~
dent of the Cottonwood Bench Association, Oscar K. Barnes, of the AgriculturaL
Extension Service at The University of Wyoming, a~nd Roy Peek~ Executive di-
rector of the Wyozning. Natural ~esource Board, on the imperative for the bill
introduced by Senator Hansen and ` myself.
Son~e comment must be made ab~t thQse from Wyoming who haye come s~
many miles to pursue what is so vital not only to t1iein~elves but to the eeonomy~
~ocial structure, and well$*ing of Fremont County, the `State oi Wyoming, and,.
it Is my conviction, Mr. Chairman, to the ~w~li-~e1ng of th~ country.
A special Word mu~t be said for the Comm1~sioners and tbelr.~ District Man-
ager. Oftentimes, Mr. Chairman~ . t1~Qs~ who ~estify before Sei~ate * Committees.
are men c~ considerab4 ~xpertise, but. they are also men who are sometimes
far removed trom the actual conduct o1~ the affairs about which they testify. But
in the case before us today we 1~ave t~ot just the stereotype of the manager, but
men who are and have ~ operators of th~ farms which have done so well on
the Riverton Project. In a very real way these men depend for their livelihood,.
for themselves axid their families,. upon their determfnatioa, considerable talent
as agr!culturists, and their grit td. wrest a living from an environment which is
by no means klmj. ~
. What you will disco~er4i~the testimon~that follo~vs is the striking capabilities
of these productive people. For aside from the requirement of developing the
necessary talents previously mentioned to stay afloat in modern agriculture is a
sense of workix~g with nature, not fighting her. So much of the fiction that is
written about farming makes farming appear to be a simple and easy process.
These men testifying before you today demonstrate the very opposite.
Even more worthy of mention is t1~ie acute sense of function a~d the resultant
harmony that is so characteristic of their lives. These men know who they are.
And eertaiuly such. a,tonditjou~ ret~uire~ pr~1~e in a world where so much is
~ written concerü~ng~th~sé v~he ~ tt be 1o~t ant1 Without direction. Indeed, it
has often occurred to me tbht res~I~tiQn toW,hat' some people call the problem
of the hippy might very well be if those who consider themselves alienated, as
well as hip, could be involved with. the farmers on the Riverton Project. Not
that the hard wofl~ that they would experience would cause a ~ reconstruction
of their point ofview, but that they wottid witness in a most profo!undway men
who are in tandem with t1i~fr environment.
Mr. Fred Anglen, President of the Midvale Board of Commissioners, has been
a Commissioner of the District for 5 years. He has been on the Project since 1931
and has successfully ëome to grips with the difficulties . of irrigation farming. I.
think you will find hlstestimo.ny a striking example of farm savvy.
Mr. Uar~ We~ty lives on a farm near Pavilion, Wyo., and has farmed on the-
Project since 1938. He, too, demonstrates an impressive talent to deal successfully
with what is essentially a hostile environment.
Mr. -Edward L. Bogae~. also farms near Pavillion. Since 1937 his intrepid pur-
suit ef successful farming on the Project has been an outstanding~ example of a..
man's ability to n~ke a~diffjeult operation go.
16
I think abcnit this project. They know. We have lived with these fel-
lows, and theyhave ~liv~d~ith.~u& fo~ many years on this question. So,
I am going to submit it for theregord, if that is permissible.
Senator ANDEXISON. it will b~de a part of the record ~t this point~
(The statement r~ferr~dto follows:)
PAGENO="0021"
17
Mr. ~o~'J) ~ Dfst4~I4~t4Vli1Mgerôf the ~ ~!st~i~t; f~ ê~é~ili-
Ilcatlon of au agricultural manager quite on a par With ~ ~
. in industr1afl~aii~~th~t. ~ 4 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~t \~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ H~ ~
Mr. Don White, attorney for the District, exemp1ifie~ t1~ itafip1e~lties o~f tnod-
em agriculture. A project of the scope ôf'th~i~rton Ptoje~t W~iil'd be ~aIte
Ikst without the necessary legal talents of a m~th like Mr? White.
Mr. Gideo~i W. Th~i~i~Z~crn, kvhose f~tther h~m~tead~d in the area liT 1906, has
. had a 1ifëti~ne of succ~s~ful experience on the Riverton ProJect: ~
Mr. Oscar IC. Barnes, of the A~ti~ultUi~l 1~t~~km S~r~lc~, i~i~h1fës~ the fáscl
nating comp1exit1e~ o1~ mOd~rn a~gt~euiti~~ire, a~ Well as the pathiership that coft-
tinues to e~p~i~d 4ietW~h the ~ at~d the farm1i~ cothlinthit3r.
What t1ie~ m~ ~ s& ~hl~l~ deftio1t~trate i~ ~ th~ wot~king ~t c~f a concept of
Amer1ca~ life *hhth has bean so vital to lib slhth ~ our beginnings n1an~r years
ago. The Jeffersonian concept that a democratic ~t~Si~ty must be peopled with self-
sustaining and seif-determinhig cltizeii~ta a. coricc~Ju~t as viable in 19~7 as It
was in 1767. Indeed, a valid case can be made that such a concept is even more
important today. It is true that the acceptance ~f the role of small farmers in
American life 1~as been subject to criticluth b3r some historians and others
throughout our national life. However, there is i~io gainsaying the necessity for
self-sustaining and self-letermining citi~On~ iii a democracy.
Secretary of Agt~iculture Freemat~ b~ ~t~inted out again and agahi that otir
~ concern with the j~rØb1em of in~reasWig~i~ ~ ~iowded urbati areas cannot be dealt
with without giving equal attention to the tragic drift a~Wa~from the farm b~i~k
toward the city. In my own case, I have long since ~spoken and promoted the
principle of doing all that we can, and pare1~thetically, I don't think that we hai~ê
~done all that we can, to aid and increase the appeal of farm life.
It is my conviction that those who leave th~ fatin do not do so because the city
`has some magic lure, but that they leave regretfully, knowing that the abandOn-
mont of the farm is also the abandonment of an idea-a worthwhile idea. S. 670
asks that the Federal Government once again do all that it can to shore up not
only the canals and drainage system in the Midvale District, but to shore up a
crucial value.
The Riverton Project, with the aid of passage of S. 610, will reaffirm our corn-
mitment to small farmers as the vital agent of a self-sustaining, self-determin-
ing citizenry.
These successful Riverton Project farmers are living testimony to the worth
~f the Jeffersonian principle, as well as. the new breed of farmer so necessary to
our national life. No longer can the American farmer view his task as a simple
sowing of seed and awaiting nature's bounty. These men have put into practice
what good farmers in America have always known. `Phat is, we cannot torture
our land with a single crop, but instead we must diversify the crops which feed
our people. Such diversification takes immen~ skill. The farmer today is a student
of surprising proportion. Not only is he a seed expert, but a soil expert, water
expert, financial expert and a markethig ~xpert. This Is not to mention the
knowledge demands made upon the fa~n~er by complicated machinery, power
sources, and a capricious climate~
S. 670 recognizes the compiexttie~ of moderti farming and especially the need
for diversification, which is why, for example, ~ the ~farmers on the Riverton
Project are as concerned with fish and wlld1ifèilLeve&o~ment as they are with
purely agricull~ural matters.
The resources of the Midvale Irrigation District are many. The District In-
eludes 45,000 acres of good, irrigable lands which have produ~ed ~58,900,O00 In
crop value.
There are three hundred experlencedi farm operators of demonstrated manager-
lal ability and resources on the Project.
The District has established community and in~titutiona1 services, including
roads, schools, electric and telephone systems, and `business and professional
services.
The District faces the following needs : ` ~ ~ ~
Adrainage constructioia program to protect farm landsfrom seepage
A rehabilitation and betterment program for replacement of j~roject system
structures long past a normal life expectancy.
Additional irrigable lands to permit enlargement of small farms into economic
family-size ~inits.
The restoration of Third Division lands to the tax roles of local governmental
units.
PAGENO="0022"
18
- good lands
~g, drainage
sana -
PAGENO="0023"
19
a crisis, we
out the Riveit
I ashes or
r the COflS1(
going thai
theE
Lning in this, the bill
hope that the hearings
~~ting ~
~ ~~andonment of well-e
,~vision at a loss of about $18 ~ ~ -.
r as I am concerned, and I know I speak
here presented is of vast importance. It is my e
here today will result in your favorable action.
Senator Mcthi~E. I want to thank the chairman of this committee
in particular for going out of his way to make this hearing possible. I
think it is that important, and the cooperation we have received from
this committee on this is most appreciated by all of us.
I think that these men, who have come all the way from Wyoming,
who have grown up with this, who have watched its good parts flower
and its weak parts have troubles, will have something to say h~re
that will contribute to the thinking of all of us. And in order to get
vn to the real nub of the situation, I shall forego my eloquent
~i about each of the Wyoming delegation-that which they al-
know. They will read about themselves when you print the
iem and tol
PAGENO="0024"
20
chance. ~IT~( providc~ ~ç~~I~an th~ d1~1~±~ h~1fth~t i~akes to make
it work. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~
In the third ~ of it~ well, I will n~ot s~y
that, but ~!t~r so~E~o~1~ th~ t4~m'aker~w~ r~in~re~Ffriin the seene,
we 1eafted~th~ ~rd~ wn~ thatthistak~wrere iti~de iii the s~4e~tiQn, ~
~ individuals who. we~ se1eet~cl to s~tie the third di~ion. `~h~ ~i~op1e
fully exploited the situation lx~ th~r owmadvantage. There remains a
meaiiingfi~I segtne~tof th~ third~ divjsion,~and it would be a `tr~g~dy
to forfeit :.j~. ~ mi~i'a~iagemei~t or no' ~h~g~ient, a~d that is what
is go~g to happen rigEt no~ if we do ~d6t take son~e action I refer to
the 8,000 ~oires~ that the Goverao'r dicu~s~d~ We beheve this makes it
po~sib1e t~ strengtheit the Riverton project without burdening it with
those portions that weire once ~tt the third division and which are not of
sufficient quality `to justify further de~1o~mentat this time. In other
words, th~~ says that we are preserv~ing. the best, the cream of the
third divliion to the advantage of the whole project. And we believe
that we can risk the loss of the liability without any great loss to
either the Federal Government or to the comrntrnity in central Wy-
omirig, aa~d that is the reason `for restrw~turing this authorization.
These fellows who are here now are in business,, and they a~re in a
going busii~ess. We will keep them living hand tb mouth until w~ can
get the Rivérton thing going again on more than ~ir annual rèa~sur-
anöe basis which we have had to do for some time because of the
troubles of the third division. And out of consideration for them, out
of consideration for what has been a productive Federal investment
that has brought in, up until now, $60 million-nearly that-in agri-
cultural produce, we think that we can gain the most for our invest-
ment. We do not jeopardize, we do not risk the good faith of the policies
. of either the committee or the Department of the Interior or the
Bureau of ~ Reclamation in adding this limited section of the third
division to the first and second divisions as a managing unit.
We have the advantage now o~ having eliminated those who do not
know how to farm, those who should not have come north to farm in
irrigable country, those who were simply looking for the luck of a draw
in order to try something they had not tried before, to see if it would
work.
As the chairman knows best of all, farming in the kind of land that
we have in New Mexico and in Wyoming is quite a diJferent matter
thai~ farming in other. parts of the country. You face a different kind
of . thing. We believe that we `have shaken this whole thing down to
where we have an opportunity to preserve the best, to where we have
the expertise and the accumulative experiences that will enable us to
make this go.
I want to emphasize the presence of the Governor here, the united
front of the delegation here, the total support of the Riverton and Fre-
mont County areas which represent the best of the major consensus
that we have worked out. We have eliminated the malcontents and
marginal, land involved in the project and we have here something
that we cati support and that, is the reason for asking the consideration
of this committee again for this project.
I know that when you mention Riverton it is like waving a red flag
in some ways. But that does violence to those who have made the major
portion of the project a real and proud chapter in irrigation history.
PAGENO="0025"
21
And we think we can salvage from the troublesome part of the third
division that which is the best and strengthen that w1~dch is already
working. ~ ~
Aii~, so, it is on that basis, that I would make this rather short and
impromptu statement this morning, Mr. Chairman, and make as a
part ofthe record that portion which is much better phrased and much
more articulate in its substance so far as the project is concerned.
We have coming up here men who know the technical details of the
background, in depths of this, and rather than betray my ignorance
in technology, I would hope that they would cover it up for me in what
they will have to say.
Senator ANDERSON. In the committee's report of February 2~, 1964,
Senator Simpson stated:
The negotiations on a long-term contract broke down in May of 1961 when the
Board of Commissioners of the Third Division Irrigation District asserted that
the lands had no repayment ability and that further negotiations would be futile.
Subsequently, the Board's position has been that the settlers are unalde to pay
even operation and maintenance cost and thaf the Third Division should be
abandoned.
How do you reconcile that?
Senator MCGEE. I reconcile that by suggesting that that was a state-
ment made at a time when we did not know all of the things that we
know now. Some though they did. I did not happen to agree with that
statement. We tried every way that we knew how to prevent going in
the direction they finally went in 1963 and 1964, buying back the third
division, because there was too much good land there, too much good
farming land there, to forfeit it all on those terms.
We did not recommend at anytime-and by "we" I mean those for
whom I speak or seek to represent in this situation. We did not recoin-
mend that as the solution, but this was the one that was ultimately
agreed upon and anybody would have been a fool not to sell his land
back under those terms. I did not happen to condone or to approve that
approach. That was not the way to get at this question. So, I make no
apologies for it,. and I make no defense of it. That is water over the
dam.
I think that we have our best opportunity here to reestablish the
capital structure and the return from it, which has proved to be amore
meaningful part, rather than a small controversy on the total project.
Senator ANDERSON. My concern is with this question as it relates to
some others we have had. In 1930 we had the Dust Bowl situation. I
was a part of the administration at that time. There were some 400,000
acres. We placed all of those in the Dust Bowl area, and some of it was
very fine land. Some people did not know how to operate the land, and
those who were in charge of the projects came back and said that they
knew how to do it now. And this was done over and over again, and it
was suggested that we get the Governors from other irrigation districts
to help on thequestiân. What was wrong with that?
Nothi~ng but an expen~e all the way through. Why should not we
abandon it?
Senator MCGEE. I tried' for not abandoning it. There is a salvagable
portion there that does produce and makes a base for good farming.
We are desperately in need of productive small farms, with the op-
portunity which enriches the Riverton project itself, and the moment
PAGENO="0026"
e learne~
hat is why J;
than to' go on with what we know we have~
Senator ANDERSON. The report shows tI
investigations begun in 1935, that it i
abandoned. I wonder what new information you h8
~ isnrcDosal
RSQN. IIIU!
[0GEE. That is 8
ts will have to
~iose are -
her two C /
roject, both adminiL~
to aband
22
been cons
thead.
the first a
a return.
ir 1
~iverton pro~
that have b(
~e cost.
~e a case of
result of
ins sid~
revive it?
the third
~ of acres
rision, the.
ed to the
~act from
PAGENO="0027"
23
S&na~t~or ANDERSON. I think I am correct in saying that the project
was one that brought farmers out there who did not know how to
irrigate.
Senator McG~ Yes, from other sections of the couxitry. We had
settlers on the tiurd division who were no~ familiar with the west
who knew nothing about irrigation in Wyoming, and this proved to
be one of the major problems.
Senator ANDERSON. I have no further questions. *
Senator Jordan ? . ~
Senator JORDAN. I have been privileged to hear qualifications of the
settlers on the Riverton project, and with this I take no issue. I do
know that some are exceptional farmers. I know what is required to
make a living on these reclamation projects, especially under limita-
tions. I am concerned with section 4 of the bill which says :
The limitation of lands held in beneficial ownership within the unit by any ~
one owner, which are eligible to receive project water from, through, or by
means of project works, shall be 160 acres of class 1 land or the equivaleut
thereof in other land classes as determined by the Secretary.
Now, you are telling us that these same people who have been there
in the first and second divisions of the Riverton project are now to
move in and make a go of this third division. Under what land limita-
tion would they be going into this?
Are we to say that they are entitled to another 160 acres over what
they presently owt~?
Senator MCGEE. I will have. to ask the people here from the dole-
gation.
There is a formula that has been worked out that would allow for
this development. For example, the formula that would make a differ-
ent allocation in regard to class 2 or class 5 lands.
Senator JORDAN. I understand that. But are these men who are
presently getting project water from the Riverton project entitled to
an additional amount?
Senator MCGEE. Do you mean would they have another 160 acres
1 1 ~ division?
INY. rI comment?
PAGENO="0028"
24
~ Senator JoRDAN. These men whohave been successful are the ones
who aregoing to reclaim this akiditi~nal land in the third division?
Mr. D0MINY. This is exactly true. This is an individual owner-
ship. A man and a wife could'have 80 acres of clas~i equivalent. The
Midvalt~ farms were opened up at very small acreages. This is back in
the days' gentlemen, when we thought that 80 acres wa~ a huge farm..
We did not even give them 160 acres when Midvale was ~ first opened
up to homesteading back in the 1930's. Those units were 60 and 80
acres in size, So, even the Midvale farmers are a long way, for the
most part, from having 1~0 acres of class 1 equivalent. They will be abl&
to add to what are very inadequate farms in Midvale by adding the
third division land which is immediately adjacent, which is served
by the same general canal system as the others.
Senator MCGEE. It `will not do violence to the overall limitations?
Mr. DOMINY. No. ~
. ~ Senator JORDAN. You have answered the question. I wanted to know
,~ **1i~f there was enough flexibility in the ownership of these settlers who
. have been there, to give them room to maneuver in this new area.
Mr. D0MINY. Yes, sir.
Senator MCGEE. May I ask a question?
What would this do now in terms of adding some of the more~
marginal lands for grazing purposes?
Mr. DOMINY. This is the other thing that is embodied in this. We
recognize that on the Riverton project there are 5,000-foot of elevation.
with an average growing season of 120 days. That is the average in
the growing season. And at 5,000-foot elevation, it is not too consistent..
Sometimes, they get eari~ freezes. So, they have to go into the livestock
industry as their basic feed base for livestock. So that non-irrigable
land adjacent to these farms is highly desirable.
The nonproductive land under irrigation would be incorporated
into these units for grazing purposes, so that they can get the livestock
off of the irrigated land during the summer months and have them on
the nonirrigated land in the winter months on a feed basis.
Senator ANDERSON. This states 160 acres. Do you know what that is
now?
Mr. DOMINY. This is a recommendation that the Department has
been supporting for a long while as. a general piece of legislation ; that
is, that we go to the 160 class 1 equivalent. There is such a variety of
productivity on land' under irrigation. Anything that is not irrigabl&
would not count as a unit.
Senator JORDAN. This is land that has formerly been in the project
and has been abandoned, because it was not feasible to irrigate it?
Mr. DoMiwy. Yes, part of the land that has gone out. It is not the
best pasture land in the world, but it is a good place to have the cattle
in the summer months. You have the feed base on your irrigated land..
You will have a unit that wiiiwtirk.
Senator JORDAN. N~ acreage limitation would be applied against
those lands thatwould be~ excluded?
Mr. DOMINy, The.wa~ter would not b~ applied to them. This would
be a~ very firm requirement, because we know that water cannot be'
applied to some of those lands withoutcausing trouble to the irrigated
lands. `
PAGENO="0029"
25
Sen~torMoGi~ In'adthtAonto the rain.
Senator JORDAN. I think he has answered the q~iiestiori. Thank you..
Senator ANrn~ARSON. Are you going to classify ` all of it as nonirri-
g~b1e land ? ~
Mr Do~u~ No, sfr , I will give you the exact figure whert I testify
There is something over 8,000 acres we consider irrigable land on a
sustained basi~.
Senator ANDERSoN. Why did they not irrigate them ?
Mr. DOMINY. They did irrigate them. They were part ofthe land
that was being irrigated.
Senator ANDERSON. Was it all abandoned ?
Mr. D0MINY. Not all o~ the land should have been abandoned.
Senator ANDERSON. t know; 4~re the 8,000 acres in all of this project
irrigated ?
Mr. D0MINY. We have been continuing irrigation of the best lands
of the third division under lease arrangements with the Midvale
farmers having the f1rst~pportimity to lease them, as Senator McGee
and SQnator Hansen have pointed out. So that there has been a demon-
stration that under proper farm management these lands are irrigable.
Senator ANDERSON. Can you show' one record of profit by these
farmers in that area?
Mr. D0MINY. I am sure that ~ they could not have continued that
lease and not actually end up with a profit at the. ~nd of the year.
Senator MCGEE. If I may inter~eot, we ~ can also show the protests
of some of those in the third division at the time that th!s was under
controversy where they felt that they were making a go of it and they
wanted a chance to stay, but the mprevooal or influential or whatever
it was of them prevailed which took them. all in the same direction.
There were.salvagei~ble areas in son~e sections of the project and farm-
ers in these areas told a quite different story from that which the
others were telling. And this is the part that we bplieve. issalva~eable.
Senator ANDERSON. As I recail,tJ~ere was i~o protest at any time as
to tb~. purchase. ~
Senator MCGEE. Perhaps not on. t~ final purchase that got to be so
liberal. that. `it. was toà g~od a.d~eal fpr sop~ie of these people to refuse.~
Therefore, they allgGt in line jçi, Qrder to collect the price in the sale.'
I do not think ., that the extra ljherai,te~ts were ,a part of the Bureau's
responsibility, but the ` çQmmi4~oner hii~s~lf. will ~mve to speak to
that. I make no claim for that. ~ make.no plea for it. We ai~e trying~~
to start where we are now. ~
Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hansen?'.
Senator HANSEN. If I may,. I would like to ask unanimous consent
to have introduced into the record at this point a letter I have received
from Keith Blankenship, dated No.v~mber 21., i9~ And I would Jike
to read it.
Senator MCGEE. Is the committee through with me?
Senator HANSENI I wanted to introduce this letter to support and
corroborate. the~ statements you have made.
Senator A*~ERSON. Without objection, it will be made part of the
record.
Senator HANSEN.. I will read it:
I
PAGENO="0030"
26
He has h~
using some
he testifies,
ANDERSON.
STATEMENT OP KON.
ATIVE IN (
PA
a~id Hansen..
PAGENO="0031"
27
S. 6'70, if enacted, will reauthorize the Riverton Exter~sion Unit of
the Mis~our~ River Basin project and ~c1udether~in the entire Riv~r-
ton Federal reclamation proje~ct and is similar to my bill, ll.R. 3062.
I feel that thits 1egi~1ation is not oniy good but that it will be beneficial
to the area involved and to reclamation in general.
There . will be many witnesses, led by Wyoming's Governor, the
honorable Stanley Hathaway, appearing before yonr committee in
support of this legislation. These witnesses will go into detail on the
merits of the legislation and the need for its enactment.
I have been `familiar with the situation on the Midvale and Riverton
Third Division projects for some time and I recently had the privilege
of again viewing thelands in question, including the present condition
of the headgates, `canals, and other parts of the irrigation system, in
the company of Senator Hansen.
Following the passage of legislation which authorized the Bureau
of Reclamation to buy back from the settlers on the third division the
land which they owned, ~he Bureau of Reclamation has leased these
lands and has done a fine job in trying to recover as much income as
possible from them. It is my feeling, however, that these lands should
be returned to private ownership. A great portion of the lands in the
third division can be successfully irrigated, and those land's which
cannot be so irrigated can be utilized for grazing purposes.
The combining of the Midvale and the third division projects will
result in a workable and successful reclamation project. The irrigation
stri ~res on the third division are in excellent shape while those on
~ project need replacir ~ in many instances and repair in
-. ance should be given to the res-
on the Midvale project
- I be combined with
that your committee will see fit to give S. 670 your
to the
PAGENO="0032"
28
light than it has been in the past in that particular ar~a. ThBre is a
great deal of diff~ren~e between those who operate on the Midvale
project and those who started out on the Rii~erton project. I do know
that the Riverton third project was started in the early 1940's by
Senator O'Mahoney and then Congressman Burr, who became U.S.
Senator. It was started for the purpose of taking care of maa~iy of our
veterans who came back from overseas in. World War II, and when
these veterans first wei~t on the project, many of them made~ a great
deal c~f money, because they were able to grow `alfalfa seed and other
products. However, these veter~ths, coming from different parts of the
country, did not have any experience at all with irrigation or the
proper handling of those lands. It is my feeling that those lands that
did go back over the years did go bad because of the combina~tion of
poor management, inexperience, and improper drainage. We have
learned lessons from past experience ; that is, in the third division.
I think that through these lessons and experience, that situation will
not creep in again. I think, in order to make this land productive-to
go back into private ownership where taxes will be paid-that
legislation should be passed ; such as S. 670, to authorize the inclusion
within the ~ Midvale District the lands which are now held by the
Bureau of Reclamation in the third division.
Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much.
Senator Jordan?
Senator JORI~AN. I have no questions. That is a very good statement,
and I appreciate it.
Senator ANIXERSON. Senator Hansen?
Senator HANSEN. I would like to thank my colleague for his ex-
cellent statement here today and also~ for hi's joining with me in
arranging the tour early this fall when we were able to be on the
project, rncludmg the third division, and to have the representatives
frOm the Bureau of Reela~mation and the Bureau of the Budget with
us. I am `confident, because of your interest and your participation in
this, that more people have a clearer understanding of the problems
and of the potential of this area than otherwise would have been the
case. I know you have been taken away from your duties that are very
pressing in the House this morning in order to be here, and I apologize
for my verbosity which has kept you away from some other work.
Mr. H~RnIsoN~ You are very kind. I assure you that it has been a
pleasure to be here, because this .s an important piece of legislation,
and I am very hopeful that your committee will find a way to approve
it; so that the situation now e~istingcanbe corrected.
Senato~r A~nnsoN. Thank you very much. ~
We. will next h~ar from Mr. Dominy, Commissioner of the Bureau
of Reclamation.
Mr~ Doi~iNr. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee,
with your permission, I will bring Mr. Langley and Mr. Kober to the
table with me and we will put up a map so we will have that before us.
I understand that we have a problem, in that someone e1~se wants to
catch a plane with Governor Hathaway. Perhaps, you would favor
him wi:th his testimony over my testimony under the circumstances.
Senator AND1~RSON. That will be all right.
PAGENO="0033"
29
the subeom-
ay, and
PAGENO="0034"
30
I
The solvency of the fund indicates well the stability of agriculture in
Wyo~miiig. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~
So far ii~ ~ th~ resource board has had 42 reque~ts for investi~
tions of small water projects Wyonung agriculture ~s actively pursuing
its own betterment. ~ ~ ~
We have one of~oi~i' best sii~ail projects on the Midvale Irrigation
District, the B~nesch Brough sprinkler irrigation system which is
irrigatin9 380 acres of new lands. Thu~ We have proven our confidence
in the~ `Riverton project not o~y by our resolutions, but by putting
our money wh~re oi~r mouth is~ ~
`Sena 4or A~Di~inS~N. is this:ian~ irDigated ?
Mr. P~xnt. Yè~, :sfr~This ~s landt]aat lies above the ditch, in other
words, abk~vE~ the flat irrigation level on the upper side of the ditch,
and we have loaned money to pu1~ this land wrder c~1ltivation
.~ Senatør ANi~a'~sO~. 1$ this in conflict with the land in the Riverton
area? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~r. Pi~Oi~i. ~It~ is on~th~ Riverton project. As a matter of fa~t, it is
right in the ~nter of it. It is in the se~ond division of the Riverton
project, which isa part ofth~ Midvale project. ~
Senator ANDERSON. 1Vh~L1 isthe product? ~
Mr. PI~OK. T~ product is small grairts *~ ~.
Senator AND~R~~ Wh~tis the aei~age ~
Mr. PECK. It is 320 acre~s. The main prodttcts of ~ the Riverton
project, which will ~be mentioned later, are sugar beets, beans, cram,
alfalfa, dairying, livc~tock oper~tio~xs-a very diversified agricu~tura1
situation. ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Senator ANDZRS~fr. Thank you. ~bu n~ity pro~ed.
Mr PEcK Perhaps I might be p~çth1tted some p~rsoisl observations
on irrigation in the Wind ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I am a*native of RivertOti, and I have lived all my life near Riverton.
The coth~iderable black eye that comes from Riverton, my hometown,
. ~ disturbs me very greatly. My present business is copublisher of the
Rivertcn Daily Ranger, a newspaper which my brother Bob and I
h~tvt~ built up frb~~i a sni~1l weeklyto ~ &dly. I am now on leave of
abs~iicei~romtheR~thgerto permit meto i~sist in Wyoming's programs
ofi~Onomic development
in Riv~rton, I live in the fkrmh~rn~e ~ in'wbich I was raised. My
home was built ir(:1~26, and attitat time it was "ifi the comrtry," west
of Riverton. Now the * city limits of the town surround our farm on
two sides, and much of the strth~g growth of R1v~toñ is attributable
to agriculture. ~ ~ ~ . .~ . ~
My family business i~ the dairy business We started the Morning
Star Dairy with one cow in 1931, at the depths of the d1cpression, and
my broth~r Bob and I delivered o~ti~ first milk. to custothers in föwn
using thelittle red~ wagon whic}~ we had receb~ed for Christmas. ~
There were some dark days in tho~e depression years. We milked
our 60 cows by hand until the great change took place in 1938 when
w~m~t&.led a `Surge electric milk~r. I rethemb~r what a great thing
that was, Lthought; when t~ ~anIe about. I had the longest continu-
ons tardy record in the history of Riverton High S~hooI, bec~tuse after
arisrng every morning at 4~3O a.m.* to milk the cows, I delivered the
milk on the route with my little sister hopping bottles.
PAGENO="0035"
31
We pumped the vita1~water for the cows by hand until we finally
received electricity in 1~39~. In-40-degree-below weather, n~y brother
and I ivould alternate 1OO~pumps each on the Dempsterhandle while
the other stood inside the window of the kitchen keeping warm. It
took an hour o~ pumping to water the herd. My father wired and
plumbed our 1~ome himself. I was a senior in high school before I knew
the comforts of inside plumbing.
I have pick~d potato bugs, and sprayed Paris green, and 1 remember
storing the bumper potato crop in `the basement of our house, because
the potato cellar was full. We carried them downstairs in bushel
baskets. And we shoveled up the rotten stinking, sprouting mess
the spring, and took them out and tried to feed them to the cows,
because we had never been able to sell them. I do not know what kind
of milkthat produced.
I have thinned beets on my knees, hoed weeds until my back was
breaking, topped beets, and shoveled, beets into the truck, and seen
the old `Chevy mired. dowti in the field in a foot of mud with a broken
axle.
My family, six children, and my mother and father, grew up unified
and God fearing in the finest tradition of rural America. I only' regret
that my father is not alive today to see the dairy operation which he
started with one cow-now the largest fluid milk processing piant in
Wyoming. It is in a new half million ` dollar plant, supplying a
refrigerated tank truck a day of pure, grade A milk to the Denver
milk market, and providing a fine livelihood to many dairy producers,
most of them living on the Midvale irrigation project.
Perhaps my personal reference illustrates two things : First, the
agriculture of the Riverton project has grown, and progressed, and
changed. The Morning Star Dairy is a corporation, our producers
own our modern plant, and we lease it from them. They share in our
profits which they help earn through the sweat of their brows. Second,
~gricuiture , like every part of the American economy is touched by~
technological change. The agricultural practices of my father's day
no longer apply,' but, the hard worl~ of the farmers of old, the home-
stea4ers, ispaying off because of technology-agribusiness, if you will..
This is really~what ~S. 670is all, about. Technological change.
Theso men of'Midyaie have proved they `can farm at a profit. But;
like a, factory built in ~1926, more than 40 years ago, Midvale needs~
refurbishing. And like hidustry which must turn to credit to modernize.,.
Midvale asks for a loan to modernize, to change, the opportunity to~
apply thenew technological skills of agriculture, so long denied them~..
All of the problems of America are not centered in the Rivertom
project, although you would have thought sc~ a few years back. Th&
major problems of this Nation belong to the cities with air and water
pollution, urban decay, and civil strife tearing at the very heart of
our Nation.
The problem is clear, and the trends are apparent. We must call a, ,
halt to the accelerating decline in rural population. We need to con~
sider ways and means to achieve a better urban-rural balance of
population.
We have an opportunity before us in S. 670 to do our part in solving
this problem. These dollars, well spent to assist the Midvale project, are
PAGENO="0036"
32
I substan-
iate it.
PAGENO="0037"
33
INTRODUCTION
reer. He~ ~oueh4 o~ c~nly part of it here this rnoru~ng. I can s~y t1~t he
performed valuable service t~ this co~intry durü~g World War II. His
wife and he were both involved in serving TJn~1ei Sam at that time.
Later, it was my great privilege to be associated with him when he
was a member of the university board of trustees.. Prior to that~ he was
an assistant athletic director at the University of Wyoming.
~ ~ And ~1 would like, if It may, to introduce at' `this time into the record
this publication entitled, "Those Iftemarkable Men of Midvale."
The fact is that his brother,~ Bob, whQ is the copublisher of the River-
ton Ranger, put the text together for this publication. The Riverton
Ranger submitted the pictures contained herein, and the University
of Wyoming, with the able support and guidance of Oscar Barnes,
published this magazine. I a~m' certain that it will be. very enlightening
to eyery~rnember of this cQminittee to takethe time to review it. I know
that you have a very tight schedule. Let me say that 1 think you made
a very important contribution, and I am indeed grateful `to you~ and
I `appreciate your being here.'
I thank you.
Mr. PECK. Thank you, Senator Hansen.
Senator ANOEBSON. It will be n~ade a part of the record at this point.
`(The document referred to follows:) `
Riverten project as
PAGENO="0038"
34
Anglen and his wife heard about the irrigated homesteads on the Rivërton
project. The Anglens and Joe Hancock drove to Riverton. Ai~ig1en's coyote money
bought gas for the trip,
They drove out tbroitgh Paradise Valley five miles north of Itiverton, admiring
~ the Williams farm which was the show place of the valley. This farm is now
crippled by seepage, with trees dead, the house empty, the piac~ abandoned, but
could be salvaged. . ~
Anglen bought the Henry Ness piace, homesteadecl in ~ ~ ~ ~
agreeing to pay $200 a year, $300 the last year, until ~
of $1700 was paid.
Builds Log House
The Forest Service sold Anglen trees for a log house. He parted with $5.60 for
stumpage, paid another $50 of his coyote money to have logs sawed on three
$kles and hattled off the mountain.
The Anglens started laying up logs for their house in August, 1937. They
finished only two of four rooms during the first three years.
The two unfinished rooni~ were used as a granary for his first crop of grain
and alfalfa seed~ By the secoQd year he had cleared another 40 acres of sage-
brush and raised a decent crop of oats and alfalfa seed.
Alfalfa seed dropped from 25 cents to 10 cents a pound that crop year, but
.Anglen had to sell most of it anyway to have money to pay bills.
~ Skilled Sheep Shearer
Angleii continued his trapplngs~ Hework~d out as a sheep shearer to make pay-
inents on his homesteac1~ He borrowed $750 from Farm Security Administration
to buy three miik cows, a team of work horses, a disc, harrow, and grain drill,
plus lumber to build his own land leveler.
Winters, besides trapping, Anglen cut cottonwood trees from along the river
for fence posts, hauling the posts and wood for heating his primitive cabin in
a four-wheel trailer pulled behind a Model A Ford.
"Every nail in my house, every staple iii that ~first two-wire fence around my
160 acres I drove mys~lf,~' Anglen recalls.
~ The Anglens, hard-working; deterizilned, anibitious people made a place out at
their rough hothest~ad. . . ~
~ Ten Year Plan
After three years, they finished the two baèk room~. The fifth year they paid
off FSA. The sixth year they fit4shed paying for their land. ~ The 10th ~rear they
added~ three more room~, mod~i'hized ~ the house. stuccoed over the origitial logs.
Now, after 29 years they have good outbuildings including two large sheds,
a shop and double garage; ~ bui~l~house and storage building.
Ten years ago they bought 60 acres % of a mile east from Dean Dietrich and
paid cash for it. Six years agO they bought the 100-acre Starrett place from the
bank. ~ ~ ,
~ Last Spring the Univers&t~ of Wyoming bou~ht 750 sheep from Anglen. And
today his place, fenced ai~id ero~s-feneed, handle~ over 400 ewes, plus 300 lam~s
on the feedlot. .
~ Anglen once rai~sed cattle ábd sheep but he now specializes in ci'~0ss-bred
Columbia and Rambonilletslieep.
Anglen hopes land on Third Division will be available for sale. He's prepared
to help establish his sOn carl and family on their own place. :
And Anglen is concerned over cracking cement in a series of drops oil the west
side of his place. Phese structures need replacing to assure flow of Miter to his
and neighboring farms.
Looking back on years of hard work-shearing sheep at S cents apiece compared
to today's 45 cent charge, years when the farm couldn't pay interest on his small
debts-Angien believes Midvale people have earned a better deal than the present
contract with the government that runs for over 100 years.
Must Complete Project
He believes the project should be finished so de1~erioration of basic irrigation
work doesn't place in j~opa~c1y the lifetime effort made by him and dozens of
others like thim who have stkyëd to cofiquer problems of irrigated farming hi
Wyoming.
PAGENO="0039"
35
Anglen had never irrigated an acreof ground t~nt11 he bought the raw I~ome-
stead in 1937. Hi~ life ha~ b~en~ fihIed~ With11ard *ork.' The Anglens have been
rrugal. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The new REA lines went by his ~p1áee to~three ~ëar~~ Iefore he ~eI~t lie `~O~1d
hook on. ~ , ~ . ~ ~
How can you measure what Its worth to the country to have p~op1e like the
Anglens working, building, improving the land? It's impossible to measure all
the benefits, including the Intangibles.
But one tangible meas~ire is taxes. ~ ~ ~
The first year on the homestead, Anglen paid $10.56 in property taxes. Last
year the Anglens paid $1,9~7.86 in property taxes, O&M and construction taxes-
nearly 200 times the original amount. They paid income tax ana sales ta~ bestçTe~.
From a place that produced nothiñg~ paid no taxes in 1D37, the Auglens have
developed the unit to where some $i4i~OOO was poured into the bloodstream of
commerce in 1965. ~ : ~ ~ ~
Mrs. Anglen, who has worked f~ ~ears as a mirse at the Riverton hospital
besides her farm wife duties, hopes to see the Riverton project improved. The
reauthorization bill pending before Congress will make seetire the. magnificent
effort made by the Anglens and others like them to build Riverton project.
En Boo~cz
ONE OF THOSI~ REMARKABLE MEN
A lot of money and sweat has been invested in Midvale farms. Edward L.
Bogacz can attest to that. He worked 14 years, including a four-year stretch In
the army, to raise enough money to buy his first farm.
Anc~ther 15 years of hard work leads Bogacz to several conclusions about the
future of the Riverton project.
"We want to keep what ~te~*e got. We have some real problenis with our
irrigation system. Our whole ltves are wrapped up in this project. We want
to keep it going, want to make things bettei~ We want to do what will help the
country get rid of the black eye it's got."
Came as Farmhand
That about states the case for the Midvale Irrigation District Commissioner
who came to Wyoming from Nebraska in 1937 as aLfarm laborer. He left Loup
City, Nebraska~ with others who heard- there were farmhand jobs on the Irri-
~gated Riverton projects. ) ~ ~
"I came to view the scenery," Bogacz says today. He stayed to change the
scenery~, for the better, ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ TiiE~ depression l1~gered in ~yotaing throug1i.1~931-38. Bogacz went to Work
for Earl Kelly, running sheep. Kelly gave him a chance to catch up on his' back
pay by taking sheep on shares. ~ .
"The next spring we liquidated. Those sheep I'd marked as mine with a `~OO"
andf~d beettops sold pretty well. I got $20 for the ew~s, which beat the $S5 a
month I'd agreed to work for," Bogaez recalls. ~ ~ ~ .
~ Married Pioneer Girl
He married Betty Beckman, daughter of ii Riverto'n farmer, and grandda~ugh-
ter of a man who homesteaded on the B1gW~d River in 1906. ~
The Nebraska farmhand a~ad the pioneer's ` daughter were married in 1943,
just before l3ogacz went off to war for four ~ars.
Bogacs returned from World War II ~ to work on various ~Riverton farms.
He applied for a new homestead being olened up near Riverton for postwar
veterans. ~
"My number was too high. If I'd had a lo~ ntimber, I'd have chosen one of
the Hidden Valley farms," Bogacz said.
Working on project farms had taught Bogac~ a feW lessons, He toOk a few
more lessons from the GI farm training s~hool-work1ng, learning, deciding.
"I figured I could do better with an established farm. Then I'd know where
the seepage was going to show up," Bogacs said.
PAGENO="0040"
160 acre r
PAGENO="0041"
and
ater from the
~r shoulders.
~ck of water that
Buy Patch of Sagebrush
The Weltys drove to Riverton and bought from Miss Lucille Connaghan the
160-acre patch of sagebrush a few miles from Pavilion. Maps showed 104 acres
of it was irrigahie.
Miss Cennaghan, a realtor, had picked up the place at a tax sale after the
original homesteader, James `O'Brien, had proved up in 1906-10, but had never
broken out an acre of ground. ~. little down, a few hundred dollars a year, were
the terms.
The W s drove back out ti ~r sheepishly told the
E whom t they'd decided to
try . -
".,~ knew ~. ~, Mrs. Welty. The Weltys
said it was the
of Paradise
I
37
Itwa~
River ~ ~1 the
~:y it. We know we
yen ~ many from
~otrya~~ fall irrigatiion of
ditch rider when Welty
y had all the
r the open doors and
PAGENO="0042"
38
windows to keep out the cold," Mrs. Day recalls. She came with bad news a few
days after Welty's arrivaL
The Day family was struck down with infectious yellow jaundice. Could
Welty come help? Yes, he could, and did, although his own crude home still let
5110w and wind whistle through the openings.
~ Help Your Neighbor
13~or three weeks Welty trudged back and forth the mile between his new
homestead and his neig1~bor's pla'ce~ doing the chores night and morning until
the Days recovered. ~
Illness ipomed large in t~ie Weltys' life. Carl was sick himself the next three
weeks after getting the children from Nebraska. The kids, Carl Jr., 9, and Bonnie,
U, brought measles with theix~.
Mrs. Welty herselif was ill for most of the first 17 years the family spent on
their homestead.
With help from neighbors; the stearns,, the Days; the Hutchins, Weltys got
in their first crops. They had 13 stacks of grain that first year, left for later
threshing as Welty went to Spokane to work a few months on the railroad
tog~et a little cash. ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
He drove a school bus for 18 months, and that helped. So did the load of home-
canned vegetables Mrs. Welty put up ~t NOrth Pl~ttte from a garden watered
from the welL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
`But the rest of it all came from tb~"land; most of It from that first 104 aerea.
In the late 1940's Weltys bought another 80 along the highway from Clift~ord
Leach. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ . ~ ~ ~ A. Boy Through College
For several summers; after ~ Oarl Jr. entered . college, father and son leased
extra places and farmed to raise money for next fall's term at college. Beans
were the family blue plate special as a cash crop.
"\,?4Te lost some top soil in the pro~ss, but the beans paid out," Welty recalls.
An early frost nipped a couple of crops and one was hit by hail, but in all the
years there was never a totiti failure like thei~ewas in Kansas and Nebraska
during the drought years. *
Carl Jr. went on from the trnlversity of Wyoming to Rochester University
to New Haven Laboratories to the army th Harvard and then to his present
job in the bio-physical seience~ än~l industrial hygiene with the AEC.
Daughter Bonnie, now Mrs. John ~W~mpen, is a farm wife at Pavillion. Her
husband also Works for Midvale Irrigation District.
Same Solid Foundation
The first solid foundation which holda the tie house is still home today for
the Weltys. But you wouldn't reeognizE~he place.. Lilacs, spirea, forsythia and
honeysuckle stand like bouquets around the place. An apple orchard leads down
the slope, providing shelter for the Weltys ewes and lambe during their tender
weeks.
A fine line of sheds and farm buildings stand on the bill above the farmhouse.
Tree branches, cut from the Ross Bisbee place, were heeled in until they sprouted.
This beautiful windbreak frOm native stock is now being supplemented by a new
6-row windbreak on the hill, trees standing 10 feet high, growing mainly from
SCS nursery stock. . . .
A laundry, utility and chore rooinbas been added or the house where in winter
Weltys separate and sell cream from their dozen milk cows.
One look at Weltys' place reveals that someone who cares lives there. The
place is as neat and order~1y as a Swiss chalet.
The Welty Philosophy
How have the Weltys, and neighbors like them, ~ done it? Through hard work.
By being conservative. By being modest in their wants. By putting back into
the soil and their places ChOir profits, their toll, themselves.
Neighbors up and down the road hav~ eon~ie and gone. But Weltys, the Clair
Pays, the Ted Steartis are still there after 2~years, and they intend to stay.
"They say our forefathers pioneered. We did our share of pioneering, too,"
~Telty recalls with great pride.
PAGENO="0043"
39
And it's ~ustif1ab1e pride for a couple that saw their whole place go wet from
seepage, after about five years of irrigation. It took another five yeurs to get
drains installed, the land nursed back to full production through use of gypsum
to break up the alkali.
But Weltys brought it back with the same loving care and devotion shown
by Mrs. Welty this spring when she nursed to health no less than 22 "bum
lambs" saved from their own flock.
Welty described his life at a recent Grange meeting when each was a~ked to
name his hobby and his work.
~ Work and Hobby
. "I work for `the community, my hobby is farming," Welty quipped. And be
spoke the truth. Be's on 1~is third term as Miclvale commissioner. He's chairman
of the board for Pavilion ]~?tethodist Church, Master ~ of Pavilion Grange. He
has bee~i ASO committeeman, ancj has served on the Pavilion Soil Censervation
District Board. Jlis wife Is éhairman of the garden club, She serves on the election
board, helps with Grange and church work.
The Weltys know the challenge Qffarming on Midvale. They know wet lands
can be reclaimed. They've done it. . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
"Lining all the ditches Would be a great tliiiig fo~ our district," Welty said.
There is drainage needed. St~u~tiires. need repgir, the worn out system needs
renovation. ` ` ` ~
The Riverton project will be in good hands ~rhen all divisions are united and
managed by the likes of the Carl Weltys. ,
, Gm IMvI~oN
ONE or THOSE REMARKABLE MEN
"The secret of success on a Rivérton Project farm is the guy you put on it."
So says Gid W. Davison, and he speaks frOm experience. Davison was crawling
around in Wyoming sagebrush before ~e couId~valk. In the l*ast50 yeam, Davison
has brokenout enough sagebrush ground to make him an expert on the subject.
His dad, C. A. Davison, went `to Alaska in the early 1900's to try his luck in
tin? gold rush. lie saw an advei~t1sement aboutthe' Rtverton land opening and filed
for a homestead.
He drCw unit No. 143 on the Reservation withdrawal area and chose a 160-acre
piece of fiat greund in what Is now Missouri Valley.
Little ~1lideon was three months old when Mr. and Mrs. Da~1~on moved on
the place, belIeving that water, a~ promised by the early ditch company, would
be coming next year, or the next, or the next.
It came, all right, but 25 years later.
The Bureau of Reclamation started in 19~ with Wyoming Canal, with water
reaching Paradise Valley about 1928. Although the Bureau was `to take another
nine years to get water to the Davison homestead in Missouri Valley, the
DavisOns didn't wait.
Ahead of Bureau
They ran water doWn a draw from Paradise Valley into Missouri Valley
and started irrigating their lands from `their own ditch system in 1932,
Davison Brothers were ahead of the government project again in the early
40's. The elder Charles Davison died in 1942 and the Missouri Valley homestead,
along with another 160 bought from Bill Perrin, was split into four 80-acre tracts,
one for each of the four Davison children, Wi~1is, Ida (Mrs. Bob Ferrin) Gid,
and Barbara, now Mrs. Floyd Verley.
The Davisons bought 320 acres of Hidden Valley farm land from Warren
K*locke, land that was still in sagebrush. They started pumping water from the
Big Wind River to irrigate their latest `ho'mste'ad in 1046, two years before the
Bureau of Reclamation delivered its first water to Hidden Valley in 1948.
Charles Davison always figured he needed about 1000 acres of land to make the
right kind of sheep', ranch and farming spread.
To get it, Davison bomesteadecj on the Big Horns on Clear Creek up the Bad-
water in 1928 whe'h it was possible to' file on a 640-acre mountain homestead. Phe'y
still have the place, and since have bought the Woodrnff place from Van Okie,
a ranch dating back to 1898. Davison Brothers' sheep and cattle now graze where
the Woodruff and Madden Buck camp stood `before the turn of the century.
PAGENO="0044"
40
PAGENO="0045"
41
Burden and t:he * J3t~r~u o~ Reclamation t~I?awed up to in~ta11 cIraju~. After a
few years, ~ th~ combliried effQrt c~f the l3ureau-l3urden-Midvale team broug1~t the
~rriga~e acres front L5 up~o~ 100. He since ha~ reclaimed another 20 ac~es~
"We have the seepage about whipped," Burden said. "Most oi~ the land wü
white wi1~h a~ka1i, but the ~dk~vIi goes mit pretty fast when you can stop the seep
water.fro'm coming up." . ~
~ "I didn't think the Bureau was putting the 4~ains ft~ the right pl4ces, but they
were-the drains worked and the land dried out,~' Thirden ~aid,
~ He ~nee has bought addittonal lands. Ue 1e~tsed the former Wayne Wjlson
place on Third Division, trying to acquire enough land to increase the opportunity
to hold his son, Jim, a young married man, outhe farm. Jim has taken a job on
a ranch, because o1~ the uncertainties about the future, but he might come back.
Phe Burdens produce~l on the Wilson lease in Third Division, 630 stacks of
pinto beans, $2!500 worth of grain, and sold the roughage to* a rancher after the
crops' Were taken. off.
`Burden has land also leased ià Cottonwood bench. "These lands need to be
plowed, leveled, and re'seede'd." Burden said, "But like everyone else, I've been
banging fire. You can't afford to do too much on land that next year may `be
sombody else's ground or taken away from you." He aays the men farming Cotton-
wood and Third Division ought to own it.
"The `sooner the government sells `these lands to experb~nced farmers, the
better for the w'b.o'le area," Burden said. "Third Division laud is about like the
rest of the project-some good, some bad." But a good farmer will make a success
operating it.
ird Divlsi~n lands helped make it
~ the family to come back
~iased `by Midvale people.
Law are feeding 2350 head of lams~.
equipment, but found it easy to hire
work on a custom `basis for their Third
RICHARD PAPTISON
.t of row crc
farmin of Third Division. He
- ~r to stay on the farms,
and supplemental feed
iael~ to 1
acre
and
inds to suppl~
PAGENO="0046"
42
"show place".
markable Men o~ Midvale"
ilne-looking Paradise Valley
BU, including Elton and Lyle,
was neat, the grounds well
the buildings.
- ~ alkali.
place is
"We
During 1965, the first year of his lease, Stearns produced 3000 bushels of
grain, netting 75 bushels to the acre. His 60-70 acres of hay produced 250 tons
for his dairy herd. He has 50 head of his dry stock and young animals on Winter
pasture on the Third Division lease.
Stearns says the North Pavillion land he now leases would be of great perma-
nent benefit to his dairy farm operation. Stearns is getting up In years himself,
but has a groWn son at home to help. The home place and the lease Were run as
a family business, except for part-time help at haying time.
Stearns would be interested in buying the Blair place if it were offered at a
fair price.
"We can farm over there and make as much per acre as we can on the home
places," Stearns said. "Other settlers could have stayed, too, if they had wanted
to farm," Stearns said.
The additional land on Third Division could help improve his profit picture.
The cost-price squeeze has pinched down profits.
"Getting the lands in private ownership would be of great benefit to the
community as a whole," Stearns said.
ELPoi~r WILLIAMS
The Williams' place in Paradise Valley was the show place of the area.
But it went wet, the Williams' boys moved off to establish farm opera-
tions elsewhere. It could be reclaimed.
Several men whose s~
series mentioned it was the `~v i
that miade up their minds to set
Mr. and Mrs. Claude 0. Will
had a show place. It wasn't
ca ed for and a big, green w
- -
is empty
"For a
~- 4'..
so wet
nevertheless, until Clan
for five years before he dl
The family rented of
Williams died, the s~n
seepage at home.
I ht the 100-acr
o a»=res from~
) acres fro
can't bear
: BILL BROWN
Brown left a high paying supervisor's job with a
company to get his family to a farm. He now leases over 6
and is buying 500 besides.*
Bill Brown, a longtime Fremont county resident, had a $12,000 a year job
with Gilpatrick Construction Company. But at the end of 1963 be looked at
his records. He had been gone from home more days than he had been there.
He decided to get back to tbetarm.
Brown is a newcomer to Midvale, although he grew up on a farm. He took his
life savings and bought the Mrs. Otis Williams' farm, a place with an acre of
grass for a front yard and windbreaks on all sides.
es of land
PAGENO="0047"
43
rrlpasL
e Irrig
1'L~ reimbu~
users to pay woui
of the Missouri
Senator AN
Mr. DoMIN~
Senator ANnE:
That wasn't enough land to make a living so Brown bought the Jim FIke farm
to bring his irrigable acres to 500, Then he leased 615 acres in North Portal
from Barrett and Marlatt. ~ ~ -
"I'm worried over the improvements during the time ne one lives on these
farms," Brown said. The Marlatt place has a modern house. Brown, like the
other lessees, tried to look after the Improvements, but he has a ~ feeling of dread
against vandalism, fire and theft every time he leaves to come back to Missouri
Valley.
Brown has sheep, keeping his yearlings at the home place. He has 450 pairs
of ewes and lambs.
Steve, 14, has the 10 purebred Rambonillots that circulate around in a con-
tinuing project tohelp boys start a foundation flock. There Is also Tim, 12;, and
Br'tdley 5 boys who Bill Brown wants to grow up under supervision of a father
at home, not away on construction jobs.
Brown is a typical man looking for land, wanting to get back In farming, oi'
wanting to help his sons get established on a family farm. Midvale could answer
this need for many with the Third Division lands.
Brown, `a hard-working giant of a man, is pleased with the yields from bis
Third Division places-55 bushels of oats and, two cuttings of hayr He h~s a
fortune sunk in land and machinery, but he's confident his ventures Will pay
off with hard work.
Senator ANDERSON.' We will *i~ow hear from Mr. Dominy.
STAT~EME~TT `OP PLO~D E. `DOMINY, cO ISStONER;~UBEAU OP
B~CLAMAT'ION, 4CCO~EAEED EY ~RMIT K KO~R .&ND
MAUflICE N LANGLEY, D1~PARTMENT OP TRE INTERIOR
Mr. D0MINY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,. ~
have on my left, Mr. Kober, whois the irrigation supervi~cr for region
6 in Billings, and on my right, Mr. Langley, who is th~Chief of the
Division of Water and Land Operations here in the Wa~4ngton Staff
of'the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Rive
I as a sepa
PAGENO="0048"
44
~ome under the
mtion
concepts
J_ ETI(
need so
~for even a gre
ANIJEnSON. I
PAGENO="0049"
45
unproductive would be nonreimbursable in compliance witi~ reclama-
tion Jaw. The excess land limitation provisions wOuld be modified to
permit delivery of water to 160 acres of class 1 land or the equivalent
in other land classes, as determined by the Secretary.
The proposed legislation would give priority in the purchase of
presently owned Government land to resident landowners on the
Riverton unit ~ who have not ~ sold their lands to the United States
under provision of Public Law 88-278. Thus, irrigable lands with
basic water rights and project facilities would be returned to the tax
rolls and be utilized, not generally as independent farm units, but as
supplements to the farms in the Midvale Irrigation District. The
first and second divisions would become a part of the Missouri River
Basin project. The present practice of year-to-year piecemeal leasing
does not encourage the lessees to improve the lands or to properly
operate and maintain the facilities.
You will recall that we have been striving for a number of years to
achieve a permanent solution to the long-standing problems of the
Riverton project, particularly its third division. In May of 1961, the
Board of Commissioners of the Third Division Irrigation District
asserted that the lands of the district had no repayment ability.
Thereupon, I, as the Commissioner of Reclamation, appointed two
independent boards of consultants, one to study the repayment capa-
bilities of the third division, and the other to review the drainage
problems and land classification of the third division. Both boards
of consultants reported that upon completion of canal lining and
drains, the third division lands could support a sustained irrigation
agriculture producing sufficient income to pay farm operating costs,
family living expenses, and water charges, including a construction
compon~nt.
Pursuant to a request of the House Committee on Interior and In-
sular Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior appointed, in August
1962, a review commission to make a special study of all Reclamation
projects in the State of Wyoming. The Wyoming Reclamation Proj-
ects Survey Team gave its first consideration to the Riverton. project.
A copy of the team's detailed report on that project was furnished
to ~vou on February 20, 1963. Some of the recommendations of the sur-
vey team have been carried out within the present scope of authority
of the Department. of the Interior. Legislative authority to put into
effect the other recommendations of the team, as well as recommenda-
tions of the two previously appointed Boards of Consultaiits, is in-
cluded in S. 670.
The proposed legislation, based mainly upon recommenda~tjons
of the survey team, would enable us to proceed with the~ solution
to the problems of the Riverton project.
Because of 1 1 1 1
div on,
the landowners i
~ch 10,
PAGENO="0050"
46
stalled that permit the farming on a sustained basis of 8,913 acres;
2,918 acres are the same kind of land, but we do not have the drains
in yet.
Senator ANDERSON. What is going to happen to these 8,000 acres?
Will the 8,000 be disposed of in the same wny that you dispose of
other lands?
Mr. DOMINY. Under this legislation, we would be ~wthorized to
give priority to the Midvale farmers and sell it at the appraised
value of the land.
. Senator ANDERSON. Why ?
Mr. DOMiNY. Because they are in need of expansion of their units.
Senator ANDERSON. Well, I know, but other areas are involved
which ai~e in need. There is a certain procedure that the Bureau uses
in handling this. These are 8,000 acres in this area. There may be
8,000 acres in Arizona, and would they be open to Colorado growers?
Mr. DOMINY. It would be in the first instance under normal
reclamation land settlement procedures.
We have. ~Oi~e through that step once. We did open it up under
regular public land homestead procedures. We ran into this problem.
And now we feel that some special consideration is justified.
Senator ANDEflSON. Are ydu doin~ the same `thing `that you are re-
questing here for other American citizens ? That is, if you have an ir-
rigation project,. they buy it back with the right to use it ?
Mr. D0MINY. No, sir.
Senator ANDERSON. I meali, those who originally had it?
Mr. D0MINY. The ones-
Senator ANDERSON. They must give up ?
Mr. D0MINY. The ones that were bought off would have no rig~its
whatever.
Senator ANDERSON. You just finished saying that they woulc~.
Mr. D0MINY. The Midvale farmer was not bought out. Let us go
to~ the map, please. The Midvale division is this lower half of that
area covered on the map. None of those lands were acquired. The lands
that were acquired were the lands above the red border. And none of
the farmers `that sold would be entitled now `to buy the land back. It
would go `to the landowners of the Midvale project that are having
trouble with inadequate-sized units. We homesteaded it in very small
units, many of 80 acres in size. And' they have been trying `to revamp
th$ project and get it on its feet. These are the farmers who have
beenleasing these third division lands after we bought out `the original
settlers. And ` now, we would give preference to `the Midvale farmer
wI~o ~h'E~s' demonstrated his ability to farm in this area, and who can
`use this land to advantage to augment his economic unit.
~ Senator ANDERSON. The third division was sold back to the
Government?
Mr. DoMIN~-. That is correct.
Senator ANDERSON. So that the first and second divisions have
this preference; but how about the original ones in the third division?
Mr. DOMINY. The third division settler who sold out ha's no rights
whatever. We would not permit a un'it to go back to a man who has
already been bought off.
Senator ANDERSON. My question was in regard to divisions one and
two.
PAGENO="0051"
47
Mr. D0MINY. Those in the first and second divisions would have
the first rights to purchase ; yes, sir.
Senator ANDERSON. Why?
Mr. DOMINY. Well, because we think thatthey should have a chance
to expand their units.
Senator ANDERSON. Why do you give them a preference?
Mr. Doi~iINY. For the same reason that we are giving the preference
on the Columbia Basin, where we liomesteaded the farms that are too
small, and when we have another unit that comes up, we give them a
chance to buy it-to give them a better econorn~c unit. This is exactly
what we want to do in Midvai~.
Senator ANDI~RSON. I remember a little bit of the original legislation,
in regard to the Columbia area. Senator Norris came over and sptke
to the House about that. But this is somewhat different, ~ is it not~
Mr. D0MINY. It is the same principle involved. We homesteaded on
the Columbia Basin projects starting back in' 1946, and it soon became
apparent that we had honi~st&aded th~ farms too small, and the only
chance we had was to give them a sectnd chance. So that when we had
additional land for sale, we gave these fellows who had units that
were inadequate, the first chance to buy befdre someone els~ came in.
That is all that we propose to do on this. ~ ~
~ ~ The only difference is a difference ~in the timing. The Midvale
farmers have been th~re longer and ha~ had to put up with itiade-
quate units for a long time. And, ther~Ore, 1 think that makes it
stronger. ~ c ~ * * ~
In the third division, 66 out of 67owners exeoutedcpikehase options.
The execution of options by so overwhelming a majority of the osvn-
ers was, we believe, due to several factors. First, and perhaps most
important, is the requirem~rtt of section 2 of the act of March 10, 1964,
which provides that water~ ~hall b~:. furnished only upon individual
application therefor and upon payment of afl a~moiint for each `acre tp
which water is to be furnished to th~ appli~atit during th~ year in
question equal to the estimated~average cost per acre for aill Iand~tq
be irrigatedthatyear of opBFating a~i~i maintaining the third divisiç~n.
Many landowners who would have otherwise remained felt that un&~r
this provision their operatioli ~ arid maintena~ic~ costs would be
prohibitive. ` ` ~ ` ~ : ~
The remaining `half would be at such a .~high cost rate that they could
not stand it. ~ ~ ~ ~
Pursuant to the requirements of Public Law 88-278, this Depart-
mer~t, on July 11, 1966, advised the President of the Senate an~d the
Speaker of the House of Representatives that there were sufficient
lands capable `of sustained production under irrigation. use in the
North Port~d, North Pavillion-these are all parts of the third divi-
sion-and Cottonwood Bench a~reas of the third division tO form an
economical, feasible unit. That report stated that there are currently
8,913 acres of such lands, and 2,918 acres `which will require construc-
tion of drains or other betterment `works to be capable of sustained
production under irrigation.
Our letter of July 11, 1966, also contained a r~sum~ of the financial
and economical impacts of the Riverton project computed on the basis
of enactment of H.R. 7398-introduced in the 89th Congress and
PAGENO="0052"
to S. 670-and ou the
OMINY. ii es, s~
r ANDJ~RSON.
farmers?
e alternatives;
lands with con-
~d lands with
i~ave
r retu
e-both the
ar and the
lived on
~ress did
~ could
PAGENO="0053"
4~
Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. Senator Jorda~i?
Senator J()1tDAN. Commissioner, what will be th~ difference between
the price paid by those farmers who sold out in the third division and
the price that this land will be offered for to the present ones in the first
and second divisions?
Mr. D0MINY. I would like Mr. ICober to comment on that.
Mr. KOBER. We have made an appraisal of that. We have made an
appraisal on four of the farms that have been purchased. And I would
estimate that, on the basis of those" four farms, that practically, the
purchase price that we would get would be in the neighborhood of 40
to 50 percent of the price that we purchased it for from the original
Would it not have
original, instance.
.t of that third division was public
reservation. It was ac~
PAGENO="0054"
50
at 160 acres by the individuals, but for the most part they were home-
steaded at 80 acres for individuals, or even less.
Senator ANDERSON. They are making a prosperous return on the 80
acres.
Mr. D0MINY. No. There have been adjustments on the land.
Senator ANDERSON. I
Mr. D0MD
ire.
~an and wife can have 32()
n the record that of the ones.
~ do not? Or is there not a
istance.
~xisting on the a'~?
farmers on f
one that did not sell under the original 1964
~l reauthorize the entire Riverton project as
~er Basin project. This would modify the plan
LNDER~
INY.
I do ren
most of
~amai
utopia. r~
,le farmer.
managed-those who have
little larger unit, but it is
~ove the economic situation
could incorporate the
.y of the first and
~ers w~~o have learned to live
iat now?
~Lt.
e lands under the 1964 act.
we would hold these
t they could be success-
under the act?
ieces of
almost
an area.
ANDERSON.
ject.
1950, where we have irri-
- first preference to the
r than bringing in more
I
ftiverton area.
~ --~ --~-~ he
TI
PAGENO="0055"
51
for the Riverton extensjonunit-thjrd division-Missouri River Basin
project, to include the entire Federal reclamation project.
The consolidated project would be placed under one contracting
organization, the ~ Midvale Irrigation District, which would assume
operation and maintenance responsibility for the project works. Sub-
sections 2 (a) and 2 (b) , respectively, would authorize the Secretary to
replace all existing repayment contracts by a single amendatory repay-
ment contract with the Midvale District, and would authorize a 50-year
repayment period for `the amendatory contract.
. Subsection 2(c) authorizes retention of the rates, of charge to exist-
ing land classes and the acreage assessable in each land class during
construction and testing of the water conservation works. Thereafter,
the rates of charge and assessable acreage would be determined in
accordance with the amortization capacity and classification of unit'
lands `as determined by the Secretary.
Under subsection 2 (d) the district would be credited for amounts
paid , on the repayment obligation under previous contracts, with a
commensurate reduction in the repayment period of individual tracts
to reflect credit for amounts formerly pai4 by the district and attribut-
able to such `tracts.
Pursuant to subsection 2 (e) , for the first 10 years of `the repayment
period, the annual obligation of the district would be reduced by. the
amounts it has credited to water users who have, at their own expc~ise,
provided drainage tile. This reduction wQuld be limited to a total of
not `to exceed $50,000.
To `alleviate water-logging and salinization problems, the district
has repaired or replaced deteriorated project works, lined canals and
laterals, and installed an effective drainage system under a rehabilita-
tion and betterment program. This has resulted in a district obliga-
tion as of June P1966 of $4,464,925.
, In addition~ local farmers `themselves have spent almost $50,090 for
drain tile. In ~uture drai~iage prOgrams, the landowners will not be
required to furnish tile ~ th'~ir own expense. It, therefore, is equitable
to give credit `to those who have ~lready contributed for such purposes.
Subsection 3 (a) provides for the nonreimbursability of construc-
tion and rehabilitation and betterment costs of the unit assignable to
lands classified as permanently unproductive. However, if at any time
in the future these lands should be reclassified as productive, the repay-
ment obligation of the district would be correspondingly increased.
Senator ANDERSON. Did you say that under subsection (b) it pro-
vides for the nonreimbursability of construction and rehabilitation
costs, et cetera ? Do you understand that whatever you do under this
program now, you make no charge to them at all?
Mr. DOMINY. This is coi~sistent with the Fact-Finders Act where
the land was nonirrigable-that the portion of the project construction
cost of it is nonreimbursable. We have done that.
Senator ANDERSON. Have we not had testimony that the 8,000 acres
are unirrigated?
Mr. DO1~INY. This ~s going `to be about 45,000 acres of `the first and,
second div!sions and about 11,000-
PAGENO="0056"
52
Senator ANDERSON. Just the third division how. Are you not pro-
posing that the third division area-
Mr. D0MINY. Yes. We have 11,831 acres that we can make irrig~b1e.
Senator ANDEi~SON. Do you plan to put a full charge on that?
Mr. I)0MINY. Yes, sir. This 8,913 acres already has all of the drain-
age in. We would need to put added drainage in at about $24 an acre
on 2,918 acres to mahe a total irrigable area of the third division of
11,831 acres.
Under subsection 3 (b) , net revenUes of the Rivertpn unit wOuld be
applied to irrigation costs which are not assigned to be repaid by water
users.
Subsection 3 (c) provides that net revenues of the Missouri River
Basin project would be applied to reimbursable costs not assi~ned to
be repaid by irrigators or returned from net revenues of the unit. It is
estimated that $19,875,648 would be required for financial assistance
from net power revenues of the Missouri River Basin project.
Adequate revenues are in prospect to retire all reimbursable invest-
ments and meet all requirements for financial assistance, including
defrayal of irrigation costs of the Riverton extension unit which are
beyond the capacity of the irrigators to repay.
Senator AND1~RSON. Do you have the sum of $19 million broken
PAGENO="0057"
53
poses if cost-sharing arrangements are made with appropriate non-
Federal agencies. In this connection,~ Governor Hathaway of Wyo-
ming, on July 11, 1967, sent Secretary llJdail a ~tisfactory letter of
intent to assume a share of the sepa~ab1e costs of fish and wildlife and
recreation enhancement associMed with the Riverton project.
Inclusion of these purposes in the proposed legislation would bring
the IRiverton unit more nearly in line with the multiple-purpose au-
thorization of the Missouri River Basin project and would be in ac-
cordance with the provisions Qf Public Law 89-72, the Federal Water
Project Recreation Act. .
Based upon a realistic appraisal of the production capability of the
third division lands, which have been successfully leased and irrigated
for several years, we are convinced that these lands are as productive
as those of the present Midvale district.
It is estimated that $2,794,624 would be the portion of the reimburs-
able costs beyond the water user~' repayment ability and the amount
that would be required for the third division from Missouri River
Basin power revenues if S. 670 were enacted. Failure to enact S. 670 or
similar legislation, would result in a loss of resource benefits from the
e~isting Federal investment of approximately $18 million in irrigation
storage, conveyance, distribution, and drainage systems.
We urge the favorable consideration of S. 670 by this committee and
its subsequent enactment, with the suggested amendments.
Senator ANDERSON. Senator Simpson, in the hearingsin 1964, stated:
You are all acquainted with the third division because it is the project Which
has plagued not only the settlers, but Congress ever since the construction of it in
the 1940's.
* We have all conceded that it is a political accident. Phe lands of the, third
divis1~n have soured and are uinprodnctive, and for the most part are ntidbie tp
* . produce enough to perrn~t a family to make a living.
r yOu think that was a ` `~ment
e.It
make a I]
t and save as much as pos~
that time?
respect f
PAGENO="0058"
54
At the time that this
~i had taken over, and
rfhat is Senator Simpson. You were here.
Mr. DOM~Y. Yes, indeed, I was.
Senator ANDERSON. He was a very fine man.
Mr. DOMINY. I hav~ known him~for years.
Senator AND~SON. Why then did he give this testimon~i?
MT. DOMINY. He did not give any judgment that he did
not believe. ~ ~
~ ~Seiiator ANDRESON. He a1w~ys `tested things pretty carefully.
One reason is that `he always tried to `find answers. Do you think
that he was mistaken in `this notion?
Mr. D0MINY. I tthink that with regard to a fairly sizable amount
of the lands that were homesteaded on the third chvision the state~
ments that you have read attributable to Senator Simpson are
accurate.
Senator ANDERSON. You are suggesting now `that the Midvale
farmers get their extra acreages and `he says `that those were no
good. Who is right?
Mr. DOMINY. He was rig~h*t in part.
Senator ANDERSON. In quite a little part.
Mr. D0MINY. Part of the land is considered worthless for irri-
gated purposes.
Senator ANDERSON. You are now irrigating it-that is what you
are now urging?
Mr. DOMINY. No. We homesti~aded almost 25,000 acres, Senator.
And we are only trying to salvage 8,913 acres. We `admit that we
did not classify those lands sufficiently in advance. We did run into
some drainage problems because of `salt and magnesium sulphates
`and1s~no things that w~ have not `encountered anywhere else in the
West. And w~ spent considerable money `on some of it trying ` to
drain it. We adm'iit that we `cannot. . Therefore we do agree with
Senator, Simpson's conclusion with respect to about `two-thirds of
the land's involved, but we disagree `to the extent of `the 8,913 acres,
because we have demonstrated that they can be farmed.
Senator ANDERSON. Did you indicate what the situation was at
that `time?
Mr. DOMINY. Yes, sir. I had these two------
Senator ANDERSON. In `testimony before what committee? I was a
~ of the c~nmittee.
by Senator Simpson?
---A- ~ ~al `attitudes, not specific
- ~ - t; consider that a
~ laM a ~brus'h and estab-
~ and ~` ~ 10 years there-
`after tffi.ait he was really quaking much of an effort to prove whether
that farm was irrigab'ie or not'. One of the dLi're~tors who was a big
wheel in getting this thh~g passed t'o `buy `out at that `time was such
a farmer. One of the other directors spent most of hi's `time as a
PAGENO="0059"
iEihou'g
very
tion as ~
like, being out
be moved into `~
ready
0-"
admit
n included. I
~w !~ t because it
~e I ~ ~ 01 ~ ~-~--.- ~::i, but
~ was not good land ola~ m in advance.
-. b was part of the wartime energy to create farming units to
returned veterans, and they went in there pretty fast and did not
take a good look at some of these lands.
Give us credit, however, we stopped at Muddy Ridge and Cot~
tonwood Bench which were not opened to homestead.
Senator ANDERSON. But you are going to put that back in, the
8,000 or 9,000 acres.
Mr. DOMINY. That is up in the North Portal and Pavilion
When the problem began to s 1
b. We stopped the se
good,~whi4
drains are
Senator
Mr. LL
The act of
more years.
Senator ANDERSON.
~meth~
Au
1%
ill t
Se
in Fe
Mr. LA~
00
in the~wiiute:
and let the a]
is
wnership. If
PAGENO="0060"
lands of the
PAGENO="0061"
57
C and
f pressm
rm man ar
1 rusi
any d~
know i
I knew ~
ivir. ~ I rec prthJse~
~thers~ L not recognize, had never be
~Senator A~nERsoN. Senator Simpson ~ree~
Mr. Dó~MINY. Y~s; I agree.
Senator ANDERSON. You were on the
Mr. Do1uN~. I d~s~gree ~ 1
ment must apply to the acre
think that necessarily follows.
Senator A~DEnsOw. I did not ~say that. I ~re
son said. We had to rely upon that poin4t of
still follow Senator Simpson.
Mr. Drn~iINY. 1 think.Uie buy~o~
~inot
Le
J I did not
were.
I You say
)rne of the
~s a pr~*peci~ move *t the time,
PAGENO="0062"
~ress does
ted
pra~
ave ca1cu~
that subsidy from the
million?
~rs all three sections~?
~, owli
~s this contract is~rewritten the present set~
E~natOr J0R
vermi
58
That is th
ount that will be written off as a loss
ethe contract?
~wer revenue,]
re would ha
would pay
f the order
nbursable?
PAGENO="0063"
59
tiers on sections two and three will have this advantage which up to
now they do not enjoy-they will have the power subsidy payments in
the order o~ 19-plus million dollars ; is that correct ?
Mr. D0MINY. That is correct. You said sections two and three. It is
sections one and two. ~ ,~ ~ .
Senator JORDAN. Section~ one and two ; yes. That. is correct. ~ They
will get credit for Fish and Wildlife of ~% million in excess of that.
Mr. D0MINY. Of course, this is in addition. ~
Senator JORDAN. That is right. The way th~ contract stands now?
Mr. D0MINY. I follow you. You are correct.
Senator JORDAN. All right. In addition to that these present settlers
will be given a priority in buying the 8,800 acres or the 11,000 acres,
whichever figure you calculate it to be. Either one that is to be disposed
of. To get the record straight about what the whole thing will look at if
this bill becomes law.
Mr. D0MINY. As usual you understand it fully.
Senator JoRDAN. Thank you.
Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hansen.
Senator HANSEN. Commissioner Dominy, there have been several
questions asked as to the contribution that the Government would be
called upon to make if the bill should become law. And you have made
reasonable responses to those questions. I would like to ask you what is
the loss to the Federal Government which has now increased through-
out the years, if you have that figure before you, and if you may know
it, plus the amount of money that went into the buy-out-how much
will be lost in this way?
Mr. DOMINY. The buy-out cost about $3,2002000. Of course we have
an investment in canals and laterals and drains that amount to-
Mr. LANGLEY. The additional total Federal investment is about $25
~ million now with certain repayment recoveries.
Mr. DOMINY. Does this include the first and third?
Mr. LANGr~Y. The whole thing.
Senator HANSEN. Could you from the top of your head allocate
to the third division a reasonable share of the total investment that
will be-
Mr. DOMTNY. Let me give you a financial breakdown of the costs for
the first and second divisions and the third division and how it is in-
corporated here in this package.
Senator HANSEN. You mean when you have time to do it?
Mr. D0MINY. Yes. We do not have it exactly broken down that way.
Senator HANSEN. I think it is important because it seems to me,
. really, that our purpose here today is not to seek errors that we have
made in the past, but rather it is to see how best we can pick up the
pieces and put them back together to contribute to the economy of
Wyoming and to the strengthening of America.
Do your figures indicate, or have you worked up some suggestions
so far as the cost-benefit ratios are concerned?
Mr. D0MINY. Not exactly, as we would on a new project coming
up for original authorization, hut we can develop a figure.
Senator HANSEN. If you could, I suggest, Mr. Commissioner, that
it will be helpful, too, because the Congress would like to see what
PAGENO="0064"
PAGENO="0065"
Item Total costs
Irrigation facil
ties allocations
Fish and
wildlife Power
Midvale 1st and
2d divisions
3d division
Cottonwood
Bench and
Muddy Ridge
Other revenues
and credits
0 $528~241
Totai, repayment and credits 16,0~,14~ 10,677,515 3,285. 387 ~ ~ * 0 1, 143,:376 0 926,877
Surplus or (deficit) ~ 367, 618) ~ . 57, 897 (7, 680, 6~3) (6;926, 278) (2i7, 210) 0 ~ 398, 636
lnaccordancewithS.670: . . S ~ . S
Projectinvestment June30 1966 S 30,400,764 10,619,618 10,966,041 6,926,728 1,360,586 0 528,241 ~
Estimate for additional construction: S ~ ~
Midvalearea n,io~,o~o ~ 11,103,000 ~
Fish and wildlifefacilities 1,565~90O $1,565,900 S
Totalcosts 43,069,664 ~ ~1,722,61.8 - ~ 113,966,041 6,9268728 1,360,586 1,565,900 528.241
Project repayment and credits: S ~ : S
Reimbursable: S ~ - S
Powerrevenues ~ ~8,241 528,241
Wataruserscontracts(5Oyears)l 4,152,330 8,474,94t1 * 61,7390
Power revenues, PilotBüttei 4~7,563 * 4f6,08~ 81,465
MissouriRiverBasinpower 19,875,648 ~ i6~ft97,322 1,775,316 1,203,010
Contributions and other revenues . 15~,578 ~- 1~7,576
WyomingGameandFishC8mnflssitmn 782,950 782,950
Nonreimburaable: S S
Land costs 4,626,980 4,262,980 ~
Administralon of Public LawB3-258 . 116,501 ~ 116,501 S
Report requested by 87UaCon4 25,992 25,992
Chargaoff, unproductive land: 11,886,933 817,757 4,142,898 6,926,278
Fish and wddlife facilities - 782,950 782,950
Total repaymentandcredits S 43,069,664 - 21~7~2,618 10,966,041 6,926,278 1,360,586 1,565,900 528,241
1 Distributed on basis of acreage.
RIVERTON PROJECT INVESTMENT AND REPAYMENT, DECEMBER 1961
Cs
Projectinvestment,June3O,1966 ~0,4O0,764 $113,619,618 $10,996,041 $6,926,278 $1,360,586
Project repayment and credits: S
Ci Reimbursable: S ~ s
Water userscontract(lO8years) S 9,~O,281 9,680,281
Powerrevenues 9~5,877 926,877
. ContribUtionsandotherrevenues ~ 414,840 62,976 140,791 . 211,073
Nonreimbursable: S S S S
tandcosts 4,050,898 ~ 3,118,595 932,303
Administration of Public Eaw 83-258 ~. 116,501 116,501
Report requested by 87th Cong -25,992 25,992
Chargeoff, unproductive lands ~17,757 317,757
PAGENO="0066"
PF~5
(4.66)
BUR6AU OF RECLAMATION
- - ProjectonJ State ~ ~ Co~pIetI~ Dat. % C~~p)~ DOte `
RIVERTOU UN~T, MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJEC?, WYOHING~ ~ ~ Y 12/16/67
AUThORIZATION ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ BC RATIO i.78 ~ Date 12/16/67
LAND CERT1~1CA~T1O1~1 Not required DEFINLTE PLAN REPORT
~UMMARIZEP F$NAILCIAL DATA
$ ].2,666,~OQ. Allotments to June 30, 19
3o,1loo,~16~ Allotments for F.Y. 19
Allotments to Dote
Iniflol Underfinancing F.Y. 19
-______________ Allotments Required for F.Y. 19
Total to be Allocated $ 16~,t~6~,661t Bolonce to Complete after F.Y. 19 $
T06a1 Fed~rq1 Obligations
Net Property and Other Transfers
Cash Advances..Non.Federol
Adjustment
mms~us~i~ rcn ACRE
ALLOCATIONS
Irrigation $ 216,68~,117 Amount Repaid by Irrigators $ It,152,~3O Irrig. invest. per Acre $ 1653 J Payment Capacity
Power 528,2161 Amount Repaid by Power * 20,373,211 Repaymentof Invest. per Acre 5 16.60
Fish A LL. 2,565,900 ~ror.ing Carve A Fish ComM~ 782,~156 ment per acre: Annual Charges'
Land ptrrchase ~ 16,262,~6o Poverlnvest. paid by power ~ By Irrigators $ * 76 0. & M. $ 3.08
~h99_u~Pro_~2O291626 2J F~uip~entdePr~ito o&ii ~ ~~err~evenues 3716 Construction 1.52
CtC.Total $ 163,069,661) Total $ ~43,O69,661) ~ 3 Total $ 16.60
STATUS OF REPAYMENT CONTRACT: Original repayment contract or5 Riverton Project dated 2-y2..31. 41reendatoi~j contract dated 6.2);-52,
adopted 1950 land classification and consolidated all obligations to 12-31.51. Anrendatory BiB contract executed 9_6_56. A furthez
acendotory contract will be executed immediately following enactnr~t of enabling legislation as an IIRBP Unit.
DESCRIPTION The project i* located in Present County, i~rocing, on the ceded portion of the Oiled River Indian Reservation northwest of
the Town of Riverton. This is a aeltipurpose unit which provides a full water supply for the irrigation of 96,1)60 acres of oewia~'id land,
and a power supply from Pilot -Butte Powerplant of 1,600 Ice. This power supply is interconnected with the Western Division of the)IRBP
transmission system. Ticeunit is comprised of lands underJurisdictioa of the Nidvale Irrigation District. A critical aituation~exists
in the Nidvale area in. maintaining sustained agriculture exiwhat is basIcally a sound soil and water resource. The lands require aodern
drainage installations, the lining or canals and lateralsin specified reachos,~an4 due to the alkaline content at the soil, the
c'eplaoetnent or codification of cat~' structures built 30 to 160 years ago.
The crops presently grown are eoweal~ forage, and cash crops of b~an:t and sugar beets. It is anticipated that during construction and
upon ootepletion the scare crops orill so produced.
$
RE0tON
PRO~CT DATA SHEET
Sheet I of 2
PAGENO="0067"
1 Ratio based on direct benefits is-
100-year analysis 1.26
50-year analysis 1. 08
2 Chargeoffs for unproductive lands, etc:
Chargeoffs authorized by act of June 23, 1952 (66 Stat. 151) $817, 757
Charegoffs anticipated under S. 670 (89th Cong.) 11,069, 176
Nonreimbursable administrative expense of farm unit exchange for Public Law
83-258 - 116,501
Nonreimbursable investigations requested in H. Doc. 1728, 87th Cong., and re-
ported to 88th Cong 25,992
Total 12,029,426
3 Nonreimbursable:
Fish and wildlife $782, 950
Chargeoffs, etc 12,029,426
Lndian land cost, Public Law 83-284 1,054,450
Earns unit purchases, Public Law 88-278 3,208, 530
Total 17, 075, 356
4 Work completed on Riverton project under the Riverton construction program includes con-
struction of a powerplant, 3 dams, and irrigation facilities consisting of canals, laterals and drains,
and related facilities. The R. & B. program consisted of rehabilitating the Bull Lake and Pilot Butte
Dams, and the irrigation facilities in the 1st and 2d divisions.
New work involved includes construction of modern drainage installations, lining of canals and
laterals in certain reaches, and replacement or modification of many structures built 30 to 40 years
ago.
PAGENO="0068"
~r,next
limited ~
priori-
Aie Law
rns have
PAGENO="0069"
65
them demonstrate tile change ~nd convert slowly ~s demonstrated
success proves we should mOve. Th~e grazing lands aze in that same
category. They should supplement the irrigated land in this livestock
economy. . .
Senator HANSEN. As I understand you,Mr. Langley, aside from
the minerals which I understand yon to sayhave been rethined by the
tribes, it is the position of `the Bureau that the Indians have no right,
title, et cetera, to the land at all ? .
Mr. LANGLEY. This is correct. We have reviewed this thoroughly.
The office of the Department's solicitor concurs in this. We addressed
a letter to this committee on that subject dated October 24, 196G.
Senator HANSEN. I wonder if I may suggest, Mr. Langley, this:
I am familiar with the position that has been made and the claim
that has been made. I think, though, that this wire that I have, to
which we have been referring, is somewhat difFerent.
Do not think now in terms of the contentions made by this gentle-
man-I assume you were doing this-that y*i were addressing your-
self to this wire from the tribes-do I understand you to s~y that it
is the Bureau's position that the tribes, in addition to any right that
this gentleman may have had, have lid right e~epting as to the mineral
rights? ~
Mr. LANGLEY. That is correct, sir. The tribes' representative came
in and met with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclama-
tion, the Solicitor's office on several occasions, and we examined.this in
some detail. That is our position. .
Senator HANSEN. I do not think that I have anything else, Mr.
Chairman. I will appreciate, as I am sure the other ~ernbers of th~
committee will, the information you have mentioned which would be
helpful to us, that is, an allocation of the costs as to the investment
winch has been made and how ~ much would be lost and what the
benefits would be. .
Mr. D0MINY. We will work up that statement broken
and second and third divisions and give it to `the cc
promptly.
Senator HAN5I~N. Thank you very much. *
May I just say, too, that I would like to tell you how I
appreciate your cooperation. I do not need to tell the members of this
committee that Mr. Dominy has beeff a graduate of the University of.
Wyoming. He understands our problems and &ur difficulties out there
very well. We consider ourselves fortunate to h a man with your
background occupying the very important post that you do occupy.
We appreciate the work of all of you and the great help that all of you
people have given us. ~
Mr. DOMTNY. Thank you.
Senator ANDERSON. What was the citation that you gave as to the
handling of the situation on the water?'
Mr. DoMIN~. It is under section 9 of the Reclamation Project Act
of August 4, 1939.
Senator ANDERSON. What is the other one-I am trying to get the
reference to it? The law stated 1964, 1965, and 1966. How did you do it
in 1967? By what authority?
Mr. LANGLEY. Section 2 of the March 10, 1964 act provides that the
Secretary-
PAGENO="0070"
66
Senator ANDERSON. That is wha~t we were, discussing.
Mr. LANGLEY. Do you have it there n9w?
Senator ANDERSON, Go ahead.
Mr. LANE~LEY. That provides that the Secretary is authorized to
continuethe delivery of w~er to the lands of the third division during
;the calendar years of 1964, 1965, 1966, as under the provisions of
.seotion 9, subsection (d) (1) of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939.
Let me pause right there. I do not have it in front of me, but if you
will look at section 9(d) (1) of the 193~9 act, I am sure that you will
find the provision that provides a limitation of 10-year development
period during which you c~n deliver water to private land without a
repayment contract.
Senator ANDERSON. Which has long ceased.
Mr. LANGLEY. That is right. So you have to look elsewhere for
authority to deliver water when you are talking about public lands.
Once it becomes all public lands section 2 of the March 10, 1964 act
does not cover it.
Mr. D0MINY. At the time that this bill that we are reading from
was enacted, authorizing the purchase, certainly it was contemplated
that only part o~ the land would be purchased, so now we have to turn
to section 10 of the 1939 act for the authority to lease when they become
public lands.
Go ahead. ~
Mr. LANGLEY. Over in section 10 of the 1939 act it provides that the
Secretary in his discretion may grant leases~ licenses, easements, et
Qetera. What w~ do when we lease irrigable lands and serve them
with: water is to get the greatest return to the United States.
. ~Senator ANDERSON. What about 1967 as to the water?
Mr. LAN~LE~. It is public land in 1967.
Senator ANDERSON. That is your citation?
Mr. LANGLEY. Yes, sir.
Senator ANDERSON. Will you furnish us a memorandum as to what
could be done in 1967 ? Would you mind giving us a written state-
ment as to why this was used in 1967?
Mr. LANGLEY. Yes, sir ; we can supply the c~ommittee with that. I will
give you the date of the letter in just a moment that we did send.
. Mr. DOMINY. We furnished a letter to this committee, Senator An-
derson, under date of August 19,~ 1966~
Senator ANDERSON. Would you supply us with a copy of the letter?
Mr. Doi~1INY. We will give you another copy of that. The pertinent
section that is cited in that letter reads, subsection (d) (1) of section
9 of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939 provides that the Secretary
may-this authority relates to the delivery of water to land in private
ownership of Government-owned land made available for disposition
under the general homestead law.
Senator ANDERSON. That does not apply to either one.
Mr. DOMINY. ~ It is point out `below, however, that the United States
has acquired title to all but 80 acres of the lands of the Thjrd Division
of the Riverton project and the~y are now being held in Government
ownership pending congressional action. Accordingly we are of the
view tlutt it was not the intention of the Cofigress in passing the act
of March to prohibit the delivery of irrigation water after 1966, with
the lands in Government ownership., and made available for temporary
PAGENO="0071"
67
use under the leasing program. Irrigation water has historically been
made available to leased Government land on several irrigation projects
pending their ultimate us~ fó~ proje~t purposes, We have the Solicitor's
view that these are no different once they become in Federal ownership
than any other Federal land.
Senator ANDEESON. Would you send a copy of the memorandum to
us ? I would like to have it.
Mr. D0MINY. Yes, sir.
( The document referred tofoliows:) . ~.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TH1~3 INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETAin~,
WctshAmgton, D.C., August 19, 1966.
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman~ Committee on I~terior and Insular Affairs,
U.Eg. senate, Washii~gtoii, D.C.
DEAR Mn. CHAIEMAN : You have previously been furnished with a copy of our
letters of July 11, 1966, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House advising that there are sufficient lands on the third division of the River-
ton Federal reclamation project for sustained agricultural production under
irrigation use to form an economical, feasible unit. The information contained
in the letter of July 11 was submitted as required by the Act of March 10, 1964
(78 Stat. 156) . That Act also authorized the continuance of water delivery to
the lands of the third division during calendar years 1964, 1965, and 196G, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9, subsection d ( 1) of the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939, but without regard to the time limit therein specified.
Subsection d(1) of Section 9 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 provides
that the Secretary may fix a development period for any irrigation blocI~ of
not to exceed 10 years from and includingthe first calendar year in which water
is delivered to the lands. This authority relates to the delivery of water to lands
in private ownership or Government-owned lands made available for entry or
dispbsition under the general homestead and Reclamation laws. As pointed out
below, however, the United States has acquired title to all but 80 acres of the
lands of the third division of the Riverton project and they are being held in
Government ownership pending Congressional action on S. 1746 or similar legis-
lation. Accordingly, we are of the view that it was not the intention of the
Congress in passing the Act of i~1arch 10, 1964, to prohibit the delivery-of irriga-
tion water after 19~6 to lands in Government ownership and made available for
temporary use under a leasing program. Irrigation water has historically been
made available to leased ~ Government lands on Federal irrigation projects
pending their ultin~ate use for project purposes. ~
By letter of June 25, 1964, we advised the President pro tempore of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that options had been secured
looking towards the purchase by the United States of all but approximately 80
acres of privately owned lands On the third division of the Riverton project.
Accordingly, title to all of the land on the third division, with the exception of
the aforementioned 80-acre tract, is now 1~eld by the United States. This amounts
to approximately 25,080 acres, the m~tjor portion of which has been leased during
calendar years 1965 and 1966 to project landowners residing within the Midvale
Irrigation District.
it is not only desirable, but highly essential that the Governnient-owned lands
on the third division continue to be utilized for grazing and agricultural purposes
until action is taken by the Congress on S. 1746 or similar legislation. Accord-
ingly, it is proposed to again lease the lands for calendar year 19~7 and to furnish
irrigation water th the leased lands. The leases will provide for a return to the
United States of funds sufficient to cover all operations and maintenance costs
involved in supplying the water tO the leased lands, as well as the monetary
return for the leasehold interest in the property. We consider that the delivery
of water to tbe~e lands in Government ownership is consistent with and in ac-
cordance with the Federal Reclamation laws as amended and supplemented.
An identical letter Is being sent to the Chairman of the House Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee.
Sincerely yours,
KENNETIr H0LUM,
Assistant S~ecretary of the Interior.
PAGENO="0072"
Ley with the board of
1 respect to
ioners
PAGENO="0073"
69
tion project, mid other m~tters relating 4~o the, day-to-da~y operation of
a large irrigation project.
As attorney for th~ Midv~Te Irrigation District, it will be my
pleasure to diseuss the proposed legislation, section by section, and
re1a~te to this committee the thinking of the Midvale Irrigation District
on the various features ofthis bill. The commissioners of Midvale have
considi~red the many oompk~x problems existing on Midvale and the
rest of the Riverton reclamation project for many years and they
believe that this legislation offers a plausible and practicable solution
tothe ills confronting the entire projeet.
The commissioners believe that all of the land within the boundaries
of the Riverton reclamation project is fit for sustained irrigated farm-
ing or for livestock grazing and all of the land is absolutely essential
to make an economically feasible project. They be'ieve that irrigated
farming alone .is not the answer. A livestock operation alone is not
the solution. But the combination of these pursuits on adequate land
units by experienced operators is the answer.
The Midvale Irrigation District offers through ~ this legislation
many years experience as a responsible irrigation d~stri.ct which has
been in existence since June 1, 1921. The Midvale Ir~i~ation District
further offers experienced farmers who are e~p~rienced liTigators with
proven abilit.y and success and who are familiar with Wyoming's
arid soils, high altitudes, short growing seasons and limited crop
adaptability.
The Midvale portion of the project r~'~ be rehabilitate~
completed because it has proven through~
feasible farm and fit for sustai
remainder of th verton i'e - imation
to a diversified 1
farming and fo~
area for hay ~
the undeveloped ±~
~uIture develo
p.m. of the san
~R~QO~
er. I think
your personal
PAGENO="0074"
STATEMEISTT~ OP DONALD WHITE, ATTORNEY POR MIDVALE; AC-
COMPANIED BY PEED A~WLEN, PRESIDEN~~ oP THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OP THE MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT; CARL
WELTY, MEMBER OP THE BOARD; EDWARD L. BOGACZ, MEMBER
OP THE BOARD; ROY REID~ PROJECT MANAGER; AND GIDEON
W. DAVISON, PRESIDENT, COTTONWOOD' BENCH ASSOCIATION,
RIVERTON, WYO.-Resunied
Mr. WHITE. That is correct, Senator.
Senator HANSEN. Mr. Don White, attorney for Midvale. You may
proceed.
Mr. WHrri~. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to state that we
have some color slides that we had brought with us of the Riverton
reclamation project, showing some of the canal system and the irriga-
tion system, the structu~es, the diversion dam, and some of the crops
in the process of being~ grown on the project that may be of benefit
to the committee, atid we would like at this time to introduce those
colored slides into the re~o~d, for the cornmittee's use, rather than
show them at this time if *e may.
Senator HANSEN. *ithout objection, they will be received.
(The colored slides above referred to will be found in the files of the
subcommittee.)
Mr. WHIm. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name
is Donald P. White. I am a practicing attorney in Riverton, Wyo.
I have been counsel for the Midvale Irrigation District since Augttst
of 1962.
S. 670 is a coii~prehensive bill which, we believe, offers a solution
to the problems e~isting on the Riverton reclamation project. The
Midvale Irriga1~on District supports the entire bill but it may be
helpful to this committee to know how the district views each section
~ th~ proposed legislation.
Section 1 of the `bill would reauthorize the entire Riverton Federal
reclamation project ~ as a unit of the Missouri River Basin project.
This would permit the consolidated project to be placed under one con-
tracting organization, the Midvale Irrigation District, now adminis-
tering the first two divisions. Midvale would absorb the lands of the
third division and would assume operation and maintenance responsi-
bilities for the entire project. The simp]icity of administration, the
economy ai~d effici~ncy gain~d and other advantages are obvious in
having one contracting~rganization for the entire project.
The Midvale Irrigation District can assume the additional responsi-
bilities of administration, operating and maintaining additional lands
without greatly increasing the total cost of operation of the district.
Fixed costs, such as depreciation, will increase very little with the
additional workload that Midvale would assume, because these fixed
co~t~ will be spread over more acres, thereby benefiting all the farmers
involved.
Midvale has handled the' operation and maintenance of the third
division for the past 2 years under contract with the Bureau of
Reclamation. The arrangement has b~e~ successful. The district has
proved its ability to successfully deliver water tQ the third division
I
70
I
PAGENO="0075"
71
are~ and maintain the third ~ div~i~ion irrigation ~yste~m, in addition to
its regular &~eratiOn and maititen~tnce of the first and s~co~d divisions
of the project. ~
If Midvale were enh~ed to hiclude the lands of the thfrd division,
the district would have the ability to better equip itself with machinery
and maintain qualified manag~nent and employees without in~reasing
the assessments to the~ individtu~1 fkrmers since these costs would be
shared by the lands of the third division petitioned into the district.
Mr. Roy Reid, manager of the Midvale Irrigation District, will
deal in some detail with the actual costs of operation and maintenance
of Midvale alone, and including third division.
Subsection 2(a) of S. 670 would authorize the Secretary to replace
all existing repayment contracts by a single amendatoi~y repayment
contract with Midvale Irrigation District. The Midvale Irrigation
District would be the one contracting organization representing the
entire Riverton unit. We believe that Midvale's past payment per-
formance on its various repayment contracts exhibits the district's
fiscal responsibility.
Since its original contract with the United States dated Febru-
ary 12, 1931, the district has an unblemished record of paying the an-
nual construction charges called for each year. The district ha's paid
the Government a to:tal sum of $1,222,104.68 pursuant to its various
repayment contracts. I would like to introduce at this time for the
record an exhibit showing the amounts paid by Midvale Irrigation
District to the Government each year and the total amount repaid to
date.
That exhibit, Mr. Chairman, is attached to my statement.
Senator HANSEN. If I could interrñpt for just a moment, Mr.
White, let me say that your staten~ent will be included in `full in th~
record, ~nd I `suspect maybe that in light of Commissioner Dominys
presentation this morning, perhaps in the interests of time we could
save some time if you wouM be willing to Mve your statement in-
cluded in the record. I note that Senator Jordan is with us and anitici-
pating that there may be some rolleall votes later this afternoon, afid
not kn~owing just when those votes may be taken, could I suggest, with
tine understanding that your statement will be in the recor~, that you
make any øther observations, if you have any that you would 1ik~ to
make ; or if not, perhapsat this time w~ might see tim slide~ that ~to~
mentioned earlIt~r. ~ ~"
Mr. WHITE. That would be very good, Mr. Chaiithi~i, with your
understanding, then, I will introduce my staten~nt into the record,
and make one comment, if I may, on the statement, and that is with
re~peet to-
Senator HANSEN. Let rr~e add this before you go further, to say if
you would like to summarize, or if there are any points that you
would care to emphasize, it will all be in the record, but I appreejate
that perhaps you might like to call particular attention to something,
~ and if that is the case, why please feel free to do so.
We are not trying 1o deny you the opportunity. I know you have
come a long way. And we appreciate having you here. I was just
thinking that we might get called out of here, and I wanted to have
Senator Jordan an'd myself given the opportunity to hear from. each
person, and it could get kind of busy this afternoon.
I
I
PAGENO="0076"
~te~of~i
~ry coil
years
~nt.
t period is unrealistic a
PAGENO="0077"
73
Subsection 3 (e) , that net revenues of the Missouri River Basin
project would be applied tO~ reimbursable costh not assigned to be
repaid by irrigators or returned from net revenues of the unit.
Section 4 modifies the excess land provisions of the Federal re~
clamation laws to permit delivery of water to owners of 160 acres *
of class 1 land or their equivalent in other land classes.
Public Law 88-278 permitted modification of the excess-land pro~
visions of lands in the third division alone. This bill would extend
that modification to the entire unit and is justified by the same con-
ditions-all these lands are located at high altitudes with a relatively
short growing season and are limited in the crops that can be grown.
. `This land-equivalent formula is set out in the map attached to the
tentative firm unit layout for third division has been inti~Odueed
by Mr. Ed Bogacz, commissioner for Midvale Irrigation Distrièt.
The application of this formula can best be seen by the map of the
proposed farm units for third division. In order to effectuate the
full intent of this legislation, this 160-acre land-equivalent formula
will be ~iecessary to put present Midvale farmers in position to pur-
chase the third division lands if and when they are sold, by the.
Government. ,
Subsection 5(a) authorize; the Se
at r~1~1~ __~_,!__~i, 1 ~ -
retary to sell lands on the unit
:i; size at not less than their
Lue, so long as no one owner holds more
60 acres I lands or their equivalent as classified under
4ofthebill.
`;ion, authorizing the sale of lands on the unit, is extremely
to the economic future of the project, city of Riverton,
i~ounty, and the entire Stateof Wyoming.
rchase `of the 1~ lands by the Government in
)u-sinesses and political
a Valley T~
nont
construction o
~al and person
Before the buy-out
n resulted
PAGENO="0078"
74
RIvERT0N CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Riverton Wyo.
Re Riverton reclamation project reauthorization (S. 670, HR. 3062).
MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
Pewiflion, Wyo.
GENTLEMEN : The Riverton Chamber of Commerce is pleased to lend its support
to the legis1at1oi1~ presently in Congress that would reatithorize the Riverton
R~c1amatiou Pr&ject. The Chaniberhas unanimously endorsed this legislation by
Resolution.
Riverton is located in FreRIont County, in west-central Wyoming, The county
population is approximately 30,000. Riverton is the largest town in the County
with an estimated population of 8500. The City of Riverton is located jus't south
o1~ the Riverton Reclamation Project.
Irrigated farming has been a mainstay of the Riverton~economy during all of
its sixty-one years. The U.S. Gor~nZnent opened the land for settlement in 1906,
laying out the Riverton towusiteto serve the needs of th~>homesteads which were
drawn by lots. Those who won a homestead broke the ~q~nd from the sagebrush.
The pattern of development has been repeated over the ~rears as theMidvale Ir-
rigation District portion of the rroject came In to being. Many Riverton people
remember the excitement of the 195&-50 period when the Veterans of World War
II, by the hundreds, applied for a chance at Third Division lands, At the time
of this land opeiiing, Midvale lands in Paradise Valley, Lost Wells Butte, Mis-
souri Valley, Buekhotn Plâts and the pavillion area had been under irrigation
for a number of years. Some of those lands went wet and alkali showed plainly
on others, but ei~~4rging from the continuing adjustment, came good farms, oper-
ated by people with experience and a desire to farm, plus the capital and the
know-how to carry out t1~e.lr aspirations.
~ There were very few trade or service establishments in Riverton when the
Project began. Estimates today indicate that there are about 300 business estab-
lishments. The Chamber of Commerce boasts of a membership of 197 members
from the b~isiness community.
Many trades and service establishments in Riverton depend completely upon
the agricultural community. Two creameries, four elevators, five farm-implement
stores, a sales barn and a packing plant fall within this business category. Prac-
tically all other Riverton business establishments depend, to some degree, upon
agriculture. Grocery stores, gasoline service stations, dry good stores, appliance
stores, automobile and truck dealerships and banking institutions are among the
major businesses in the last classification.
Many local people are employed by Government agencies who are directly con-
nected with agriculture and the livestock industries. These agencies would include
Farmers Home Administration, University of Wyoming Extension Service, Bu-
The cit~y of Riverton suffered serious consequences from the Govern-
ment buy-out. There was a great deal of adverse publicity about the
third division legislation which bad a depressing effect on land values
over the entire area. The business community immediately lost a hsrge
r~tail market represented by the farm families that left the area.
Historically, Riverton has been a farm community and the loss of
third division was a severe blow to its economy. The Riverton Cham-
ber of Commerce never endorsed the third division buy-out and has
consistently supported the present reauthorization bill from the
beginning.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce at this time a
letter I have with me from the Riverton Chamber of Commerce, and
a letter, from the School District No. 32, from `the office of County
Commissioners. of Fremont County. Those would be the three that
J would introduce at this time.
Senator HANsEN. Without objection, they will all be received.
(The documents referred to, follow )
I
.1
PAGENO="0079"
75
reau of Re~1amatiQn, Agricultural Stabilization a~d Conservation Service and
the Soil Conservation Service.
From these observations it is quite evident that Riverton relies heavily upon
the irrigated farming on the Riverton Reclamation Project for its economic wel1~
being. The Riverton Chamber of Commerce acknowledges agricultur&s contribu-
tion to the community and stands with those who have faith in the agricultural
potential of the Project. ~ ~ ~
We wholeheartedly support S. 670 and alL ~lOG2 and urge its immediate enact-
ment into law.
Respectfully yours,
RIVERTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
TED KINNEY, Pre&ident.
JAY MCFARLAND.
Chairman, Agr4cuZt~ra~ Committee.
SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 32,
Pavillion, Wyo., IS~eptember 27, 1967.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Midvale Irrigation District,
Pavillion, Wyo. ~ .
GENTLEMEN : It has been brought to my attention that you might want to con~
shier information regarding the effect of the removal of the Third Division lands
from the tax rolls of the School District.
Initially the most serious problem w~s the loss of valuation and bonding ca-
pacity. This amounted to a direct loss of $209,265 in real estate valuation in addi-
tion to the loss of personal property such as livestock, machinery, etc. Net loss of
dollar il1come to the School District which has a ~ tax rate of . 35.G ~ mills was
$3,260 for real property valuation and approximately the saixie amount for per-
sonal property valuation or a total of $7,500 per year. In addition to this the
bonding capacity `was lowered by $20,000 during a time that it was needed * for
construction of new facilities. ` . `
Following the sale of Third Division lands the school experienced a decrease
of 17% in enrollment. This decrease resulted in a net dollar loss of $17,000 per
year from state sources which are paid on the basis of average daily member-
ship and census figtires. * ~
Not includingtheeurrent year, the net loss of revenue over the past three years
has amounted to approximately $73,5OO~ Since the School District has been at
maximum mill levy ior several years the loss has proved to' be a serious handicap
to the providing of satisfactory education for the remaining children of the school
District.
Sincerely,
` ROGER D. THonsoN,
` Sv~perinten4eat.
OFFICE OF THE CouNr~ COMMIssIoNER,
` Lander, Wyo., October 4, 1967.
MIDVALu IRanATIoN DISTRICT, ` ~ `
Pav'illion, Wyo. ~ ~ ` : ~ ,
GENTLEMEN : The Fremont County Bc~ard ` o1~ Comini~s1onerS are extremely In-
terested ` in the pa~~,age of the Rts~e~±on Rt~lamatipn PrOject rea~ithbrization
legislation (S,~7O 4nd H,R. 8O~2) . ~ , . .
When `the TIiirdD1vi~iou lands Were purchased by theUnited States under `the
Act of March 10, 1964, Fremont County sustained a serious loss of tax reveau~.
In the Pavillion School District No. 82 there was a loss in assessed property val-
uation of $211,410.00 and In the ShÔshoid School District ~. ~4 there was a loss
of $118,144.00. This was a total loss of assessed property valuation for Premont
County of $329,554.00.
The actual tax revenue loss in the Pavillion District was $9,779.83 and in
Shoshoni was $5,797.33 for a combined total loss to Fremont County of $15,577.16.
The reduction in tax revenue was a serious blow to Fremont County which was
already having a difficult time in obtaining funds necessary to carry out tra-
ditional services to its citizens. County governmental services such as road re-
PAGENO="0080"
iie letters referre~~
7ALE IR1IIGATIO
~1ion~, Wyo.
OF CoM~IIssIoNERs,
Uha~irman.
~ereiy ydurs,
Ro~ ~ VAN Di~w,
PAGENO="0081"
77
AM1~Iq~ NA~IONAL BANI~ o~ EIVJ~RTON,
R~verUrn Wyo, October 9, 1967.
MIDVALE BOARD OF CoMMISsIoNERS,
Pavillion, Wyc.
~ GI~NTLI~MEN : Again it is my pleasure to give information and testimony on
behalf of the Third Irrigation District, Riverton Reclamation Project. On Octo-
ber 31, 1961, I appeared and gave testimony 1x~fore the United States Senate
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee at the request of Senator J. J. Hic1~ey.
This testimony related to land values which I felt at that time and feel to~tay
compare favorably with other lands in the Riverton Reclamation Project.
Further, I gave testimony that "certain management practices vary, and this
is evidenced by the fact that some fai~merS are successful on a particular farm
unit whereas their predecessors have been unable to profitably produce from the
sanie unit," and further, "Adequate capital and good business management as well
as the individual farmer's ability to apply good agricultural practices and tech-
niques to the land has spelled the difference between successes and failures that
have taken place to date in the Third Irrigation District."
Now, just six ~iears later, my faith in the Third Irrigation District is stronger
than ever. As Vice President an~ as a director in the American National Bank
of Riverton, I can say withoiit~es'ervation that I and all other officers here
at the bank have expressed this s~tme faith by furnishing capital for the leasing
and operation of a number of those units in the Third Irrigation District for
our customers. We will continue to furnish operating capital to farmers and
ranchers who are our customers, and who would buy land in this district, for
we believe in the future of this area just as strongly as we believe in the future
of the whole Rivetton Reclamation Project.
Sincerely,
JOHN E. BENE5CII,
Vice President.
MON IT. WATT,
President.
tJ.S~ DR RTM~NT O~' Ae~EacULttYnE,
FARMRRS HOME ADMINIsTRATION,
Riverton, Wyo.,. Oetol'er 2, 1967.
BOARD OT COMMIsSIONERS,
Midvc&Ie IrrigatiOn Di~strio~,
Paviflion, Wyb
GENTLnME~ ~ . This agency is presently financing several leases on the Third
Division with operating loans and their progress has been satisfactory.
If the Third Division is returned to pritate ownership, we anticipate financing
the purchase of land to increase the size of present farms and to purchase indi-
vidual economic units if any are sold on this basis.
The Farmers Home Administration ha~ previously had real estate loans on.
MIDVALE IRRIGArION DIstflicP,
Pavi~Zion, lVyo.
C~N~t'LEMnN: Yonr inquiry r
- ~irdDl
*THn Fins~ NAPIONAL BANI~,
Riverton, Wyo., October 6, 1967.
of operating lOans tO
PAGENO="0082"
I
78
nearly every farm in the Thi.rdDi?isiQn, and it is felt that the land set up to be
irrigated under the proposed plan will prove eoonomically feasible to the mdi-
vidual operators.
Sincerely yours,
~ DUWAYNE It.
~ ~ ~ ~ County Supervisor.
Mr. WHrn~. Before authorizing the sale of lands on the Riverton
pi'pject as encompassed in subsection 4(a) of the bill, I am certain that
. COngress would want to know what financing would be available to
prospective purbhasers Of these third division lands.
The Bureau of Redhunation has indicated that the normal tell-year
period of financing would be available at the prevailing interest rate
oil Bureau contracts which presently ~$ 6 percent per annum on the
unpaid balance. ~ ~ S
S The American National Bank of Riverton and the First National
Bank of Riverton are presently extending operating loans to many
of the third division p~rmittees and h~e expressed their willingness
to continue flnancial assistance to owne~-pperators,particularly, when
the lands are returned to private ownership. The Riverton office of
the Farm~rsHome Administration previously had r~a1 estate loans on
nearly every~farm on third~dh7ision ai~d. would be available for real
estate loans to prospective pur~hasers~5 when these units are offered
for sale. S S
TheMldvale Irrigation District has received letters from the Bureau
of Reclamation, American Natioi~al Bank, First National Bank, and
the Farmers Home Administration expressing their attitudes with
respeot to third division financing, which I have put into the record.
Subsection 5 (b) gives a priority to resident landowners on the unit
who have not sold their lands `to the United States under Public `L~âw
88-278--act ~f ~aj~h 10, 19~4~. `i~hos~'persons entitled to priority may
purchase lands `to supplement their existing farms.
This provisioffr~cognizes the in~ipórtance of `having experienced ~nd
qualified operators Qfl the pro~eot ~It is felt that the resid~ht water
userswho presently own and actually operate th~ur farm's are the ones
who will make a ~uccess of the"bala~tee~of'theproject. They deserve the
first opportunity to suppl~theut thëii~ pre~ent operations with lands
made available through `this'leg'islation. S , ~ ~
Section 6 would br~ng the bill into line with the ~reievant portions of
the recent Federal Water Project Recreation Act. Inclusion of fish
and wildlife conservation and d~~i'opment and recreation a's purposes
of the Riverton unit would bring' this unit more nearly in line with
`the mu1tipi~authorization of the Missouri River Basin project.
The inclusion of"fish and wildlife conservation and development
would further the long-range general plan of the Wyoming Fish and
Game Commission, which now administers 10,539 acres of~public lands
on the Riverton pro~eet and which' owns 2,280 acres of land on the
project. ~ `, ` S
The total cost of this `fish and wildlife development, when completed,
would be approximately $1.5 million~ of which the State Game Com-
mission has already expended approximately $376,000.
On July 11, 1967, the Hon. Stanley K. Hathaway, Governor of
Wyoming, forwarded a letter to the ~Ron. Stewart L. Udall, Secre-
tary of the Interior, expressing an intent on behalf of the State
PAGENO="0083"
Payments on 1956 amendatory repayment contract:
Year:
1967 20,879.69
Total paid on 1956 contract 20, 879.69
Total amount paid by Midvale to United States of Amer-
ica to date on all repayment contracts 1~ 222, 104. 68
1 No payment made, R. & B. contract Feb. 6, 1950, beIng n~gotIated.
~ $44,783.32 less $23,790.58 whIch was transferred to other projects In connèctioi~ with
PublIc Law 258.
RIvERTo~ CHAMBER OFC0MMEIICE,
Riverton, Wyo.
Re Riverton Reclamation Project Reauthorization (S. 670, H~R. 3062).
MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
PavWion, W~o,
GENTLEMTN: The Riverton Chamber of Commerce is pleased to lend its sup-
port to the legislation presently in Oongress that would reauthorize the Riverton
Reclamation Project. The Chamber has unanimously endorsed this legislation by
Resolution.
79
of Wyoming to participate in development of fish and wildlife con-
servation and regulation on the Rive~ton project pursuant ~o the
Federal Water Project Recreation Act.
Thank you.
(The attachments ref erred to follow:)
I
I
Midvale irrigation dist1~iot construction payments made to the United states of
America
Payments on 1931 repayment contract and amendments thereto:
Year: Amount
1944 __- $37, 589.59
1945 36, 974. 19
1946 ~36, 829. 12
1947 55, 328. Si.
1948 58, 035. ~4
1949 77, 091. 37
1950 (1)
1951 79,978. 54
Total paid through 1951 381, 827. 26
Payments on 1952 amendatory repayment contract
Year:
1952 82, 546.03
1953 45,183.06
1954 ~ 895.02
1955 44,637.90
1956 ~ 688. 41
1957 44, 232. 34
1958 220,992.74
1959 51; 075.49
1960 ~` 426. 40
1961 53, 92990
1962 ~, 484 68
1963 ~ 415. 99
1964 54, 579. 42
1965 ~ ~ 6~3. 06
1066 ~ 57, 793. 95
1967 57,913.34
82, 546.03
1952
PAGENO="0084"
U
U
under
alkali
rent, came
plus the
~iere a
nembership
and ER.
S Immediate
Pre$jdent
PAGENO="0085"
81
year from state sources which are paid on tJ~e basis of average daily member-
ship and census figures,
Not including the current year, the net loss of revenue over the past three years
has amonnted to approximately $73,500. Since the School Di~triet has ts~en at
maximum mill levy for several years the loss has proved to be a seribus handi-
cap to the providing of satisfactory education for the remaining children of the
School District.
Sincerely,
MIDVALS IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
Pavillion, Wyo.
GRN"~LEMEN:
Roonn D. TIJORSmT, &.~pe'rinte~4ont.
Orricu OF T~IS 1
Lande~
revenue.
property valuatio
there was a loss
tion for Fremont
The actual ta~
Shoshoni was
~ ~
44M0.
of $329~5~L00.
ue loss in the
or a combined
~`~-~ewasas
~hoshoni ~
total loss of asses~
ion District ~vs
ntenanc ~ and ~
5 were t 1availabl
These lands have continued to produce crops anu
owning lessees. The federal gvernment received $4]
1966 ; arid $42,845.OG in 1~67 iticome as lessor c
has received nothing while attempting to mainta~
in the area.
We think the lands should be returned to private o~
the tax rolls so that they can contribute their fair
government.
Fn~MONT COJINTY B0A
WALTEI~ V. RMODES, C
Pro je~t Ma
PAGENO="0086"
:tee at the
es which I f~
ither ivert
~rtain
some farmer~
edecessors have 1
irther, "Ade~
armer's
r J.
and
J.1 -.
feel today
and this
I main
Liral p
nient
~tices
~es and
~s stronger
coal Bank
~rs here at
~` the leasing
istrict for our
ating capital to farmers and ranchers
uy land in this district, for we believe in
~1y as we believe in the future of the whole
JOHN H. BENESOH, Vice President.
Trn~ FIRST NATIONAL BANK,
Riverton, Wyo., October 6, 1967.
the avai1abil1t~ o~ operating loans to
~s received.
operating loans to several farmers leasing
`easou why we could not continue to make
~nu1d consider our loans much more secure
n the Third
that this
HARMON H. WATT, President.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRIcULTURE,
FARMERS HOME ADMIyT~TRATION,
Riverton? Wyo., October 2, 1967.
BdA~oF COMMi~IoNnRs,
Midvate Irrigatio~(v District,
Pwiflion, Wyo. . ~
GENT~LEM~ : !J'h~s agency is p~'ésent1y financing several leases on the rphird
Division with operating loau~ aut~ their progress has~ been satisfactory.
~Tf the Tl~ird D~vis1on is returned to private ownersh~, we anticipate financing
the purchase of land to increase the size of present farms and to purchase
individual eeonoIn~Lc~unit~ if any are sold on this basis.
The Farmers Ifome Administration has previously had real estate loans on
nearly every farm in the Third Division, and it is felt that the land set up to be
irrigated under the proposed plan will prove economically feasible to the individ-
ual operators.
Sincerely yours,
I
I
82
AMERICAN NATIOr
OMMIS5IONEES,
RTON,
er9, 1967.
DUWAYNE B. PFARR,
County Supervisor.
PAGENO="0087"
83
Senator IIANS~N. Senator Jord~u, hai~è you any questions?
S~nator JORDAN. No qtiestions. ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Wiiin~. Mr. Chairinazi, woi~i1d it be your pleasure at tinS time
to have the slides shown ?
Senator HANSEN. I think that wou~Lbè flue, Mr. White. We would
like to see them.
Mr. WmTE. Mr. Reid, the manager of the di.strict~vill show tl~iein.
Mr. Rrnr. Mr. Chairman, I have a few slides h~rec that I think will
probably give e~veryone a better understanding of the District than
all the talk we can do. Can.eve~yone ~ ~ll right ?
This is Bull L~i,ke. This isourmain source of water for the Riverton
project. ~
Senator HANSEN. If you wouidn't'mind waiting just a moment, I
think we have some interested people here. *~ ~
Mr. REID. It may be kind of a cafidid view of our country, bi~t ~t
is still there. As I said before, this is Bull Lake. This is where ~ ~
receive the majority of our water supply. ~ .
This is Bull Lake Creek. This is the means of conveying the water
from Bull Lake down into Wind RFver~ ~hd then on to Diversion
Dam. Diversion Dam here is our~Oint of diversion on the. Wind River,
where . we take the water out of the Wind River and put it into the
Wyoming Canal, first division. !~
Here is another view of Div~r~ion Dam2 lOoking across the face of
it. It might be well to notethis darn was built back in 1926.
Here is one of our problems that has arisen on the project. This is
silt and getting rid of the silt that comes down. You can see this silt
piled up behind our Diversion Dam. It is around 15 feet deep right at
this point.
~ We eliminated the majority of our silt. problem by building this little
darn above DiversionDam, and div~rting our river back to its original
flow. Through the years, the river kept moving over closer and clQser
to a ~lift, and it was going directjy hifo Our headworks. We now have
it actually diverting the water, bringifig the water around, and using
the Diversion Dam as it was originally built to be used.
Here, again, is a picture of this silt that I was just discussing. We
have moved around 200,000 yard~s in 1966, aild in 1967 we have moved
around 180,000 cubic yards of the sand to getit Out. ~
To give you an idea of what it does when ii gets into our system,
here is Wyoming Canal's secoud diyision~ ~tnc1 ever on the right-hand
side `of the picture you will notice ~ `grass ` as being pretty high.
There is a lot of weeds growing in bete. The cap~çity of our canal has
been cut down to 50 percent. `
Our old way of doing `this was to use a drag line and clean the silt
out, and pile it up in piles on t.he bank. ThiWbe~ame quite a problem,
too. Here, again, you can see how your canalha~ silted in, `and you have
it built in on both sides. This, again,' is the old way of removing it.
This is a 6-foot man standing right here. So, this gives you an idea
of the silt problem we did have in our system.
In l9~5, when I was hired by the irrigation district, I prpposed to
the board that `a dredge be put in the canal, to remoye the sjlt, so we
could get this silt out of the canal during irrigation season. I would
like to elaborate on that just a minute.
`I
PAGENO="0088"
Bure~
here,
of lining is not
PAGENO="0089"
85
H~re~ again, you can see how it has broken up and heaved up. Jiere
is what it does to an irrigation ditch that has been asphalt-lirte4. It
actually seals the moisture and holds it ~ and acts just like a
fertilizer. This is all moss in hèi~e and grq~s5 On ~ach side. It really
creates a problem for us for cleaning. This i~ an asphalt-lined ditch.
There is no leekage here, but it is a consistent ~leanihg job, every year.
This moss grows wild. It gets real heavy.
This is a ditch that was built. It is. known ~ as the Pavillion Main
Relocation. It is a nice ditch. Senator Hansen had a chance to observe
this ditch on our tour. This ditch is fenced on bothsides. There is no
way toT sheep, cattle, or anything else t~ get into it. It stays clean,
and it is a self-cleaning ditch. It eliminates the high cost to the farmer,
once this type of ditch is iiistalled.
This is the same ditch a little further down. It has a new type
structure here, taking the water out from the farmers' benefit. It is
all concrete.
This is the pilot canal which hai~dles 66 percent of our total water
used in the Midvale irrigation District. rrhis is a~ field of alfalfa in
the background. This man, incidentally, this year, runs a little over 4½
tons per acre of alfalfa hay. This is the same ditch with your pilot
canal, running water.
Here is the same thing, the pilot canal.
Now, this is your controversial third division. This is in a field of
alfalfa. You will note how tall the grasses are and how nice and green
the hay is. You can see how tall your grasses are here. 1-lere, again,
is f
~ how your aHalf~ is growing wild through here, how
ye it is.
)u one of t
the t
- division. This is a
tey that was spent
~ept they are. This
I division. Here,
,ld here ran ~
s of 1
we
the committee, my
ojectin 1 area
had the
PAGENO="0090"
86
tunity to see many changes take place. When I first came to the area,
one farm stands out in, my memory as being the showplace on the
project. This farm is c~i~mon1y called the Williams place, which is
located in Paradise Valley about 8 miles from my farm.
. It was indeed a model~arm, with a modern house, beautiful trees,
and produ~tive fields. Today, the farm is partially abandoned. The
house is empty, the trees are dead, the land is wet and seepy. A photo-
graph of this farm in its present condition is on page 19 of "Those
Remarkable Men of Midvale." This brochure was sent to all members
of this committee. This Williams place is the prime example of our
need on Midvale for drainage. If this farm had been adequately
drained, it would never have gone seep and would be a good farm
today. This terrible waste of natural resources could have been
prevented.
The drainage on Midyale Irrigation District was never completed
and many other places in the district have lost productive acres of
farmland as a result of seep. Only 20 percent of the Midvale area has
been adequately reclaimed and pr~tected from water-logging and.
salinization through the installation of proper tile drains and the
construction of open drains.
Each year valuable acres of . farmland are going' seep for lack of
proper drainage. These lands can be reclaimed with proper drains,
but once they hüve gone seep and wet, it is a slow process to return
them to productivity. `1~he longer we wait, the more Tand is rendered
useless. The job of. reclaiming the wet and seepy lands will become
more difficult and more costly as time goes by.
Proper drainage i~ absolutely . necessary for sustained irrigated
farming on the Midvale portion of the project. It ~ anecessary meas-
ure that nmst be stai~ted as soon as possible.
The problem of drainage has become so acute that many of theindi-
vidual Midvale farmers have, purchased tile drains for their own
farms. With the help of the Midval'e Irrigation District, these title
drains have been iiistalled and many valuable acres of farm land have
been saved. Midvale is vi;t~lly ~oncerned with this problem because
every acre that becomes seepy not only becomes nonproductive for
the individual farmer but is removed from the assessment rolls of the
district and no longer shares in the burden of paying the operation
and maintenance co~ts of the district.~
The section 2 (e) of this legislation provides a credit for those
farmers who have installed tile drains at their own expense. If this
bill becomes law and the drainage system is completed on Midvale,
the farmer benefiting from this . program would not be required to
pay the costs of the title drain installed on an individual farm. In order
to be fair with the farmers who have installed tile drains at their own
costs, this provision has been ~i~rted in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, we would lik~ at this time to insert in the record a
list of the Midvale ~farmers who have `actually purchased tile drain
at their own expense. `This list also shows the amount expended by
each farmer for tile drains in~taUea on his farm. This list also shows
that these water users have paid otit of their own `pocket the total of
$55,806.03 in their attempts to preserve their farmland.
PAGENO="0091"
87
I would like to insert a statement here that $12,500 of this was
drainage that was done on the highway rights-of-way, and the high~
way did. furnish the pile and did the work.
rfhe Midvale Irrigation District has assisted the individual farmers
in the installation of the tile drain and this assistance has cost th~
district $7,169.97.
The seep problem can be corrected with adequate drainage. Herb
Burden, a Midvale farmer, actually reclaimed 105 acres on his place
by installing drains.
I would hke to insert another statement here. This farm was prac-
tically all seepage when Herb took it over. There were about 10 acres
of productive land left on it.
These acres are now irrigable and productive for him as well as
assessable for annual operation and maintenance costs by the district.
rrhjs is one example, but there are many on Midvale that can be cited
to show that adequate drainage will preserve the land for maay
years of sustained irrigated farming. Mr. Ed Bogacz, one of my fellow,
commissioners who is with us here today, needs approximately 1,500
feet of tile on his place. And so it goes with many water users through-
out the district.
It is estimated that Midvale needs approximately 80 miles of ppen
drains and 280 miles of subsurface tile drains to complete the drainage
system. This protective work would cost approximately $6.5 million.
This proposed program of installing drainage throughout Midval~
is not a new concept but ~vas planned from the very beginning of the
project. This legislation would enable the drainage program to be
completed as it should have been done many years ago. .
The commissioners of Midvale have spent a great deal of time and
money attempting to control the ever-increasing silt problem~. The
\\Tind River and diversion dam have filled up with silt over the years
to the point that nearly all of the silt from the river, during normal
water levels, is diverted down the Wyoming Canal.
I want to insert this statement. This was before we put this dam in,
to divert the river. The silt and sand inflow into the district canals is
occurring at a faster rate than the district is able to remove it. The
district has constructed a floating purn~ barge to ~remove the silt, to-
gether with the use of its other heavy equipment, but still the silt
problem continues.
rfhe district has been required to allocate a substantial portion of its
annual operation and maintenance budget to fight this problem. Our
efforts have been moderately successful in thi~ area but this does not
prevent the sand and silt from entering into the. irrigation system. at
our diversion point.
The answer to our silt problem seems to be a ~ desiltir~g works built
into the system with control gates at the diversi~'n d~tm~. The~e controlS
gates should be electrified tO allow faster regulation durin~"sitiieing
operations.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this
committee.
Thank you.
I believe the attachment contains each individual's investment in
tiles.
(The document referred to follows:)
PAGENO="0092"
I
Total drain purchases and installathn ~o«=ts
must
.ation, and
rrigation Dis~
I struc-
~n sys-
as constructed
PAGENO="0093"
$9
age have damaged
Because of these inadequ
tinual repair prol em and a very
~ In this day ari~d age when it
available water, it is a shame to admit the loss c
resource. Nevertheless, old and inadequate
canal ançl laterals c bus ~
tion District has lost E
evaporation from 1962
it is sadly true.
In 1t~66, the L
of water from the \/v
feet was actually d~
District. This is a
tjon distribution ~
Approximately tW(
River into the irrigat:
1966. Much of this l~
estimated that the.w~
if the canal and 1~
The board of commissioners o:
been acutely aware of this water I
showin~ the actual amount of water
~tion distribut ~vstem
)fl system tha~ serves the ~
ports water over many miles in order to SE
within the district. The district mainta:
and Is for a total'
I
~ic conditions
4 caiial -`
~tures, -~
irLtenax
~ionDistr1ct diver1~ed 328,116
r at Diversion D~
~red to the farms in the
loss o 204,104 acre-feet
~tof see
PAGENO="0094"
I
j~o
haVe their speed increased. ~ There is 1 mile of ` concrete lining on
Wyoming Canal that needs to be repaired. In this area there are some
did *ooden turnouts which need replacing with ~ concrete structures.
The coTTci~te chute at Pilot~1~titte powerhouse ?needs to be replaced
with a coi1~,rete pipe. ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The area known as Sand. Butle ~is a high seep area and needs exten-
sive iat~~1~ ¶lining. Another higT~ ~eep area is found along the Pilot
canal fr~i `irwin Bridges to the Lost Wells Bü~te area. This stretch
invoh?e~ ~O.2 miles of' Pilot canal, of which .13~8 miles is already lined.
The balance of the canal should be lined, and there are a number Of
wooden weirs in the area that should be replaced with concrete
structures.
On the 1~1ain canal and laterals, there are 15 drops that need replac-
in~ and 12 new h~gat~s are needed. The balance of the Pavillion main
needs to be lin~d~Ith concrete. Along the 5-mile laterals, 17 new drops
are needed. The district has installed nin~ concrete headwalls in some
of the drops to keep them together fo~ another 2 or 3 years. This was
a temporary measure. At least 1~ new turnouts are needed and 13
weirs are suiik~nd n&~d replacing.'
` Fol1owir~ down Pilot canal through Missouri Valley and Hidden
Valley, there are 32M mii~s of la~erais and 10 miles of these laterals
have been `lined. In `tl&is a'~a~the Pilot Canal is 8.3 miles long. Four
miles of the `canal have been ii~ed and the balance needs lining very
badly ~ In the Lo~t W~lls: Butte area, ~2.6 ~i~ile~ of lining is seriously
needed arid 10 h~adg~ need to be repl'i~ce±~
~ This is a high ~eep ar~a and conth~te lihing `would return several
htifldi~d ~res ,of~'ljutd hito~ prciduction;'Pn the Sand Gulch area, at
"l~st18 ffiiie~Of 14fl~~g' is i~eèded and s&veral major structures are in
the~need `~f repair. `Th~27 `O.D. i~t~ral' in this area loses more water
`th~o~ig~h~eep thanthiy Otl$r ditch `in th~e~itire project.
` rF~~i~ geileral ~ta~ëi~ntbf the conditi~oii~ of th~ ~c~tnal, iater~ls, and
`stru~ture~ t~h~ Mic1~ale IrrigationIMstrict is v~ry generaL bitt `does
p~ifit out the extent ~Yf the need' for protective work in the district a~
soon as possiMe. ` ` "
~ My many years as a farmer on the Ri~terton project and my ser~vice
as a n~iembe~ of th~ board of cominissioiters of the Midvaie Irrigation
Distract, F beli~ve, qualify me t~ender an opinion and make some ob-
seryations about this agricultural `area. !Fir~t' of all, the first. and second
~~cv~t4ns of the Riverton' project which ar~ included in the Midvale
i~i~t1on'Di~tri~t l~v~ proven to be good farming areas.
~ The ~farmer~ mi Midvale produeed'cr~ps valued at $2~825,i15 in 1966
and L~1rice the beginning o1~project operations in 1925, have produced
crops valued at $58,883,281. The gross crop ~ value of $66.54 per irri-
gated acre in 1966 `con~pares favorably `to other reclamation projects in
our area. ` ~ ~ ` ` ~ ` ` ` .` ~ `
The Midvale' Irrigatic~n District h~s proved its ability to raise crops,
meet its repaythent obligations to the Government and make an ade-
quate living for approximately 370 farm families. Secondly, if we ob-
tain ~timely assistance `to rbpair and complete the irrigation system,
we ~an continue to be a prOductive agricultural area in the future.
Thank you.
(The attachment referred to follows':)
PAGENO="0095"
91
WATER. LOSS FROM DIVERSION POINT TO MIDVALE FARMS
Year
Total acre-feet of water Totaj acre-feet of water
diverted from Wind RNiër delivered to Midvale Farms
at diversion dam
Canal and lateral losses due
to seepage and evaporation
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
~27, 072
278,062
252,530
287,683
328,116
95,091
106,261
115,016
102,832
124,012
131,981
171,801
137,514
184,851
204,104
Note: Total acre-feet of water loss due to seepage and evaporatIon, 1962 through 1966, 830,251.
Senator HANSEN. Thank you very rn~ich, Mr. Weity. Yiu have lived
in this area and farmed it for just about 20 years, almost two decades.
Mr. WELTY. Yes.
Senator HANSEN. Well, your intimate knowledge of it is obvious
from your statement, and I want to think you for the contribution you
have made.
Next, I think we ought to hear from Mr. Edward L. Bogacz, member
of the board. ~
Mr. BOGACZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is
Edward L. Bogacz of Pavillion, Wyo. I am a . commissioner of the
Midvale Irrigation District and I am also a water user on the Riverton
reclamation project. I am a veteran of World War II. Incideiltally, if
I may I might rnçmtion thatmy drawing n~imbe~ was168 so there were
168 veterans ahead of me in the drawing. There were quite a number
of veterans in that drawing, as I remember it~ somewhere around 500,
I believe. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ; ~ ~ ~
~ S~nator;HANsEN. Is tha~trig1~t? ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;
:) Mr. BoGACZ. Imissed drawing~ a homestead on the project on friy re-
t~rn from m~i1itary serv~ç~. I am married and I have five daughters. I
own 280 acr~s Qf f~rmhu~d in the Midvale Irrigation District and .1
*c~w~ an additional 900 a~r~s in the district near Ocean Lake which is
used for livestock pasture.
~ : ~ would like to explain that. It may raise a question as to how I can
own~tliat much lartd hi the'~Midvale district ~jth the 160-acre limita-
tiqn. -A- lot of. this land is marginal land. Ai~ound Ocean Lake, pn
the south side of Ocean Lake, it is subirrigated, It has been taken ou~
of th~ QNM class, Qf the Mid~vale Irrigation District, and therefore it is
leased as grazii~gJ~U. . . . .
I own apprQx~w~teiy 50 black augus cows, plus 700 ewes. My. usual
.c~rops are sugarbee~s, hay, and grain. With this size operation, .1 am
g~tting along satisfactorily, but there is little opportunity for `expan-
sion and increasec~ income.
~ When the 81 farm units on third divIsion were advertised for tern-
porary permits by the Bureau of Reclamation on March 9, 1965, I was
extremely interested. This was an opportunity for me to deversify
and to expand my operation. I was familiar with the quality of the
land on third division since I have lived' in this are for most of my life
and I have been farming on the project since 1937, Many of my neigh-
bors on Midvale were as pleased as I was to see these lands on third
division advertised. by the Bureau for temporary leasing.
All of the 81 farm units were snapped up by Midvale farmers and
the bidding on these units was competitive and spirited. Every unit
that was advertised was leased. The successful bidders paid a total of
$78,815 for agricultural permits on these third division lands for 1 year.
PAGENO="0096"
ery to the
PAGENO="0097"
93
Senator HANSEN. That may be received.
Mr. BOGACZ. The Midvale farmer knows the value of these third
division lands `and has actually shown by performance that these lands
are suitable for sustained irrigated farming. Not all of the 25,000
acres of third division are fit `for production, `but a selective plan
could develop approximately 30 diversified farming units that would
be good economic units to support a farm family today.
Or, perhaps, productive area on the third division could be `offered
for sale in smaller parcels to give the Midvale farmers supplementai
lands in addition to his present operations. This supplemental land
could allow the expansion for the crowded operator and provide ad-
di'tionai land for the `coming generation.
A tentative farm unit layout has been suggested to accomplish these
objectives and I would like to enter this layout, with an aecompany-
ing map, in the record at this time. This exhibit and the accompanying
map show that 30 farm units could be set up in third division using
the land equivalent of 1GO acres of class 1 land as provided in the
legislation now being considered by this committee.
I would like to enter `that map into the record.
Senator HANSEN. Without objection, it may be received.
Mr. BOGACZ. Another very important fact that the leasing program
on third `division pointed out was that substandard performance by
the original owners-generally those who dbtained relief `from the
a~t of March 10, 1964-could very well have been a `factor in third
division's poor showing which led up to the buy-out legislation. The
yields obtained and the pastures provided during this 3-year leasing
program has proven that `good third division lands in the hands ` of
experienced, competent farmers can be as productive as the lands in
the Midva1~ Irrigation District.
We do not wish' the committee to believe that all of those who ob-
tamed relief from the act of March 10, 1964, `were all inexperienced
and substandard `farm operators. On the contrary, there were eight
good third divisions farmers `who purchased Mi'dvale farms after they
sold their third division farms back to the Government.
Twelve third division farmers also owned Midvale farms at the
time of the buy-out and continue to own and/or operate their Midvale
farms successfully. For the record, I would like to introduce an exhibit
which lists in detail the names `of 20 farmers who benefited `from the
third division buy-out but who still own and/or operate Midvale farms.
I `would li'ke to enter into the `record, if I may, Mr. Chairman,
names of the 20 farmers who are still in Midvale and will benefit by
the buy-out.
Senator HANSEN. Without objection, it may be received.
Mr. BOGACZ. This leasing program is a `proven success despi'te the
fact `that these permittees knew that their `leases were only for `three
growing season's.
The leasing program has proved `to `be profitable to the Bureau of
Reclamation as well as to the permittees. Over the 3-year period it has
received $939,694 in rental income and water charges, while paying
to Midva'le $26,895.91 for operation and maintenance for the cal-
endar year 1966, and `$23,532.26 for 1967 :tihrougth August 31, 1967,
for a total `o'f $50,428.17. The net proceeds o'f $189,265.83, less co~ts
of operation and maintenance in 1965, represent surplus funds to
the Bureau by virtue of the third division leasing program to date.
91-586-68-7
PAGENO="0098"
94
On the other hand, the leasing program has some bad effects that
should not *be overlooked. The lands have been withdrawn from
the county tax rolls. County government and school districts have
suffered. Buildings have been unoccupied, vandalized, deteriorated,,
unimproved, and subjected to unusual wear and tear. The land has
suffered because temporary permittees will not properly fertilize or
preserve land for sustained use. Proper farming methods of croj~
rotation cannot be practiced. Weed control is minimal. The appli-
cation and waste of water tends to be excessive on temporary leased
11~~ do not tree
seeks to au
rivate OWfl(
nment.
d one or two of the
- L
RIvERT0N, W~o., November 27, 1967.
other obstacles are
this land and believe that the Midvale
Reclamation officials are aware of this
this would
ite owi than it
se.
opportunity to acquire Lnd in Third Division.
ROBERT J. RUMERY.
PAGENO="0099"
95
Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bogacz. Do you have
other `etters to read ? They will all be entered into the record.
Mr. BOGACZ. I would like to enter these into the record.
Senator HANSEN. Without objection, they will all be received and
entered into the record.
(The letters referred to follow:)
PAvILLI0N, Wyo.
Di~E SrR : I am interested in purchasing a farm in north Pavillion area. In
specific the place joining me on the north across the 5 mile creek.
Sincerely,
ELLEN WILLIAMS.
NOVEMBER 18, 19G7.
Du~n Sins : I am interested in purchasing land on the third division of the
Riverton project.
I now have the lease on unit No. 13, and it has worked out fine for me.
WooDRow MctJowN.
PAvILLI0N, Wyo., November 21, 1967.
BOARD OF Co~IMIssIoNERs,
Midvale Irrigation District,
Pavillion, TT7yo.
GENTLEMEN I hope that you are successful in your attempt to consolIdate
the Midvale Irrigation District with the Third Division.
I have leased three parcels of land on the Third Division from the Bureau of
Reclamation for the past three years and the land has produced a good crop
each year.
I have two sons and two sons in law helping farm our land on Midvale and
the Third Division, as I intend to purchase land in the Third Division if it is
made available. ~
Yours truly,
RICHARD H. PArnsoN.
NOVEMBER 25, 19~T.
BuRi~Au or RECLAMATION.
DEAR SIR : Being a leasee on Third Division and having the experience in
working with the soil and producing the crops I have. I am ~rery well siatislied
with my operation over there.
I think these farms have a place in producing crops as they were intended
for.
I am interested in purchasing one of the units on third Division when they
are available to be purchased.
Sincerely,
EDWARD I. ]3OGAOZ.
NOVEMBER 24, 1967.
BOARD OF CoMMIsSIoNERs MIDvALE IRRIGATION.
DEAR SIR I have a son that is in the farming business and I am interested
in purchasing more land at such time the Third Division is resold.
RALPH 0. HUNT.
NOVEMBER 22, 1967.
DEAR Sin: I am interested in buying a portion of the Third Division land
when it is available.
I lease the 0. L. Blair place and know that the land will produce,
CHARLES B. ZEFPImS.
NOVEMBER 20, 1967.
DEAR Sin: I am interested in buying some land in the third division of Midvale
Irrigation District. I have a son that is farming with me and we need more land.
EZRA STERNEOC~K.
PAGENO="0100"
96
NOVEMBEE 24, 19~7.
BOARD OF COMMISsIONERS MIDVALE IRRIGATION.
DEAR SIR : I have a son that in the farming business and I am interested in pur-
chasing more land at such time the Third Di~4sion is resold.
IEARLO WILIEvER.
MIDVALE IRRIGATION DIsTRIcT,
Pavillion, Wyo., October 20, 1967.
MIDVALE IRRIGATION DI5mICT,
Pa~vil~ion, Wyo.
Dn~n SIRS : I understand that provided a bill Midvale is interested in, goes
through the Senate this year, the 3rd Division lands are to be sold back into
private ownership.
I would like to inform you when this land is sold, I am very much interested
in purchasing a unit.
Sincerely yours.
~ U. A. FRIEND,
Midvale Water User.
RIvERT0N, W~o., November 22, 1967.
CoMMIssIONnEs or MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
Paviflion, W~o.
GENTLEMEN : At the present time I have unit 51 leased on the third division
and have been iiotified that I can renew the lease for another year which I
plan to do.
After farming in that area this past year, I feel that there is opportunity to
develop productive operations in that area and I hope that the proper legis-
lation will be passed that will allow these units to be purchased.
My son and I have a nice herd of angus cows and we hope to be able to
purchase proposed unit No. 17 so that we can increase our herd. My son is in
his second year at college and is taking a course in agriculture. He has several
head of registered angus cows and is very much interested in expanding the
operation. It is for this reason that I am writing you at this time as I feel that
unit 17 offers the possibilities for a good livestock set-up and I hope that I will
have the opportunity to purchase this unit and make it Into a productive and
worthwhile operation.
Sincerely yours,
KENNETH, lUverview Route.
MIDvALi~ IflRIGATION DI5TRI0T,
~ Pavillion, Wyo., October 20, 1967.
MIDvALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
Pa/viUion, Wyo.
DI~AR SIRS : I understand that provided a bill Midvale is interested in, goes
through the Senate this year, the 3rd Division lands are to be sold back into
private ownership.
I would like to inform you when this land is sold, I am very much interested
in purchasing a unit.
Sincerely yours,
~ EARLW.ANGLEN,
Midvale Water User.
PAvILLI0N, W~o., November 23, 1967.
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
Third Division Irrigc~tion Project,
PaviUion, Wyo.
GENTLEMEN : This letter is to advise you that I am interested in retaining
tracts on `the third division Irrigation `project, which I now hold under farm lease
from the Bureau of Reclama'tion~ In the event the government decides to sell
these lands, I would like `the opportunity `to exercise any preferential righ'ts to
purchase, which may `b'e vested in me, under said farm leases.
I am especially interested in a purchase should `the units be enlarged to in-
clude enough additional lands to make them economically self-sustaining.
Yours very truly,
EARL STTJLTZ.
PAGENO="0101"
97
PAVILLION, Wyo, November 15, 1967.
DEAR SIRS : This letter is to express my interest and intention in purchasing
one or more of the present units I am operating on in the Third D~v~sion
project.
I feel an operator can make a pro&able living on units of 300 acres or more
with proper management and adequate irrigation water for the types of soil
and terrain on these units.
Prior to Government purchase I feel many of these units were abused and
mismanaged, especially in regards to irrigation practices.
The project can be a tremendous asset to the States economy because of in-
creased yields and returns per acre in comparison to older and existing projects.
Some of my main concerns at this time are ; a guarantee of adequate water for
irrigation at a reasonable costs, a feasible repayment schedule for opertion
and construction costs, a true and comparable appraised valuation on the units
and the possibility of being included under the Missouri River Basin project
in the near future.
KENNETH W. lIGHT.
MIDVALE IRRIGATION l)IsTRIcT,
Pavillion, Wyo., October 20, 1967.
MIDvALE IRRIGATION DIsTincT,
Pavillion, l~Vyo.
DEAR SIRS : I understand that provided a bill Midvale i~ interested in, goes
through the Senate `this year, the 3rd Division lands are to be sold back into
private ownership.
ii would like to inform you that when this land is sold, I am very much
interested in purchasing a unit.
Sincerely yours,
FtED ANGLEN,
Midvale Water User.
RIvERTON, Wxo., October 17, 1967.
MIDVALE IRRIGATION DI5TRIOT,
Pavillion, Wyo.
DEAR Sins : This letter is to inform you that I am interested in purchasing a
plot of land in the Third Division when they are made available. After looking
the available land over, I am moist interested in plot numbers 17, 18, 27, or 28.
Very truly yours,
LLOYD DEOHERT.
OCTOBER 16, 19437.
CoMMISsIoNERs, MIDvALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
PavUlion, Wyo.
DEAR SIR : This is to be considered to be a letter of intent to move back to
Wyoming upon release from the Navy in December 1968.
I would like to have this letter entered as my choice of selection of various
units of the 3rd Division that I understand will be put up for sale in the
future. Units 16, 18, 27 and 28 are units that I would be interested in purchasing.
Very respectfully,
DALE D. DECHERT.
Mr. BOGACZ. The Midvale Irrigation District stands ready today to
include these lands within its boundaries once they are returned to
private ownership. The irrigation system of canals and laterals stand
ready today to continue to carry water into the irrigable areas of the
third division.
We sincerely request that this committee favorably consider this
legislation.
(The attachments referred to follow:)
PAGENO="0102"
R
G
~ce _ R
L
69
70
7~
72
73
74
75
76
77
S L
C
F
J
F
C
-~ II
- Li
M.Jones 220.4
~on
is
.00 438.00
`50 1, 537. 60
3,012,00
2,574.80
360.60
2,105.60
1,604.40
2,195.60
1,224.00
1,049.20
98
RIVERTON PROJECT, WYOMiNG-AGRICULTURAL PERMITS FOR 3D DIVISION LANDS
Original owner
1965
~es K
- L
Amount
bid
Water Total paid
payment
II
L
F
l~
L
PAGENO="0103"
F,,
-4
0
0
C,
-4
0
C)
C)
C,
C~l ~
CD
-4
C,,
0
0
0
0
0
-1
;I ~ ~ ~ ~ ::~~
~ ~ ~ ~ g~ ~
~4 ~ ~ ~oc~o~ -J 0COC)0OCoooC~Q~0©OOQ~ c~-~
~ ~ ~
O ~ C~J00~ ~ ~0)F~0~-~ F~0 ~ F~o
00 N~00 000 ~000)N~0) ~ O00~ ~00 OO00~ ~ 00000 ON)0000) CO OF~ OON)C' N0N~0~ 00 0F'~~0 O~
0 000000000000 oooooooOo~ Ooo0ooooooooooooooo~ 0 000000000000000000 00
~
0
C,,
-4
PAGENO="0104"
~11 ~ ~
~ U~iP1h~ii
~ ~: I ~ ~ ~`I ~`I
- ~(D C0.4C) CJ~ C~) ~ Q~O OQ~4
3
3
3
0
rjo
3
_0~_%~0co-c~ QQ~ooCoc,~c;'c~0Oou~ ~-
~QQN~ccr'~c~ ~
0000000000000000000000000 00
-4
0
2
0
C)
-4
0
2
C,
C)
C)
-4
C) ~
~
C,,
0
0
0
C,,
C)
2
2
C)
C,,
C)
r~C); ~; ~C); ~
pg~a ~ ~ga:
~ ~ ~1
~
CD~ ~ 3m), ~
000000000000000
C,)
-4
PAGENO="0105"
101
R'I~ERT~QN PROJECT~ WYOMING--AGRICtfl~TIJR~L PERMITS FOR 3D D~V~SION SAP4DS-Continued
1967-Continued
Subtotal ~ ~_
Keith Blankenship's home
place
Total
Gross crop vaiue___~
Average value per irrigated
Unit Original owner
No.
Successful bidder Irrigated
acres
Amount
bid
Water Total paid
payment
42A
43
44
4~
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
~
67
68
69
70
71
72
Frank Brunner Lawrence Huelle
Ferguson4albott Charles M. Jones 220. 4
~rhart-Chaney. Kenneth Paskett~~ 1$4~ 2
~ Robert Barrett . . W. F. Brown 80~ 0
Henry Barrett do 130~ 0
Edward Marlatt do~ 145 9
Delbert Edwards Bruce Lockhart 76. 1
Neal Tuft LeRoy Long 76. 1
MarkGudmundsen Ray~cham~ber 178.7
Ray Guthridge Kenneth Fleenor 126. 4
Richard Hicklin John S. Cox
Neal Tuft LeRoy Long 64. 0
MerrillSmith do 116,9
DeLorme Llyod Gaylord Whitt 120. 1
HarveyMaughan LeRoyLong 111.9
Russell Maughan do 126.8
Grant Butler Leonard Kosmiski 55. 9
ClaytonLong LeRoyLong 137.7
Merrill Smith Leonard Kosmiski 59. 1
Maughan Brothers LeRoy Long 107.7
Grant Butler Leonard Kosmiski 131. 0
Andrew Blase LeRoy Long 117.2
Grant Butler Leonard Kosmiski 127. 8
~ LewisTarver 251.7
Public land do 59. 5
do do 152. 1
Marvin West Gordon Maxson 146. 9
LaDell Harrison Robert J. Rumery 140. 5
B.Wilkinson JohnHerbst,JF 206.2
Marvin West do 46. 4
$20. 00
230. 00, ` $881. 60
210. 00 ~ 776. 80
90. 00 320. 00
130. 00 520. 00
150. 00 583. 60
100. 00 304. 40
80. 00 304. 40
950.00 714.80
200. 00 505. 60
350. 00
500. 00 256. 00
130.00 467.60
400. 00 480. 40
110.00 447.60
130.00 507.20
60. 00 223. 60
160.00 550.80
70. 00 236. 40
110.00 430.80
130. 00 524. 00
400.00 468.80
225. 00 511. 20
1,600.00 1,006.80
60. 00 238. 00
600. 00 608. 40
950. 00 587. 60
140.00 562.00
1,750.00 824.80
175. 00 185. 60
$20.00
1, 111.60
986 80
410. 00
650.00
733.60
404.40
384.40
1,664.80
705.60
350. 00
756.00
597.60
880.40
557.60
637.20
283.60
710.80
306, 40
540.80
654.00
868.80
736. 20
2,606.80
298.00
1,208.40
1, 537. 60
702.00
2,574.80
360.60
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
LaDeli-Harrison do 26. 4
Troo4c-Riggs Robert Rumery 151. 1
Alfred Trook do 173. 9
Alien Talbott Gordon Maxson 131. 0
Keith Edwards Robert J. Rumery 207. 3
Harold Capeilan L. 0. White 89.9
Carroll Riggs do 108. 3
K. & H. Edwards do 144. 3
C. Mauersberger Ray Schamber 301. 3
2, 000. 00 105. 60
1, 000. 00 604. 40
1, 500. 00 695. 60
700. 00 524. 00
220. 00 829. 20
100. 00 359.60
400.00 433. 20
160. 00 577. 20
7, 500. 00 1,205. 20
2, 105. 60
1,604.40
2, 195.60
1, 224. 00
1,049.20
459.60
833.20
737.20
8, 705. 20
8,810. 3
42,845. 00 35, 241.20
408.80
78,086.20
8,912. 5 42, 845. 00 35,650.00 78,495. 00
Note: 80 permits, 34 permittees; gross acres, 24,967.31.
Riverton project, 3rd Division-Overall production records
1064:
Gross crop value $265, 856
Average value per irrigated acre 46. 72
1065:
Gross crop value
Average value per irrigated acre_
1966:
- 337,911
- 43.02
- 438, 79~
-- 51.98
- 1,042,062
Total gross crop value, 1964-66-
PAGENO="0106"
7-
8
9-
10 -
11_.
12
950 154.5
1,550 78.9
2 000 169.2
1~7.2
1,400 153~3
540 153.5
680 1:55. 4
500 132.5
360 127.5
480 147.2
360 133.5
200 62. 1
900 149. 5
1,000 1~5.0
590 157.6
1,000 162.2
1,250 160.0
3,250 159.0
600 161.9
860 162. 1
650 150.5
1 200 152.5
400 127.5
460 171.9
360 151.8
270 140.4
1,120 152.1
500 147.5.
320 132.3
700 160.4
25,080
Midvale farm
purchased
Farmer
3d division unit(s) sold to
United States
Midvale operation
1. Carroll Riggs Units 6, 79, and 74 Lives on and Operates original Midvale farm, his son,
Dan, purchased Wayne White farm.
2. William S. Wall Unit 16 and part of unit 23 Lives on and operates original Midvale farm and put
in pump land on Midvale.
3. W. H. Roland Unit 42 Continue~s to live on and operate Midvale farm.
4. Aubrey Traweek Unit 41 Still has Midvale farm.
5. Robert Barrett ~_ _ Unit 45 Do.
6. Henry Barrett Unit 46 Do.
7. Richard Hicklin Unit 52 In addition to old place, he kept and still operates
he purchased farm from Clair Best.
8. James Barquin Part of units 12 and 24 Still owns and operates Midvale farm.
9. Harry Waugh Unit 18 Still owns Midvale farm.
10. Edith Stoops Part of unit 12 Owns Midvale farm; leased to J. Albrandt,
11. Paul Leonhardt Unit 25 Owns and operates original Midvale farm in addition
to one he purchased from R. W. Noland.
12. Alex Weitzel Units 2, 17, and 30 Owns and operates original Midvale farm in addition
to one purchased from Gail McCullough.
102
3D DIVISION T~N-rATIVE FARM UNIT LAYOUT, :~
ION PROJECT
PURCHASED MIDVALE FARM
1. Joe Chernick
2. Wayne Wilson
3. Ted Geis
4. Paul Leonhardt
5. Ed Blankenship
6. Alex WeitzeL
7. Edward Marlatt
8. Richard Hicklin
FARMERS WHO SOLD 3D DIVISION L
- - - Rudy Neal.
- - Jack Long.
- - - Fred Glover.
R. W. Noland
Earl Gardner.
* Gail McCullough..
Glen Bartlett.
* Clair Best.
~ND CONTINUE TO .PERATE ORIGINAL MIDVALE
PAGENO="0107"
PAGENO="0108"
~1O4
Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Bogacz. ~ .
Roy Reid, the project manager. Are you ready to give your state-
ment, sir ? .
Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Roy Reid. I am the district manager for the Midvale
Irrigation District. I have been employed by the district since August
20, 1965, and I reside at Pavillion, Wyo.
The Riverton reclamation project is a vital segment of the Wind
River Basin which comprises an area of approximately 7,800 square
miles. This area has a population of approximately 28,000 people. The
land within the Riverton project represents more than half of the
productive crop land in the Wind River Basin. There are approxi-
mahdy 250 farm families deriving their livelihood and residing on
the project.
We have an ample supply of good quality water available for the
Riverton project. The Wind River above the diversion dam has a
drainage area of approximately 2,000 square miles. The estimated run-
off annually at Wind River diversion dam is 870,000 acre-feet. This
water supply is ample to satisfy all of the appropriated water rights
in the Wind River drainage area.
The Midvale Irrigation District itself services 4~,244.6 irrigable
acres with 54.64 miles of main irrigation canals and 223.37 miles of
laterals. The entire irrigation distribution system on Midvale extends
for a total of 278.01 miles. There are 335 structures in the main canal
system and a total of 3,530 structures serving the lateral system for
the district. Part of the present legislation would involve a major re-
habilitation and betterment program for the Midvale Irrigation Dis-
trict to repair i~nd replace deteriorated and faulty structures and to
complete the canal and lateral lining that was originally designed for
the project and that is so desperately needed at this time. With this
protective program accomplished, the Midvale irrigation system should
prove to be fit for sustained irrigated farming for many, many years to
come. The lands within Midvale Irrigation District have undergone a
rigorous testing period and have been reclassified several times. With
an adequate program of canal lining, drainage construction, and
structure replacement, the Midvale area should continue to be a valu-
able agricultural asset. The cost of rehabilitating Midvale would be far
less than the cost of developing new irrigated farmland anywhere in
the Western United States.
In 1961, 377 farms were in operation on the project. There were
44,048 acres of land that were irrigated, with a total gross crop value
production of $2,460,000. This is a gross crop value per acre of $49.70.
In 1966, there were 249 farms in operation and 45,547 acres irrigated
with a gross crop value of $2,825,115. This was a gross crop value per
acre of $66.54. It can be seen from these figures that in a 5-year period
the irrigated acres increased 1,499 acres, while the number of farms
decreased by 128, and the gross crop value increased by $365,115. The
gross crop value per acre increased by $16.84 in the 5-year period.
It is our opinion that the Midvale portion of the project has proven
to be a reliable irrigated farming area with proven productivity and
good prospects for the future.
As manager of the Midvale Irrigation District, I am extremely
PAGENO="0109"
105
proud of the personnel employed by the district. There are 26 em-
ployees of the district, including myself. rfhe average length of service
of the employee is 6 years and 8 months. Nine of the employees have
worked for the district for over 10 years. The list of personnel in-
cludes ditchriders, heavy equipment operators, shop mechanics, weld-
ers, office personnel, and laborers. I would like at this time to insert
in the record a list of personnel of the Midvale Irrigation District as
of September 30, 1967. This list of personnel shows the name, position,
and length of service pf each employee of the district.
Senator hANSEN. It may be received.
Mr. REID. In order to adequately operate and maintain an irrigation
district of the size of Midvale, it is necessary that the district have a
substantial investment in modern equipment. We are pleased to state
that the district has an inventory of transportation and heavy equip-
ment that is adequate and maintain Midvale and third division.
At this time I would like to enter into the record an inventory of
Midvale's transportation and heavy equipment.
Senator HANSEN. Without objection, it may be received.
Mr. REID. In the last 2 years, Midvale has purchased one new Peter-
but tractor and a LaCross lowboy to transport our heavy equipment
throughout the project. Midvale has also purchased one 205 Koehring
backhoe, %-year capacity, one Hopto truck-mounted backhoe, and
four new International dump trucks, 4-yard capacity. Our equipment
has a net cash value of $131,400. Of course, the purchase, repair, and
replacement of this equipment must come from our annual operating
and maintenance revenues and this item forms a substantial part of
our budget.
Each year the board of commissioners of Midvale are required by
law to submit a budget estimate for the coming year to the District
Court of Fremont County, Wyo. The commissioners determine what
their financial needs will be for the ensuing year and on or before the
first Tuesday of June of each year they will then submit their budget
to the court.
The court fixes a time and place for hearing of objections to the an-
nual report within 30 days afthr it has been filed. If there are no ob-
jections, the commissioners' budget will be confirmed and all of the ir-
rigable acres within the district will be assessed their proportionate
share of the annual budget. In the assessments of 1967, each irriga~ble
acre was assessed $2.75 for a total assessment of approximately
$127,000.
Senator HANSEN. I want to say that, having taken advantage of Sen-
ator Jordan's presence here a little while ago, you people have made a
real effort, and I am interested in hearing from each of you, and I will
be here just as long as it takes. But by the looks of the weather, you
may not be too likely to leave very soon anyway. So just proceed as you
choose.
Mr. REID, All right, sir.
One point I would like to make, Midvale each year has to have an
assessment put on each irrigable acre, and that amounted to $2.75 per
acre. That is the total income to the district of $127,000.
In addition to the annual assessments, the district derives incomes
from the interest on emergency operation and maintenance of the third
PAGENO="0110"
reoeiv
~nance work pe:
dditional
orkonL.3
.g and main-
II, and per-
uaately $250,-
I with 1
ied to
~h and
S service
106
reserve funds rec~
eel to be m
PAGENO="0111"
MIDVALE IRBIGATION Dismicr
Transportation equipment
1947 Dodge Power Wagon
1944 Dodge Weapons Carrier w/Weed Sprayer
1q57 IFIC 4 x 4 Pickup w/Welder
1960 Dodge Pickups-1!2 T.
1962 Dodge Pickups-1/2 T.
1961 Ford Pickup-'/2 T.
1952 IHC L 190 Tractor w/Winch
1967 IHO Trucks-21/2 T.
1966 LaCrosse Lowboy
1941 Dodge Power Wagon w/WeedSprayer
1951 Diamond T Flat Bed-2 T.
Truck-2'/2T
I
107
maintenance compares favorably with the cost of operation and main-
tenance of the Midvale portion of the project. We have personally in~
spected the third division works many times and we feel that the pres-
ent system as it exists will be good and workable for many years.
In view of our favorable experience in handling the operation and
maintenance of third division and in view of our familiarity with the
third division irrigation system, we `strongly recommend that this
legislation be enacted into law which would finally make the entire
Riverton project from diversion dam through first, second; and third
divisions as integrated and physically related system under irrigation
district.
Thank you.
(The attachments referred to follows:)
~(1)
(1)
(1)
(4)
~2)
(1)
(1)
~(4)
(1)
(1)
(1)
PAGENO="0112"
108
(1) Land Plane
(1) Ripper
(1) Jaeger Compressor-A 125
(1) Hobart 3K~TA Lite Plant
(2) Mall Universal Elec. Vibrator
(1) Sand Blast Machine
(2) Weed Sprayers, Tr./Mounted
(9) Portable Weed Sprayers
(1) Space Heater
(1) Large Propane Weed Burner
(1) Small Propanf? Weed Burner
(1) 1963 Flexible Sewer Rodder
(1) FloatIng Dredge
(1) Chain Saw
MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT-LIST OF PERSONNEL AS OF SEPr. 30, 1967
Name Position -_Len
Years
gth of service
Months
1. Kenneth Anderson Shop mechanic _ 3 10
2. Raymond Davis Tractor-trailer driver 6
3. John Dewey Ditchrider ~ 3 8
4. Charles Dike do 2 1
5. Earl Dodrill do 16 2
6. Leroy Douglas Gatetender 13 8
7. Wesley Fink Operator 12
8. Perle Groathouse do 16 8
9. Norman Harebo do 16
10. Victor Hughes, Jr Foreman 7
11. Caroline M. Jacques Part-time clerk 1 6
12. Jack Manley Ditchr,der 1 6
13. Forest A. Morgan Watermaster 15 9
14. Judith Morss Clerk 12 3
15. Leverne Olheiser Welder and mechanic 3 5
16. Roy R. Reid Manager 2 2
17. Raymond Roden Campman 8 8
18. ArthurRohn Ditchrider 8 6
19. Clyde A. Rood do 1 6
20. Donald Schamber Laborer 5
21. Eugene Schamber Ditchrider 1
22. Harold L. Six Operator 10 1
23. R. L. Smith Barge operator 4
24. Geraldine Vermiilion Bookkeeper 11 . 6
25. John Wempen, Jr Ditchrider 7 7
26. JerryWhite Laborer 4
Note: Average length of service per employee, 6 years, 8 months.
Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Reid.
You have gotten right down to the nuts and bolts in your statewent,
calling attention to the day-to-day problem of operation, maintenance,
repairs, so that the economies that surely will result from enlarging this
project can be more clearly portrayed and understood,
I compliment you on a very excellent statement, and as I said, it will
be reprinted in full in the record, so that all may become aware of and
familiar with what you have said.
Now, Mr. White, you were scheduled at this point, I appreciate the
fact that you have spoken earlier. I gather that you simply switched
places around according to the agenda.
Mr. WHITE. Yes. I have completed my statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davison is next.
Senator HANSEN. All right.
PAGENO="0113"
109
. Mr. DAVISON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is
Gideon W. Davison. I reside on a farm 4 miles north of Riverton, Wyo.
I have spent my entire life in agriculture in the Riveiton area and on
the Riverton reclamation project. My father homesteaded 160 acres in
the Missouri Valley in 1906. That was the time of the opening of the
reservation, and we started irrigating this land in 1932, from water
from the Midvale Irrigation District.
My biographical sketch appears on pages 14 and 15 of "Those Re-
markable Men of Midvale." This was a publication distributed to
members of this committee in 1966.
My brother Willis and I are partners in a livestock and farming
operation. We bought 320 acres in Hidden Valley while it was still in
sagebrush. We pump irrigated this land from the Big Wind River in
1946, 2 years before we received water from the Midvale Irrigation
District. In addition my brother and I are agricultural lessees of
1,034.99 acres of land from the Bureau of Reclamation in the Cotton-
wood Bench area of the Riverton reclamation project. This is our 1~th
year for this lease.
The Riverton reclamation project includes more land than the Mid-
vale Irrigation District and the old Third Division Irrigation District.
All of the land east of the third division to the Boysen Reservoir is in-
eluded in the project and is generally known as the Cottonwood Bench
and Muddy Ridge areas.
I am the president of the Cottonwood Bench Association. This asso-
ciation is a group of 17 Midvale farmers who hold temporary agricul-
tural permits in the Cottonwood Bench area of the project. This area
includes 6,078.47 acres. There are 2,796 irrigable acres and 3,282.47
acres of dry land. I would like to introduce a map of the Cottonwood
Bench leases at this time and a schedule showing the names of the 17
permittees, the acreage in each permit, and the amounts paid `as rentals
for `these permits in 1967. My brother and I have units 17 and 18 leased
as shown on the map and schedule.
Senator HANSEN. Without objection, it will be received.
Mr. DAVISON. When the Bureau experienced difficulties with the
third division, they ceased development of the Cottonwood Bench
area. At this point, however, they had completed the entire irrigation
system, except for some drainage work, so that the lands were ready
for agricultural production. In 1955 the Bureau leased this area to
local M'idvale water users for two successive 5-year periods. The leases
were due to expire December 31, 1965,' and the Bureau, because of `the
uncertainty of the future of the project and the need for drainage,
indicated `to the lessees that these `agricultural leases would not be
renewed.
The lessees held a meeting in Riverton, Wyo., on January 15, 1965,
and formed `the Cottonwood Bench Improvement Association for the
immediate purpose of having their leases renewed beyond December 31,
1965, and ultimately to purchase these leased areas from the
Government.
The association's first objection has been realized. The Bureau has
issued `temporary agricultural permits to the association members for
1966 and 1967 and we have `been offered renewals for 1968.
9i-586--68------S
PAGENO="0114"
110
Deans, aud
~en very ~
fl~lT lessees
ireau
nitations.
J us in a
Lretai~
LWOOd
Te know they are
I have raised
) the
S.
r 12 years, have made n
~i leases-such
ale farmers who sw
of
I to
was
cal annual
nizes
time a
pende:
it
tionist f
confirme
1967.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce this letter in
at this time.
Senator HANSEN. Without objection, it may be received.
Mr. DAVISON. We have investigated : the posthbility of constructing
an open drain to serve this area and we believe that such a drain would
cost approximately $40,000. . The association further believes that if
the lands were put in private ownership the landowners could con-
struct such a drain in cooperation with the Agricultural Stabilization
* and Conservation Service. This agency could share in the construction
of such a drain up to one-half of the cost thereof. We have investi-
gated the possibility of this assistance and have received a letter from
Ivan J. Saekman, office manager, Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service, dated October 9, 1967, which generally endorses
..~ce of t
ii a letter tot
PAGENO="0115"
111
~h as we~ third
ownersh]2 as contemp ;ed by
as possible. obviously, land in private owner-
Laged and will have higher sustained land use
~ proper fert 1~ crop rotation, greater weed control, and
good farming practices.
~one would benefit by having these leased lands in private
flowing from private ownership would
v benefiting local schools, the Fre-
SL
ace ac: es a .n the
reas of the ~ . ~is lake is
--,- ~- ~ ~ ,~r right-hand ~ of the map . ~ ously intro-
lake depends entirely upon irrigation waste return flows
for its water supply, originating, of course, from the project.
Bass Lake is an excellent habitat for rainbow trout with plenty of
natural feed. The lake is well stocked and is a popular fishery the year
around. It also is excellent for boating, water skiing, and picnicking.
The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission is vitafly concerned with
the continued agricultural use of the area not only for the preserva-
tion of Bass Lake but for the foliage, potholes, marshes, and drains
resulting from the irrigation system. These, features benefit upland
game birds and waterfowl, thereby creating an excellent area for
hunting.
I am vice president of the board of directors of the Riverton Valley
Electric Association, Inc., Riverton, Wyo. I have been a member of the
board of this organization and also a director for 18 years. This rural
electric cooperative provides area coverage for `the entire Riverton.
reclamation project. The co-op has built lines throughout the project
and has 94 meter or member locations on third division alone. The
co-op has constructed 33 miles of line to serve this area. The total in-
vestment is estimated to be $79,430 based upon an average cost of $845
per service. Since the third division buy-out, only 29 locations are still
active and 65 are idle. These idle services represent a loss of annual
revenue to RVEA of $9,400, according to the co-op's manager. The in-
vestment in these electric lines has been spent and the co-op is obligated
to repay this expenditure to the United States through the Rural Elec-
trio Administration. The lines are energized to serve the 29 active loca-
tions. The loss of revenue from the 65 idle meters has caused a great
hardship, on the co-op since 1984. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter
into the record at this time a letter from W. S. Comings, Jr., mai~ager
of the . Eiverton Valley Electric Association, addressed to `Midvale
Irrigation District detailing the co-op's investment and loss of revenue
resulting from the third division buy-out.
PAGENO="0116"
112
I have the letter from the manager of the REA sustaining the ftnd-
ings of the Midvale Irrigation District, and I would like to introduce
that in the record.
Senator HANSEN. Without objection, it will be received.
Mr. DAvISoN. Talking about the Wyoming Fish and Game Corn-
mission in this way, this is one of the best spots in our area for all-
around sports, fishing and all that. By all means let's not give that up.
Let's not let anybody have that. It is close to the lake, close to the high-
way, it is the best tourist attraction that we have in our area.
There are other places where the same thing can be done in the Riyer-
ton project and should be done, and this $1,100,000 that is to be charged
to recreation, the $50,000 that our State has offered to pay, is just chick-
eufeed in my book for what we could develop on the river project for
hunting and fishing. So let's not lose that. Let's keep that. They can
lose us farmers but they can't get rid of that.
On behalf of the Cottonwood Bench Improvement Association and
the Riverton Valley Electric Association, I respectfully request that
this committee favorably consider the Riverton reauthorization
legislation.
Thank you.
( The documents referred to follow:)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE,
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE,
Riverto~, Wyo., October 9, 1967.
Mr. G. W. DAVISON,
Route 1,
Riverton, Wyo.
DEAR MR. DAVISON : You recently inquired about the status of the Third Dlvi-
sion lands, in regards to their being eligible for cost-shares under the Agricul-
tural Conservation Program. This land at present belongs to the United S;tates
Government.
Orop land, owned by the United States, or a Cooperation wholly owned by it,
is eligible for cost-shares, onty if a "private person" is farming it. A private per-
Son excludes State or Federal Agencies.
As you realize, since the United States Government purchased back the lands
in Third Division, they have in turn leased this land to private individuals for
one year at a time. These leases have been renewed yearly since the ground was
repurchased. Since the government gives only one year leases to private inch-
viduals, the Individuals are reluctant to spend their own funds carrying out
needed conservation work on these units. This is particularly true in regards to
the more permanent type practices, such as ditch lining, land leveling and
drainage. Therefore, as you can see, individuals leasing these lands with a one
year lease, are not going to carry out the needed conservation work. Another
factor that would enter into the carrying out of conservation practices on this
land would be the reluctance of the County ASC Committee to cost-share on
these practices when they do not know the future status of this land. The County
Committee, due to a limited amount of ACP funds, is careful to allocate these
funds to where they feel the most beneficial results will be received towards soil
and water conservation. Naturally, they would be hesitant to approve cost-
shares, should a lessee request such, for carrying out conservation work in this
area. When these lands were owned by private individuals, they had received
approximately $100,000.00 in cost-shares through the ACP program for carrying
out conservation work. Much of this was for land leveling, ditch lining, etc.
. Naturally, all persons concerned would like to see this investment protected.
Some of the conservation practices carried out, need normal maintenance, which
they have not had during the last few years.
Should the Congress make a decision to return these lands to private owner-
ship, there is no reason that I can foresee, why these lands would not be eligible
for cost-sharing in carrying out conservation practices under our program.
I feel that should they be returned to private ownership, the individuals acquir-
PAGENO="0117"
118
ing the lands and, tile County Committee would work closel~ tówârdl carrying
out needed consertration work.
Should you have other questloils concerniiig This land and our programs, please
feel free to ask.
Sincerely,
IvAN' J. SACKMAN,
Office Mainayer
(For Fremont ASC County Committee)
COTTON BENCH PERMITS
Unit Permittee Gross
No. acres
lrrigable
acres
Vacant
acres
1967
rental
1967
0. & M. cost
Total 1967
cost
1 Notl3ased
2 E.H.Marlatt 160.78 3)00 121.78 $51.20 $156.00 $207.20
3 George Pingetzer 160. 00 100. 00 60. 00 106. 00 400. 00 506. 00
4 Bruce R. Lockhart 147. 90 126. 00 21. 90 128. 19 504. 00 632. 19
5 Claude B. Briddle 301.20 130.00 171.20 147.12 520.00 667.12
6, 8 Donald E. Lockhart 507. 50 279. 00 228. 50 301. 85 1, 116. 00 1,417.85
7 MyronC.Jarvis 180.00 10.00 170.00 27.00 40.00 67.00
9 Henry L. Barrett 365. 00 150. 00 215. 00 171. 50 600. 00 771.50
10 Melvin B.Johnsen 245.00 175.00 70.00 182.00 700.00 882.00
11 Arlene V. Hicklin 205. 60 80. 00 125. 60 92. 50 320. 00 412. 50
12 Herbert T. Burden 297. 50 220. 00 77. 50 227. 75 880. 00 1, 107.75
13 John H. Brockmann 452.00 242.00 210.00 263.00 968.00 1,231.00
14 Ernest Pingetzer 457. 00 230. 00 227. 00 252. 70 920. 00 1, 172. 70
15 Marvin Devish 388.00 288.00 100.00 298.00 1,152.00 1,450.00
16 William F. Herbst 405 00 59. 00 346. 00 93. 60 236. 00 329 60
17,18 Davison Brothers 1,034.99 378.00 656.99 443.70 1,512.00 1,955.70
19 Melvin Devish 532. 00 230. 00 302 00 260. 20 920. 00 1, 180. 20
20 Ivan D. White 239. 00 60. 00 179. 00 77. 90 240. 00 317. 90
Total ~ 6, 078. 47 2, 796. 00 3, 282. 47 3, 124. 21 11, 184. 00 14, 30821
RIVERTON VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.,
.fliverton, Wyo., October 23, 1967.
Subject : Loss of revenue in third division.
MIDVALE IRRIGATIoN DISTRICT,
Pavillion, Wyo.
GENTLEMEN : The Riverton Valley Electric Cooperative is a Rural IDlectrifica-
tion financed cooperative serving most of the Western part of Fremont County
under certificates granted by the Wyoming Public Service Commission, the
Wyoming State Regulatory body. Service to the third division Is included as'
part of Riverton Valley Electric's certificated area.
Riverton Valley Electric Association built 33 miles of line to serve approxi-
mately ninety-four (94) farm locations on the third division. Sixty-five (65) of
these locations are now idle as a result of the farms being purchaseçl by the
Federal Government.
Riverton Valley Electric Association has $3,129,470 invested in distribution
plant with a total of about 3T00 services including Idle ones. This is an average
of about $845.00 per service. Riverton Valley Electric Association therefore has
an investment of 65 x $845.00 or $55,000 in idle services which are producifl~
no revenue but the mal1~tenance, operation and amortization and interest must
be borne by the balance of the members.
In 1966 Riverton Valley Electric Association had $255,170 gross revenue
derived from an average of 1752 farm and home members. This averages out to
~$145.00 per year gross revenue per farm and home member. The ~sicvty-flve idle
farms in the third di'vision, if they had `used z~he average kwh per year, could
have meant an additional gross $9,400 reveuue to Riverton Valley Electric.
These are the direct economics losses to Rivertosa Valley Electric Association
as a result of the sale of these farms to the Federal Government. There is a
large economic loss to the entire area that is harder to evaluate-the loss in the
two school districts and the loss to the county. All these service's which were
available to this area have to be maintained by a reduced number of farm units.
For these reasons 1~Uverton Valley Electric Association requests the Midvale
Irrigation board to do everything in its power to get these farming units back
Into private ownership.
Very truly yours,
W. S. COMINGS, Jr., Manager.
PAGENO="0118"
N. 4 E.
R. 5 .E.
4
N
~ )~4~)7
:`
COTTONWOOD BENCH LEASES
~ ~. /Z~-~J
-- ~ _i-g_E~
~ $**.~ ." ~j*~-~-~ ~*$I36_6oo_55
PAGENO="0119"
115
the Cottonwood
ids or potholes
ROBERT F~. REWARD,
Work Unit (Jonservatio~n4st.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
SOIL CONSERVATION SERviCE,
Riverton, Wyo., November 21, 1967.
DAVISON,
ottonwood Bench Improvement Association,
& check of the standard soil survey of the Cottonwood
Conservation Service in 1962 and 1963 shows approxi-
Ld forty-two acres of irrigated land with a saline high
PAGENO="0120"
.116
the more permanent type , practices, ~ si~teh as ditch lining, land leveling and
drainage, Pherefore~ as ~ you can see, individuals leasing these lands with a
one year lease, are not going to carry ~ut tile needed conservation work. Another
factor that would enter into the carrying out of conservation practices oii
this land wouLtd be the reluctance of t~ County ASC Committee. to cost-sbar~
on these practices when they do not know the future status of this lancL The
County Oommittee, due to a limited t~ount of AOP funds, is careful to allocate
th~e fiitids to where they feel the ~nost beneficial results will be receivel
towards soil and water conservation. Naturally, they would be hesitant to approve
cost-shares, should a lessee request suèh, for carrying out conservation work
in this area. When these lands were owned by private individuals, they had
received approximately $100,000.00 in cost-shares thru the ACProgram for carry-
ing out conservation work. Much of this was for land leveling, ditch lining, etc.
Natura11~, all persons concerned would like to see this investment protected.
Some of the conservation practices carried out, need normal maintenance, which
they have not had during the last few years.
Should the Congress make a decision to return these lands to private ownership,
there is no reason tl~at I can foresee, why these lands would not be eligible for
~ost-sharitig in cari!~ing out conservation practices under our program. I feel
that should they be returned to private ownership, the individuals acquiring
the lands and~ the County Committee would work closely towards carrying out
needed conservation work.
Should you have other questions concerning this land and our programs, please
feel free to ask.
Sincerely,
IVAN J. SACKMAN,
Office Manager
(For Fremont A&Y Uo~oity Com'niittee).
. RIVERTON VALtEY ELEcmIo ASsocIATIoN, INC.,
Riverton, Wyo~, October 23, 1967.
Subject : Loss of revenue in third division.
MiDvAu~ IRflIGATION DISTRICT,
Pav'Wion, Wyo. ~
. GENTLEMEP~T ~ The Riverton Valley Electric Cooperative is a Rural Electrifica-
tion financed cooperative serving most of the Western part of Fremont County
under certificates granted by the Wyoming Public Service Commission, the
Wyoming State Regulatory body. Service to the third division is included as
part of Riverton Valley Electric's certificated area. .
IU~erton Valley Electric Association built 83 miles of line to serve approxi-
mately ninety-four (94) farm locations on the third division. Sixty-five (65)
of these location~ ~are now idle as a result of the farms being purchased by the
Federal GO~erniueht.
R1~erton Valley Electric Association has $3,129,470 invested in distribution
plant with a total of about 3700 services including idle ones. This is an average
of about $845.Q0 per service. Riverton Valley Electric Association therefore has
an investment of 65 x $845.00 or $55,000 ir~ idle services which are producing
no revenue but the maintenanèe,. operation and amortization and interest must
be borne by the balance of the members.
In 1966 Riverton Valley Electric Association had $255,176 gross revenue de~
riyed~from aa average of 1752 farm -and home members. This averages out to
$145.Oo piu~ ~êar gross re~reinle peif fa~in and home member. The sirty-flve idle
farms in the third division,~ if theV had n$ed the average kwh per pear, could
have meant an additional gross $9,400 revenue to Riv~ton Valley J3llectric.
These are the direct economics losses to. Riverton Valley ~ Electric Association
as a result of the sale of these farms to the Federal Government. There Is a
large economic loss to the entire area that is harder to evaluate-the loss in the
tWQ school 4listricts and the, loss to th~ ~~ounty. All these services which were
th~1ia~ie to this ares haVe to be maifitain~d by a reduced numbOr of farm units.
For these reasons Riverton Valley Electric Association requests the Midvale
Irrigation board to do everything in Its power to get these farming units back
into private ownership.
Very truly yours,
W. S. COMINGs, 1r., Mdaager.
PAGENO="0121"
117
Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davison, for your
statement which you have made.
Mr. Peck, are you to testify next?
Mr. PECK. I have testified.
Senator HANSEN. I know you spoke earlier this morning. You have
nothing further to add to the statement that you made this morning?
Mr. PECK. Mr. White does.
Senator HANSEN. All right. Fine.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, that completes the testimony from Mid-
vale Irrigation District and the Cottonwood Bench Association, but
I would like at this time to make a statement if I may.
Senator HANSEN. Yes, indeed, you may.
Mr. WHITE. This morning in the testimony some statements were
attributed to Senator Simpson, generally stating that he viewed all of
the third division to be not worthwhile, and should be abandoned,
and I think that, to correct the record, it would be proper and fair to
state that in his statement to the subcommittee in a hearing on Senate
bill 2035, held October 29 and 30 of 1963, he stated, and I quote:
The Third Division, 11,831 acres, in part has not been as successful. Mark
that, I say in part.
I would like to say in fairness to Senator Simpson that his opinion as
expressed this morning, this more clearly expresses, I think, what his
opinion is rather than the general statement that the entire third
division should be abandoned.
Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. White.
Mr. ANGLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I make a further statement?
Senator HANSEN. Yes, indeed, you may.
Mr. ANGLEN. This is Fred Anglen speaking again. In my opinion,
this morning Senator Anderson had some difficulty conceiving the
concept of 160 acres of No. 1 land or the equivalent thereof. My original
purchase in this area was 160 acres of land, and when they got around
to classify it, it was a very poor classification on this land.
I stated in my statement that I have 320 acres of land, which I do
have, but I still lack 160 acres of the equivalent No. 1 land at the
present time.
The reason we need more land is that we have sons coming up, we
have families who want to get started. They have been born and raised
in this area. They understand all the problems that are here. Some
of us are in a condition to help our sons get started with the equipment
and financing.
An additional 160 acres of equivalent No. 1 soil would be quite an
asset in my operation. We have to run our sheep the year around on
our irrigated land. It should be producing feed for winter feed, and
if we could get another 160 units equivalent No. 1 land, I think this
will apply to many of the farms on Midvale Irrigation District where
a lot of this land isn't fit for sustained production, it would enable us
to get our livestock off of the land so we can produce a bunch of feed
for winter operation, which would enlarge all of our operations in
our area.
Thank you.
Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Anglen.
PAGENO="0122"
118
~ say that we are expecting a roilcall here momentarily. I say
~cause I am well aware that there are yet to be heard Mr. Oscar
~ and IReno Long, and I have a statement that I would like to
~ The last word we had was that around 3 :30 this afternoon
~T be the time for a record vote.
ome 1 `j and perspective to these hearings, I ask that
~aring record of the Senate Interior Committee
1 Congress, first session dated October 29 and
ne point out that S. 2305 of the 88th Congress was origi-
I1~~~%7 ~` -. introduced as a total package to reauthorize the
entire ~2 ~ and to provide ~for the rehabilitation funds
that are i L the legislation before this Congress in S. 670.
. Tjnfortunatel _~3 of the 88th Congress went astray, and the
buy-out occurred. ~ ~ reauthorization and rehabilitation as originally
contemplated by S. 2305 never was accomplished, however, and it is
this by way of perspective which is rending before us now.
In 1964 the Riverton area was promised by Congress that it would
give its attention to such reauthorization and rehabilitation. This it
appears to ma is the major piece of unfinished business before the
Congress.
By way of further perspective, I ask that two editorials from the
IRiverton Ranger dated September 17, 1963, and October 9, 1963, be
brought to the attention of this committee. These editorials reflect the
opinion of the Riverton community during the pendency of the River-
ton project legislation in 1963 and 1964.
I am `hopeful that such a community expression as this will serve
to dispel the misimpression that all of the third division was bad or
for that matter that all persons considered that abandonment of the
entire third division was the only answer.
[From the Riverton (Wyo.) Ranger, Sept. 17, 1963]
Editorially speaking-
FARM EQUILIBRIUM
e working har
~mony is bei
leen focused
PAGENO="0123"
119
division's closing have tried to create a picture of utter desolation and failure, a
failure that they maintain would come because of soil conditions, no matter what
efforts they might have made.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that iVlidvale Irrigation Distiict
~ has been working throughout this time for a program of rehabilitation, drainage,
~ . canal lining and structure replacement on Midvale. This program would cost
several million dollars
Could you imagine a more explosive situation than there is today in Wash-
ington? Congress is tired of hearing about the plight of the Riverton project
as painted by the third division detractors. They have demanded a solution.
Presented as the answer is a program calling for expenditure of several millions
of dollars.
Representative Haley of Florida says the lands should be ~ abandoned and let
the ducks paddle around. The Bureau's spokesman Johnson testifies that "with-
out completion of canal lining, drains, and structure rehabilitation, the Riverton
project can be expected to deteriorate progressively and rapidly to the point of
virtual abandonment."
Riverton people remember the hearings conducted by Senators Hickey, McGee,
and Burdick in Riverton at which time no favorable testimony was permitted
without strong objection.
Wouldn't it be a hilarious development, if, while most of the project farmers
were hauling a record crop to market, Congress decided to take the advice of
the third division people and abandon not only third division hut the whole
project?
Sound ridiculous, doesn't it, but to read the headlines, hear the speeches of
the critics, one would think there's no good side to tell about Reclamation
farming around Riverton.If any farmers are doing well on Midvale or third
division, it might be well to speak up, before the case is so badly overstated that
something drastic and calamitous takes place.
it would be good for morale if some farmers would tell this newspaper a
success story about farming to help restore the equilibrium.
tFrom the Riverton (Wyo.) Ranger, Oct. 9, 1063]
Again$t abandonment- .
CHAMBER TAKES STAM FOR IMPROVEMISxT OF PROJRCT
The Riverton Chamber of Commerce, by action of its board of directors and
agricultural committee, has urged Congress to take a stand for continued im-
provement, not abandoment of the Riverton irrigation project.
In a letter addressed to Senate and House leaders, the chamber said irrigated
farming has been the mainstay of the Riverton economy during all of its 57
years.
The chamber pointed out that some lands have gone bad.
"But for the most part, good farms, operated by people with a desire to farm,
plus the enpital and the know-how to carry out their aspirations, make up the
biggest part of the Riverton projects," the chamber said.
In regard to third division of the project, where the commissioners eoiitend
the project is unfeasible and should be abandoned, the chamber said it trusted
that the Congress would be fair in correcting injustices
"But it is our sincere opinion that there are farwers who can successfully
operate a good share of the third division lands, make a reasonable return for
their efforts, and repay a reasonable amount to the Government for the Bureau's
investment in the area," the letter said, ~ ~
"It is certainly in this area'~~ interest that the question of third division's
future he decided. The persistent attacks on the project's feasibility by those
convinced they cannot make a go of farming undermines the confidence others
have in their own abilities and in their land," the letter said.
* "The tendency of news media to headline the adverse criticism has damaged
the reputation of one of the best farming areas in the West. Contrary to the
impression many have that Riverton project is about to be abandoned as a
failure, most of `the good farmers are* harvesting record crops this year.
"Our remarks are not made with any intention of sugar-coating~ Nor would
PAGENO="0124"
120
we minimize the problems that go with farming in a new irrigated area, remote
from markets and the services of a city."
The letter said that the Riverton chamber stands with those with faith in
the agricultural potential of o~ir whole area. The chaniber urged the Congress-
men to meke sure a way is open for those wanting to leave the farm, to leave.
"But we trust your stand will be on the side of those making the effort to
improve the native resources.
"This is a good project, comparing most favorably with many others. We
urge your support on the side of continued improvement not abandonment,"
the letter `concluded.
The decision to take the stand came at the board of directors meeting. The
letters went out over the signatures of Dr. W. R. Lansing, president, and Bruce
McMillan, chairman of the agricultural committee.
Senator HANSEN. Mr. White has referred to a portion of former
Senator Simpson's testimony in the Riverton project legislation which
he made on October 29, 1963. In the interest of making the record as
complete as possible, and to assure that the position of Senator Simpson
is not misunderstood, at this time I ask that Senator SinTipson's entire
statement before this committee be included in the record at this point.
(The statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT OF HON. MILWARD L. SIMPSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
WYOMING
Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairrnan `and members of the committee.
I might say parenthetically, in light of the observation made by my colleague
from Wyoming in respect to the attitude indicated in the questioning by the
distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Aliott, that there is a method certainly
to resolve this thing, and I think we are getting closer to it all the time.
My idea is that the method is that embodied in the bill now before you, to-
gether writh companion bills that refer to this project. By that I mean that what
we need is reauthorization and additional work, with appropriation to cover it,
in the places where it is needed.
There certainly must be a consolidation, because some people, some of the set-
tlers on the project, have been duped, and I think I use the word advisedly, by
the representations made With respect to the character of the lands, and some of
them will be of neces~sity have to get off. And I think that my statement will
disclose the solution.s that we have in mind.
Thank you for permitting `me to speak to you at this time. I appreciate the
opportunity of appearing before this subcommittee `to discuss a problem which
is so important to an area of Wyoming, the economy of the State, and most im-
portant of all, to those farmers who live and work on the lands of the Riverton
reclamation project in Fremont, County, Wyo. I am grateful that the subcom-
mittee has been able to set this hearing, `at this early date, to consider our
problem.
Wyoming Governor Clifford Hansen, in forwarding the report of the Wyoming
Natural Resource Board, has made a clear and cogent statement in supporting
the provisions of the bill we are discussing today and its companion measure, HR.
8171.
I concur in the endorsement these provisions have received by the Governor,
by the natural resource board, by the Wyoming Development Association headed
by the Honorable Marlin P. Kurtz, of Cody, by the Riverton Ohamber of Corn-
merce, and by many others.
Incidentally, I might say that Mr. Whitacre, of the staff, advised that the
resource `board report and the Governor's letter is here.
Senator Moss. We will place the report in the record after your testimony.
Senator SIMPsoN. The Riverton reclamation project has been in and out of
Congress since 1917. Today we are once again faced with the decision of deter-
mining the future of this project which has been plagued by so many adverse
conditions.
In spite of the conditions o~ a short growing season, alkalinity of the soil, and
drainage and seepage problems, the economy of Riverton and of Wyoming is
deeply involved with the success of the Riverton reclamation project.
PAGENO="0125"
121
The Riverton prOject consists of 51,184 acres of irrigable lands served by water
diverted from the Wind River. The Riverton project has two divisions. The Mid~
vale Irrigation District, 45,353 acres, has been for the most part successful. This
year, in fact, its crop yields set a new alitime record.
The third division, 11,831 acres, in part, has not been as successful.
Mark that I say in part.
Again this year this subcommittee reported out a `bill, which is now law, which
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to bring water to the third division be-
cause the board of commissioners of the third division has refused to enter Into
a repayment contract for any part of the project construction costs.
This third division project has created some difficulties, and in general it has
a poorer class of soils than the Midvale project. The Midvale project was developed
during the period between World War I and World War II. The third division was
developed after World War II. Originally the Riverton project consisted of
106,451 irrigable acres, but its present operating size is 57,184 acres.
Public Law 83-258 allowed for an adjustment of land with the entrymen
and consequently we have had the reduction in size of the project. Public Law
83-258 has only partially accomplished the job it was supposed to accomplish,
due at least in part to the continued seepage of water from canals and laterals,
poor irrigation practice of the settlers, the lack of time for drainage effects to be
felt, and problems i~ssociated with continued drainage and the alkalinity of the
soil.
On the Midvale district, a total of almost $4 million has been expended, the
work is 89 percent completed, and all funds remaining under presently authorized
programs have been exhausted.
This rehabilitation and betterment program falls short of cGmpleting the fiscal
job of conserving and protecting the developing land resources which remain.
Approximately 20 percent of the Midvale irrigable land is now adequately
reclaimed to protect against waterlogging and salination by the canal building
and drains that have been installed.
In the third division district the drain completion work has been a part of the
regular construction program. This work has been stopped. It cannot be resumed
until a repayment contract is entered into, and until the project is reauthorized.
Plans for completing his system must go forward rapidly if the Riverton land
resource Is to be restored and preserved.
Because the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee realized that the
Riverton reclamation project, as well as other Wyoming projects, were in dire
need of reauthorization, or at least additional work, it recommended that the
Secretary of the Interior appoint a five-member review commission, referred
to as the Wyoming Reclamation Projects Survey Team, to study and recommend
action which would assist in the proper development in the State of Wyoming.
The bill that we now have before us is the result of the recommendations made
by the survey team. This bill was prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation. It is
the Bureau's hope and the hope of others, that the bill will solve the problems that
do exist on the Riverton reclamation project.
I think the most significant recommendation is that the Riverton project be
reauthorized as a participating unit of the Missouri River ]3asia project. Such a
reauthorization will make financing available to complete the work needed to
protect the land resotirces. It would permit substituting repayment contracts for
a term of 50 years for those now in effect in the Midvale district, Which would
otherwise run for 108 years.
In order to supply a family supporting farm, some additional adjustments in
farm boundaries will be necessary to compensate for land that has seeped in the
past 3 or 4 years. A case-by-case review must be made to identify uneconomical
farm units. The basic formula should be predicated on ~ diversified crop live-
stock enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from an exhaustive study of this subject
made by the Wyoming Natural Resources Board, an agency that has contributed
greatly to the natural resource development of the State.
In a 2~5OO-word report, the board concluded on page 5 thai:
"In summary, the natural resource board considers H.R. 8171 essential to the
Riverton project, and to the economy of the State of Wyoming in utilizing these
water and land resources. The board further invites the Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee of the Congress their sincerest considerations of the basic
PAGENO="0126"
nent afforded in this proj~osed leg-
i am going to defer reading the
t of the Natural Resource Board
.~rymen a~
s being on
~asures that can b
~t can be retaine -
to serve as an impo
ea.
- tirinan
also
that ~
Senator fl1~NRY JACKSON,
Chairman of the Senate Interior ~uboommittee,
~eno~te Of/Ice B~ui~diag,
Washington, DXI.:
After a careful consideration of the various bills, weighed against many years
of firsthand experience with the Rivertot~ project, agriculture, the Riverton
Chamber of Commerce ha's endorsed the positive approach to Wyoming agri-
cultural development and stands in general support of the goals in Senate bill
2032 an~ the companion House bill 8171. The negative approach challenges' the
future of all reclamation developments in the West. We urge your support for
Senate bill 2035 and for House bill 8171 and the future development of the
West's agricultural resources.
122
~red and "se potential de~c
~e the District Court
risdiction of civil
own farms on the
ion can
that it is f's
`iave go
~eferred to
RIVERTON,
October 28,
Dr. W. R. LANSING,
Pre$ident, Chamber of Commerce, lUverton, lVyo.
PAGENO="0127"
I
123
W~oMING 1~1XEOUTIVE DE~PARTMENT,
Qheyenne, October 2~, 1963.
lion. HENRY M. JAoI~soN,
Chairman, Committee on Interior ant Insular Affairs,
Uj~1. senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAE MR. OHAIRMAN : In transmitting the observations and recommendations
on proposed legislation, S. 2035, Riverton project, by the Wyoming Natural
Resource Board, I should like to make the following points:
The Wyoming Natural Resource Board is a State agency charged with the
development of all of Wyoming's natural resources. This State agency has
studied the report of the Wyoming reclamation projects survey team, as well as
discussing the problems in the Riverton area with a number of informed people.
I shall not attempt to review the board's comprehensive work, nor to submit any
specific suggestions.
All of us in Wyoming are well aware of the intense interest and exhaustive
study your committee has given this prc ect. I am sure we can all agree on certain
facts which provide the framework wit iich solutions must `be found:
1. The economy of Riverton and o: a stake in this
project to permit contemplation of its aent. , the fact that there
ar~ some real problems in the third e great record of American agri-
cu leaves ~io justification for our
~ over - )rd of achievem ~ yields continue to set new
- ~ Jo distr~et,
I
LU favor
- ing reaso~
~ of supportin~
lands are
to the prE
Ishort g
y and later
- `~ the benefit of revenues
reason why
os't every
~he1pa~.~.
s of everyon
~.* 2035. 0
I
PAGENO="0128"
124
occurred beyond the control of man's know-how and ability to act soon enough-
or to cope with, successfully, within the means available.
In conaidering the Riverton project as a whole, it is important to remember
that the project is represented by two separate legal entities of government. One
is the Third Division Irrigation District, representing approximately 11,800 acres
which was settled after World War II. The other is the Midvale Irrigation Dis-
trict, which represents over 45,000 acres and was settled and developed begin-
ning in the 1920's. The Midvale district constitutes the initially planned first and
second divisions of the Riverton project.
As the third `division completed its 10-year initial development period, fi-
naneial circumstances within the Third Division Irrigation District were not
favorable by which a repayment contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, as
prescribed by reclamation law, could be successfully negotiated. During the
course of the development period, seepage and adverse soil conditions were
such that reduced irrigable aereages rendered many of the farm units to un-
economical sizes. Even though farm size units were readjusted, efforts by
settlers to take remedial action were severely limited by financial restrictions.
On the premise that additional time was needed to reach a repayment agreement,
Congress premitted continued water deliveries to those users desiring the water.
For the past 2 or 3 years, the financial plight of some of the third division
settlers has created a stigma over the whole project. Headlineg of news reporting
has further focused attention, with well publicized allegations and accusatiOns~ to
the dramatic and sensational aspects of the problems of the third division.
After a number of hearings before the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
of the Congress, it became apparent that previous Investigations made by the
Department of Interior, along with a breakdown in negotiations for agreement
on a repayment contract, did not offer any reasonable and plausible solutions.
In order to further get to the basis of these problems and to recommend to the
Congress a positive approach for a reasonable solution, the Department of In-
tenor appointed a five-man review commission, which is referred to as the
Wyoming reclamation projects survey team.
This effort `to make a thorough study of these problems was implemented from
a suggestion by the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. The natural
resource board is apprised that such . a study and the recommendations contained
therein does not imply any mandatory obligation for the final action to be made
by the committee.
By the same token, the House committee is to be commended for its sug-
gestion. The natural resource board recognizes that the team's approach to
this most complex and controversial situation was an e~tremely difficult task.
The findings and recommendations of their report certainly demonstrates the
thorougbne~s of the investigation. The team members, who were selected with
an excellent cross section of individual interests, pursued `their investigations
within the scope and Instructions with which they were charged. Their con-
clusions were made as the team, representing `themselves. The report is clear
in this respect and can well stand on its own, leaving to others the right to form
any opinions. `
As evidenced by the information and data obtained, the bgsic objectives mdi-
cated that there were other problems, equally, If not more ` important, than
portrayed in the headlines as related to the third division.
The physical relationship and geography of the two irrigation districts along
with other similarities `has formed `the basis of the objectives on which the
Riverton project, as a whole, and `the district's problems, and has become of
primary importance.
The Midvale district (constituting the first and second divisions) is the older,
baying contracted with the Bureau in 1931 for its repayment obligations. Settle-
mont problems, generally iuherent on this type of development, were also cvi-
denced, as similar seepage problems appeared during its development ; whereas,
certain land adjustments were subsequently made to retain economical farm'
units.
Realizing that remedial measures were necehsary to prevent further seepage
encroachments on productive lands, several million dollars were expended by
the district fo'r rehabilitation works. At `the present time, approximately 377 units
are under Midvale district as compared `to the 57 units under the third division,
some `of which have not been irrigated or formed in the last few years.
PAGENO="0129"
125
The investigations have indicated that although the Midvale district, which has
had similar problems, has kept current with its financial obligations for repay-
ment along with the costs incurred for a rehabilitation program, a continued
program will be necessary to complete such rehabilitation works which is beyond
the financial capacity of the water users to pay. Financial assistance will then
be necessary from other sources which was not provided initially to the Riverton
project as compared to present reclamation policy of present day projects which
receive assistance from such sources as the reclamation fund and power revenues.
Herein lies the basis on which the survey team report makes its recommenda-
tions, to not only include corrective measures needed on the third division ; but,
more so, on the Midvale district (first and second division).
The natural resource board places considerable emphasis on the economic de-
velopment of this land and water resources. The Riverton project consists of
approximately one-third of the irrigated croplands in the Wind River Basin.
An important segment of the economy in `the Riverton area is directly related
to agriculture. The importance of irrigation for agriculture is well known in
our western semiarid States.
`The Riverton project has demonstrated its suitability for the growing of some
cash crops. The dominant agricultural uses of irrigated lands is primarily re-
lated to the production of livestock feed, hay, and grains. Recent `trends have
indicated, that with proper management, such diversification practices can be
adopted for `better land utilization in our higher altitude and short growing
season. ..
With the proper corrective measures that can be made, lands that have proven
their productivity and lands that can be retained from `becoming unproductive,
this vital resource can continue to serve as an important economic factor in the
future growth of the Riverton area.
The natural resources ioard considers a project abandonment policy as ill-
founded and beyond any doubt of consideration. This past season has demon-
strated without any doubt, the success of this project's productivity with an
outstanding harvest of agriculture crops.
The inclusion of the Riverton project as a unit in the Missouri River Basin
project can provide `the needed financial assistance on a reasonable and equitable
basis. The natural resource board concurs that such reauthorization as pro-
vided in H.R. 8171 incorporates principles reflected by the Congress in the au-
thorization of recent projects, and in keeping with the basic principles of
reclamation development.
The provisions included, authorizing the Secretary to supersede the several
existing contracts of the Midvale District with a single 50-year contract, are
highly desirable and more realistic than the present contract period of 108 years.
In consideration of the water users of the third division who wish `to continue
their farm operations, the provisions for temporary delivery of water are reason-
able, and such continuation of farm operations should be permitted.
As the readjustm'en.ts of farm size units are made in `the third division and
economical sizes are determined, it is reasonable to expect that water rates
should include a construction charge component in the case that no irrigation
district exists for contracting agreements.
The provisions in the proposed legislation for modifying `the excess land
limitation `to permit water delivery to 160 acres of class 1 lands or the equivalent
are essential. Such provisions would take into account the conditions affected
by higher altitudes, limited adaptability and `the shorter growing season experi-
enced in the Riverton project area.
In order to permit the proper land adjustments necessary for economic units
as well as arrangements to dispose of lands that have become unproductive,
the provisions of the proposed legislation related to accommodate these measures
are not only desirable, but necessary for an orderly development program.
Certain deficiencies in the Farm Unit Exchange Act of 1953 have been set forth
by the survey team. These obviously should be rectified and such changes
incorporated in the present bill appear to be necessary.
`In order to further implement means to readjust project lands into productive
and economical farm size units, provisions in H.R. 8171 grant such authority
to the Secretary to permit the payment of damages for injury `to lands caused by
permanent or recurrent seepages from project facilities. In addition, when said
injury `to the lands has resulted in a farm unit `being too small for supporting
91-586-68-9
PAGENO="0130"
126
a family, su~h acquisitions would be made at the lands fair market value prior
to its having beenrenderèd un.suitable for irrigation production. ~
In view of the fact that land values on the Riverton project c~tn be materially
depressed because of the stigma created in recent years, the natural resource
board recommends that such mean's be provided that fair market values be
determined by such criteria ~ that would ` not reflect or include these depressed
prices. Such criteria should include considerations of similar land values under
project development outside of the Riverton area.
The board has been apprised of claims of some of the third division settlers,
who have advocated complete abandonment of the project, which would involve
settlers who are successfully farming at the present time. Claims have been
further made that compensation should be made for the loss of earnings for
the years of efforts to develop a farm. This matter of said compensation presents
a very complex situation insofar as determining an equitable basis by which
compensation might be made. The value attached to the degree of ability of a
settler, and the know-how required for project development, presents an almost
interdeterminant condition.
Since a suit against the U.S. Government has been filed recently in district
Court by a group of the third division settlers claiming such damages, the board
is cognizant that a determination of this matter is extremely complex. Any
comment on this at this time by the board would be insufficient and not in the
interest of the project as a whole in giving an evaluation to the merits of such
claims.
In summary, the natural resource board considers HR. 8171 essential to the
Riverton project, and to the economi of the State of Wyoming in utilizing these
Water and land resources. The board further invites the Interior and Insular
Affairs Committees of the Congress their sincerest considerations of the basic
problems involved and the potential development afforded in this proposed
legislation.
Many who have opposed the essential and constructive features of this legis-
lation, and who have advocated complete abandonment of the project, have in
addition, alleged that inclusion of the Riverton project as a unit of the Mis-
souri River Basin project wonad subject the water users to a loss of control over
their water rights.
Through communications and consulation with the Wyoming State engineer,
who is charged with the administration, control, and use of the State's waters,
and further confirmed through the office of the Wyoming attorney general, it
must be positively and definitely made clear that such allegations are absolutely
without foundation.
State constitutional provisions are clear in this regard as to State ownership
of water and the administration of use and control of State waters. Application
f~r permit to use the waters on the Riverton project have been properly filed
and are in good standing. Procedures to prove on beneficial use for final adjudi-
cation are again clearly set forth in the State water law.
Not only is the Reclamation Act of 1902 specific on compliance with State
water law, but the proposed reauthorization of this legislation of the Rivertön
project under the Missouri River Basin project, Public Law 78.-584, again is
specific In this instance.
This act states that it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to
recognize the interests and rights of the States in determining the development of
the watersheds within their borders and likewise their interests and rights
in water utilization and control.
The same act again declares that navigation uses of the waters shall be used
as does not conflict with any consumptive use present or future, of such waters
for domestic municipal, stock water, irrigation, mining, or industrial pu~rposes.
There is no room in this matter of water rights for any doubt as to the owner-
ship, use, ~ and control of water as regards this project and its reauthorizations
under the Missouri River Basin Project Act.
Senator }1ANS~N. Appreciating that we may be interrupted, let us
next turn to you, Mr. Barnes, and I want to thank you gentlemen from
Midvale.
We will now hear from Oscar Barnes, who is the special project
leader, Agricultural Extension Service, University of Wyoming at
Laramie.
PAGENO="0131"
127
STATENENT OP OSCAR K. BARNES, SPECIAL PROIECT LEA]YEB,
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SEE~VICE~ IThTIVERSITY OP W~O-
MING
Mr. BARNES. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Oscar
K. Barnes. I am employed by the University of Wyoming in the
Agricultural Extension Service on special projects. My past pro-
fessional work has been in the field of soil and water conservation. I
served as chairman of the Wyoming reclamation projects survey team
that reported to the Secretary of Interior on several Wyoming projects
in 1962-63. This report included the Riverton project.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee to
explain the experiences of the Agricultural College of the University
of Wyoming on matters relating to the Biverton project.
The Agricultural Experiment Station and Extension Service has
done research and demonstration work for years in the Riverton
area on problems related to soils, crops, irrigation, livestock, ento-
mology, and agricultural economics. Thus we have had considerable
experience and interest in this resource of the Riverton community.
These services, of course, extend to all parts of the State, not just to
Riverton.
The views of our specialists based on their research and experience
down through i~he years is that the soils under consideration today on
the third division, as well as those in the Midvale District, are entirely
capable of sustained irrigated crop production. We recognize, as all
those concerned with the problem do now, that certain reclassifications
that have occurred down through the years' very properly excluded
certain soils from further irrigation. Had the techniques and stand-
ards of soil evaluations been better developed and understood 20 or 30
years ago, these soils would have excluded, initially. The effects of
inexperienced water management on many units cannot be' ignored
as a contributing factor in the loss of some land on the third division
down through past years.
Recently I accompanied several recognized soil authorities from the
university and U.S. Department of Agriculture on a tour of the third
division lands. This group, with years of experience in the Riverton
area, included the head of the university soils division, Dr. L. I.
Painter. Dr. Painter's view has been and still is that generally the
soils now classified as irrigable are clearly capable, in their present
condition, of sustaining crop production under irrigation with or-
dinary experienced farm management.
This view was shared by the other soil experts on this inspection trip
initiated by the university. These observations, based on the present
classification, eliminates about 3,000 acres from the irrigable class since
the 1961 reclassification. About 8,900 acres remain inthe irrigable clas-
sification with a drainage system installed.
For various reasons, in the past little fertilizer was used on third
division lands. Also, many operators failed to follow modern and com-
monly accepted cultural practices in their farm program. Studies made
on these lands by the Agricultural College show that just the use of
fertilizer can increase yields two to four times over unfertilized yields.
PAGENO="0132"
128
At this point, it might be well to review the extent of the technical
agreement on the value of these lands:
A. In 1961, a board of three prominent drainage consultants headed
by Dr. James Luthin of California University made a study of drain-
age on third division lands. Essentially, their report recognized that
the heavier textured, lower lands presented some difficult problems in
dramage and reclamation ; that the lighter textured soils on the ter-
races and uplands were suitable for sustained irrigated agricultural
production ; and that drains on these soils were functioning properly.
B. Also, in 1961 a board of three economic consultants headed by
Mr. John Goe, an economic consultant of Denver Cob., reviewed the
repayment problems on the third division. They made a number of
recommendations that were applicable at that time. They recognized
economic problems needing adjustment but did not consider abandon-
ment of the resource as a solution.
C. In 1962-63 a five-man team was appointed by the Secretary of
the Interior to study reclamation projects including the Riverton
project. This group represented an excellent cross section of experience
and included : Mr. Earl Bower, a prominent Wyoming farmer, banker,
and longtime director in the National Reclamation Association ; Mr.
Milt Coffman, a prominent Wyoming businessman, banker, livestock
operator, and a member of the Wyoming Natural Resource Board ; Mr.
Ival Goslin, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Corn-
mission ; Dr. Howard Haise, an eminent soil scientist and irrigation
engineer with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Serving as chair-
man of this group, I represented the interest of the university.
Because of extreme difficulty that had been encountered in resolving
this problem, at least to the satisfaction of a group of third division
settlers, the survey team went to great lengths to evaluate all facets of
the problem within the specialties represented on this team. Studies
of existing drains, salt accumulations, cropping, irrigation, and finan-
cial problems were made and related to the whole community.
The conclusions from this study, with all the advantages of hind-
sight, pointed up some errors that had been made by just about every-
one concerned with this project.
The main points, many of which apply today, are summarized on
pages 1 to 9, volume I of the survey team report. This summary con-
tains the unequivocal recommendation that this resource is far too
valuable to consider total abandonment of the irrigable lands.
The essential features of the recommendations in the survey team
report are contained in S. 670.
D. Then there is the acid test for technical judgments, and that is the
success of experienced operators. Ample evidence indicates technical
judgments are sound as they relate to the lands involved today.
Thus, the University of Wyoming scientists share the views of a
large group of qualified judges who believe these lands are good when
farmed under some experienced management. I might add that these
soil specialists recognize little or no significant difference in the soils
found on third division and those in the Midvale District. I should
emphasize that these views apply to the present classification of soils
on third division that now have the benefit of certain drainage
protection.
PAGENO="0133"
129
Let me discuss the economies ~ of third division lands. Our eco-
nomles research shows a distressing financial condition for operators
on "small" irrigated units any place in these "high" elev~tiion areas,
Consistently, the records show operators of 160 ac~re or less per unit
go behind each year and accumulate serious problems. This often pre-
vents these operators from adopting many elementary modern cul-
tural practices in their management. If they are Starting on new lands
and have some other adversities with their operation, their situation
soon becomes impossible and they sometimes unfairly blame the
physical resource.
Records show that third division operators started out . with 160
acres or less per unit. Even after acreage amendments following the
1953 legislation, these units were still below 200 acres of irrigable land,
with fields frequently in scattered tracts. This fact and a series of
others contributed to the problem that has been before Congress and
the public for the past several years.
Budget studies by the Agricultural Economics Division of the uni-
versity on a more or less continuous program over the State, show a
need for a continuing increase in the size of the irrigated units. An
irrigated acreage of at least 250 to 300 acres or more is needed in
higher elevation areas to meet minimum financial obligations and
provide a reasonable family living.
For livestock-oriented irrigated units, it is especially desirable to
have some range and grassland available in addition to the irrigated
land. This can be done for third division lands.
In summary, I believe the observations we can make that would be
most helpful to the Congress in reaching a final resolution would be
along these lines.
1. This is an already developed irrigation resource, the investments
in }~roject works and farm development have been made and are
available.
2. The lands presently designated as irrigable are good lands that
can sustain irrigated crop production as judged by numerous inde-
pendent experts as well as by experienced farmers.
3. Of significant importance to future success is the fact that since
implementing Public Law 88-278 therø will be no problem with shift-
ing and ~relooating people to attain increased unit size ; all third divi-
sion people were bought out and have moved elsewhere.
Now the `farm unit boundaries c~n encompass a larger acreage of
proven soils for d~vel'oping sound livestock-oriented farm units. At-
taching some nonirrigated grazing land to these units will enhance
their stability and' success. These irrigated lands are also suited to
cash crops such as sugar beets and beans as well as forage crops.
4. To us, the present situation on third division appears to have
significant differences compared with the situation implementing
Public Law 88-278 and these differences should simplify a permanent
solution.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Barnes, for your
statement. `
(Subsequent to the hearing the following additional information
was received ~)
9i~-586--6S------1o
PAGENO="0134"
I
AGRICTJLTUR~
"~`NANDERSON,
and I
Affairs
that point everyone el
for the whole project
- fli~11 V
PAGENO="0135"
r 131
visions, known as the Midvale District. The Survey Team recognized some similar
problems and needs of this larger area. The method being followed by Midvale
. in resolving their long standing needs, received little or no attention during the
controversy on Third Division. Hopefully, any future adjustments needed on
projects in any State may follow this less sensational procedure for presenting
their problems, and opportunities for growth.
The record of the November 30 hearings digests the experiences of the Univer~
sity as well as the studies of the Survey Team. I hope these additional comments
may be useful to you in considering S-670.
Sincerely yours,
OscAn K. BARNES,
Special Project Leader.
Senator HANSI~N. The committee will stand in recess for one-half
hour. We will reconvene at 4:15.
( Whereupon, the committee recessed until 4 :15 p.m.)
Senator HANSEN. The committee will come to order.
We are ready now to hear from Mr. Reno Long.
Mr. Long, would you like to come forward.
STATEM~ENT OP RENO M. LONG, RIVERTON, WYO.
Mr. LONG. I would like to request that my testimony be copied in
because I have some remarks that are not contained in my written
statement.
Senator HANSEN. Yes. Your testimony will be included in the record
as it is presented here, and I understand this is what you are requesting.
Mr. LONG. I plan to make some remarks that are not in my written
statement, and I would like to have them copied.
Senator HANSEN. They will be taken down by the reporter, so you
may proceed and make such additional statements as you care to, just
asyou go along, Mr. Long.
Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I feel this an honor and privilege to be allowed to testify before
your distinguished group.
My name is Reno Long and I reside on the Riverton reclamation
project of Wyoming. I am a native of the Riverton area2 and am estab-
lished in the ranching business on this project. My interest in the~
subject bill stems from the fact that I have been grazing cattle on. a
particular area now in the project. These lands are in the third division,
but are separate and aside from the third division farming area.
I own a half interest in an irrigated farm for 7 years in the third
division area.
Originally we leased these grazing lands from the Indian Depart-
ment in 1943. My father and I had the use of these lands for the ensuiiig
23 years. In 1953, the lands were sold to the Bureau of Reclamation
by the Indian tribes, to be used for irrigation purposes. The sale price
was around $6 an acre.
Our lease was allowed to stay in effect at this time even though th~
Bureau of Reclamation was in administrative control of the lands,
In 1961, we were given a negotiated lease by the Bureau of Recla-
mation, whicth was for 5 years' duration, with the Bureau of Recla-
mation having the right to terminate at the end of any lease year. In
Octther 1966, the Bureau terminated our lease, We had no difficulty
with the Bureau in regard to the grazing of the lands, and at all
PAGENO="0136"
132
times lived up to the conditions of our lease. The Bureau of Reclama-
tion had no cause to terminate this lease, and have no appeal procedure
in regard to grazinglands.
These lands comprise approximately `63,000 acres of arid, sage-
brush-covered hills. While this area was withdrawn for reclamation
purposes, it has not been developed and the greater portion of it never
will be. The best estimate I can give is that less than 15,000 of the
433,000 acres could possibly be reclaimed for irrigation. I am told,
however, that such development is not planned in the foreseeable
future.
Commissioner Dominy testified earlier in the day that future de-
velopment is stopped on Muddy Ridge and Cottonwood Bench.
The Bureau of Reclamation terminated my lease so that the grazing
lands may be used by a group of irrigation farmers who are in the
Midvale area of the project. I ask that a letter from me to the Secre-
tary of the Interior TJdall, dated July 7, 1966, protesting the termina-
tion of my lease, be inserted in the hearing record at this point.
Sentaor HA~s~N. Without objection it may be received.
(The letter referred to follows )
RIvERT0N, W~o., July 7, 1966.
STEWART L. UDALL,
Secretary of The Interior,
Washington, D.C.
DE~R SECRETARY UDALL : I wish to call your attention to a situation which,
if carried through, will cause serious hardship on me and my family and de-
prive me .bf the most logical opportunity I have to make a livelihood. This is
with regard to the Bureau of Reclamation's notice that they intend to cancel
my lease for grazing on about 62,000 acres of lands surplus to the Riverton
Reclamation project. While this land was a part of the area withdrawn for
Reclamation purposes, it has not been developed and the greater portion of it
probably never will. The best estimate that I can give is that less than 15,000
of the 62,000 could possibly be reclaimed for irrigation. I am told, however,
that Such development is not planned for a long time-perhaps as much as
30 years ~or more.
The Bureau of Reclamation proposes to cancel my lease on this land and
turn the area over to the Midvale Irrigation District farmers. I si~ppo'se this is
with the thought that these withdrawn si~rplus lands could be beneficial to this
group. It is well known that many tf the farming and ranching operations on
the Mithnale Irrigation District were started on `an ina'de~uate Imsis. The Third
Division was ~ later established for the pui~pose of rehabilitating land and per-
mitting these people to have an operation of sufficient size to make an economical
living. However, this may be, I am convinced that the Federal government has
assisted Midvale Irrigation District considerably. Granting this u~se of these
surplus lands to them `would be of so little benefit that it will be of small con-
sequenee to the success of their o'r~eration. However, denying the use to me will
dause me to fail entirely.
According to the Bureau of Land Management grazing capaicty figure, the
62,000 acres can daze 5O5~ dattle for one year. Since there `are 370 Midvale
farmer~, if all shared equally in grazing benefits, ~ach could graze less than
two cattle apiece. The 505 animal unit grazing c'a~acity is, however, sufficient to
permit at least two successful cattle operations. The less than two cattle per
farmer is of no consequence whatsoever from the standpoint of enhancing that
farmer'sc~ppOrtunity to make a living..
I contend that those who are most interested in having these lands adminis-
tered by the Midvale Irrigation District are largely livestock operators with
holdings off the project area. If the District gains administrative control over
this grazing land, these off-project operators would be able to expand their op~
orations cons1dert~biy. I say this because much of the grazing land controlled
by the farmers in the project has been leased to these off-project livestock
opei~ators.
PAGENO="0137"
133
Originally, we Teased this land from the Indian Department under ~ny
Mother's name, Annie F. Long. This was In 1943. We have had the use oi~ this
land (my father and I) for the ensuing 22 con~eeutive year~. We pay nearly
~5,OOO annually for the lease. I understand that the Midvale farmers are going
to pay $10,000 a year, plus the cost of administration. It appears to me that the
U.S. Treasury would be short a considerable amount. Back in July 21, 1961, a
letter to the Arapahoe Tribe from the Bureau of Reolamiation stated the follow-
ing : "It is our policy to offer the previous owners preference in leasing land."
Has this policy been changed or i's there acnne reason now to deny the return
of the land, or the use thereof, to the Arapahoe or Shoshone Indians~? Although
I am an Indian, and I am proud of it, I do not feel that such status should deny
me the rig~bt to make a living in a manner that has been successful for over 20
years. I am not now able to buy another ranching opportunity. Ranching is the
only business I know and if I lose this lease, I am out of business. I have no
other income.
I was highly gi~atified when I heard the statements you made to the effect
that ~ou wanted the entire Department to be of help and assitsance to the Indian
people so that their opportunity to participate in the American way of life by
making a decent living for themselves and their families would be enhanced.
These words are very encouraging to us, and we concur with the thoughts. It is,
therefore, difficult for us to understand why one agency of the Federal govern-
meut in your Department could take action which will deny some of the Indians
the opportunities you are interested in fostering.
Thc Manager of the IVEidvale Irrigation District told me recently that the
Commissioners of the District have no plan for administering this grazing land.
From personal knowledge of the lhnd, it will be difficuti to properly administer.
It will be easily overgrazed. Sustaining an annual production of forage so that
there will be no diminishment in the return will require careful and prudent
management. The Bureau of Reclamation also offered to let the Bureau of Land
management administer this land some time ago. With these thoughts in mind,
it seems evident that the land is surplus to the needs of the project. Measures
to administer the land to prevent overuse and overgrazing is apparent.
This being the case, why shouldn't the land be transferred, or at least the
use thereof to the Ai~apahoe or Shos'hone Tribes so that the administrative
talents of the Bureau of Indian Affairs could be used ? Their range program ad-
ministration on the reservation has been successful. The siame successful, high-
level type techniques and administrative procedures could likewi~e be used on
this land. I feel it would be desirable to follow this course rather `than allow-
ing it to be used without applying proper conservation and use principles. The
individual farmers know that the return would be so small to each one that
they could not afford very much interest in how the land would be us~d.
I sincerely hope that you will consider this problem very carefully and that each
of the points mentioned above will be taken into considertation in determining
the proper and fair course of action to be followed. I am depending on you, Mr.
Secretary, your sense of fairness and fair judgment to save the only opportunity
left for me to make a living.
Sincerely yours, . ~
. RENO M. LONG.
Mr. Lowo. The farmers contemplate a community pasture arrange-
mont. The area which my father and I leased and for whith we paid
nearly $5,000 annually will be leased to the Midvale farmers for a total
of $10 a year. It appears that the U.S. Treasury would be short a con-
siderable amount,
According to the Bureau of Land Management, grazing capacity
figures, the 63,000 acres can graze only 505 cows for 1 year. Since there
are 370 Midvale farmers, if all shared equally in the coramunity pas~
ture each could graze less than two cattle. It requires 124 acres of this
land to sustain a cow for 1 year. The 505 animal unit grazing ca-
pacity is, however, sufficient to permit at least one and possibly two
economic units. The ranching business is just as important as the farm-
ing business. The less than two cattle per farmer is of no consequence
PAGENO="0138"
4. 9
governing -
visThn and c
the control
E'g.
and will
me of
would
late in leasing this
i as shown on the
~ and conclusively inter-
i of Commissioners and the
~roof as it deems necessary for a
1 as a corn
134
~v herd arr
ration LW..
.nserted in
3 received.
~,overnin~~
of Commissio~. ~.
PAGENO="0139"
nity lease would be required to adhere to the rules and regulations established
by the governing body and approved by the Board of Commissioners, including
the payment of fines or the forfeiture of leased privileges for violations, decisions
as to the period of grazing use or reduction in use in accordance with the
condition of the range, etc.
5. Each participating wateruser will run his own cattle and sheep on his
own brand. Under no circumstances will the grazing rights be transferred,
assigned, or in any way used &y anyone other than the participating wateruser.
6. Midvale Irrigation District will not be liable for any losses or damage to
cattle or sheep on the leased* area nor will the Di~trict fe liable to any person
or property lost or damaged on the leased premises resulting from any activity
conducted on the leased area.
as te ttively proposed by the District is as follows:
unit i
p or cows on the
- annual
135
~tion of
teruser wiL
maintain Ii
`1 man
o pay on demand all fines or
itions of rules and regulations
~~ltorunsh
`lease rights `but I
~ement's expense i
~ `rid mar
termination
I of Commis-
PAGENO="0140"
I
136
If this committee finds these lands are surplus to the needs of this
project, I strongly urge the committee to request that these lands be
restored to a Federal agency which is entrusted with administration
of grazing lands.
Back in July 1961, a letter to the Arapahoe Tribe from the Bureau
of Reclamation stated the following:
It is our policy to offer the previous owners preference in leasing land.
This is a policy with all agencies which normally administer grazing
lands. Although I am an Indian, and am proud of it, I do not feel
that such status should deny me the right to make a living in a manner
that has been successful for more than 20 years.
At this point I would like to request that a letter stating this be
entered into the record.
Senator HANSEN. Without objection, it will be received.
(The letter referred to follows:)
U.S. DEPAnTMENT OF TIlE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
Billings, Mont., July 21, 1961.
SnosiloNE INDIAN TRIBE,
Fort Washakie, Wyo.
GENTLEMEN : Land purchased from the ShoshOne Indian Tribe and Arapahoe
Indian Tribe adjacent to Anchor Dam is available for leasing for grazing
purposes.
Because of construction activities near the Dam and problems caused by
"sinkholes" which have developed, only the land formerly in your ownership that
lies south of the Reclamation fence will be leased. This affiounts to about 90 acres
of grazing land and lies in the SWl%NEi/~, N1/25W14, and NW145E14, and
NW145E14, Sec. 24, T. 8 N, R. 1 W., W.R.M.
It is our policy to ofeer the previous owners preference in leasing lands. You
are requested, therefore, to advise us as soon as possible and in any event by
August 15, 1961, whether you wish `to lease the land lying south of the Reclama-
tion fence and if so the amount of annual rental you offer to pay.
Very truly yours,
H. G. ARTHUR, Regional Director.
Mr. LONG. It does not seem in the public interest to abolish an estab-
lished, private, successful business which pays nearly $5,000 a year for
a lease, in favor of a commune arrangement of a semiprivate group
which will pay $10 a year and has a highly doubtful chance of success.
I sent a certified letter to the Midvale Irrigation District requesting
that I be allowed to lease the land I had previously used, and I did
not receive an answer from them.
After süartiRg with 6xactly nothing in the ranching business and
putting together a successful business over the years it seems unjust
that the Bureau of Reclamation makes this capricious decision when
theland is not to be used for ahigher priority.
I am not no'w able to buy another ranching opportunity. Ranching
is.the only business I know:I have no other income.
The Federal code of grazing regulations for the public lands, printed
by the Department of the Interior, specifically states on numerous
occasions that the prior user shall have a superior preference in leas-
ing public grazing lands.
This grazing land has been left unused since. our lease was canceled
in October 1966, and was left idle during 1967. I think this is evidence
that the Midvale farmers are not in need of grazing lands. The Federal
Treasury should be getting a fair return annually from a lease.
I
I
PAGENO="0141"
137
~ During a m~etitig with Commissionet Dominy and Senator Frank
Barrett in the summer of 1961, my father and I were told by Mr.
Dominy that the old lessee was entitled to a preference right to re-
newal of his lease. He also stated at that time that the Bureau of
Reclamation had no business leasing grazing land, and that a reason-
able rental should be tharged. He also stated that leases such as ours
should be renewable on a negotiated basis. I ask that a letter from Sen~
ator Frank Barrett to my father, dated June 19, 1961, be inserted in
the hearing record at this point.
Senator HANSEN. Without objection it may be received.
(The letter refcrred to follows:)
LAW OFFI0ES, BARRETT & BARRETT,
Lu$k, Wyo., June 19, 1961.
Mr. CLAYTON LONG,
$hoshoni, Wyo.
DEAR CLAYTON : I think we had a very satisfactory conference with Floyd
Dominy in Casper. I am enclosing a letter which I received from Washington
since I got back home but it Isn't important. I was pleased with the fact that
Dominy understood our problem so well and agreed that the old lessee was
entitled to a preference right to reneWal of his lease providing he had performed
according to the provision of the lease and had taken care of the land itself. I
was pleased that he did not agree with those that felt you should get as much
rental as possible but rather reaj~ire only a reasonable rental. He said that the
Bureau of Reclamation rules that require that leases be put up to the highest
bidder was not intended for grazing leases and in fact the Bureau had no bus!-
ness leasing land for grazing purposes and that the rules should be amended to
permit renewal of leases such as yours ~y negotiation. I was particularly pleased
when Mr. Dominy told us on two separate occasions that your lease will be
extended for at least another year and that thereafter he would get the regula-
tions changed so that the Bureau could renew grazing leases by negotiation and
then he would be in a position to negotiate a reneway some time during the next
year. I have been thinking, Clayton, that you should get an assignment of
Unit 5 on record so that the extension for one year would apply to Units 1, 3, 4,
and 5. Perhaps the assignment should be filed with the office at Riverton. If Per-
k1t~s has been up to Billings I would be interested in learning what the fellows
up there had to say after Floyd Dominy met with them on the 16th of this month.
With very best wishes and kindest personal regards to you and Reno, I am,
Sincerely yours,
FRANK BARRETT.
Mr. Lowe. If this line of thought was applicable to this situation in.
1961, why isn't it today ~
To conclude, let me emphasize those point which I respectfully
suggest should be considered by the committee during its deliberations
on S. 6~TO.
First. I request that the committee seek to determine what lands
are presently needed for the Riverton reclamation project. If it is
determined that all or most of the 63,000 acres of grazing lands are
not now or will not be required for irrigation. purposes, then I urge
the committee to recommend that these lands be removed from their
withdrawn status and returned to the Federal agency empowered to
administer public grazing lands.
Second. I respectfully ask the committee to consider whether it is in
public interest to devote a large tract of public lands to a semiprivate
organization such as the Midvale Irrigation District for rental, when
other citizens such as myself stand ready, as I have in the past, to pay
a fair rental of at least $5,000 to the Federal Treasury.
PAGENO="0142"
~n indian aict ~. --
ankyou.
Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Davison.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state if I ~
I
138
~omrnittee for their attention and patience
pers
ainly
)fl some of
to corn-
Lte
and we ai
Mr. Chairman,
iude the hearing, would any-
PAGENO="0143"
I
139
leasing them, my written statement said I had been using them for 23
years.
Senator HANSEN. Are there any further statements to be made be-
fore the hearing is closed ? . ~
Let me say that we hope to have transcripts of this hearing avail-
; able by tomorrow forenoon. There has been quite a bit of testimony
taken and I appreciate the burden that may be imposed on our re-
~ ~ porter here, but we would hope that maybe by tomorrow forenoon
sometime transcripts of the hearing might be available.
I say this in case those who have testified would like to read over the
testimony as it has been taken by the reporter. Sometimes inadvertently
there may be an error or a misstatement, and you will thus be given the
opportunity tomorrow morning, if you feel that this may have been
the case.
It is not obligatory, of course, that you look over the testimony, but
you do have the opportunity to look it over and make such changes as
would accurately reflect what you meant to say, if the record does not
so have you recorded.
Before closing the hearing, there are some letters for insertion in the
record and any additional letters or statements received will also be
printed
(ri
SnosuoNI, W~o., November 26, 1967.
*v~ Irrigation and Reclamation,
snso~: As a land owner of irrigated lands within the Mid-
t of Riverton Project, Wyoming, I would like to go on record
~ bill-S--670, on which your committee has scheduled
~o.
which v
PAGENO="0144"
140
Irrigation District certain permits issued by the State of Wyoming for the
diversion, storage and appropriation of the waters of Wind River and its
tributaries, as designated in paragraph (a) of the "Explanatory Recitals" of
the Amendatory Repayment Contract (see Act of Congress dtd June 23, 1952-
See. 3) between the United States of America and the Midvale Irrigation Dis-
tri~t, dated June 25, 1952.
SEO. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to arrange to
sell to Midvale Irrigation District for the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) the Pilot
Butte Power Plant, feeder lines and other works appurtenant to the power
plant ; and
(a ) further, assist in the transfer of all existing contracts for sale of Pilot
Butte Power Plant power to the Midvale Irrigation District ; and
(1) ) revenue from the sale of power in excess of operation and maintenance
of the power plant be used first for the repair and replacement of structures
now needed and lining canals with permanent linings.
Sue. 3. The secretary Is hereby authorized and directed to sell the irrigated
lands and improvements thereon of the Third Division and Cottonwood Bench
areas, Riverton Project, by public auction bid basis, with the limitation of 320
irrigated acres (maximum and minimum) to any one individual who is a citizen
of the United States of America, without a commitment by the bureau of Recla-
mation on land class ; and
(a) that individuals may also purchase 320 acres non-irrigated land ; and
(b) delivery of water to the Third Division and Cottonwood Bench irri-
gated areas shall be effected by contract with the Midvale Irrigation District
until such time owners may make a determination whether to merge with
Midvale Irrigation District ; or establish an irrigation district under the
water laws of the State of Wyomng ; and
(c) net revenues from the sale of lands and improvements of Third Dlvi-
sion and Cottonwood Bench area shall accrue to the reclamation fund.
SEC. 4. The Bureau of Reclamation operations shall henceforth be only to the
"take line" of Boysen Reservoir on the Wind River water shed.
SEC. 5. Appropriations heretofore and hereafter made for carrying on the
fnnctions of the Bureau of Reclamation shall be available for credits, expenses,
charges and costs provided by or incurred under this Act. Expenses incurred in
carrying out the provisions of Sections 1, 2, and 3 inclusive of this Act shall be
nonreimbursable and nonreturnable under Federal Reclamation Laws.
JUsTIFIcATIoN rou ALTERNATIVE
A BILL For the relief of the land owners and water users of Midvale Irrigation District,
Riverton, Wyoming, and other purposes
SECTION 1. Cancellation of repayment contracts:
1. Precedents have been established by Act of May 26, 1926, ch. 395 (44 Stat.
653) ; the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 980) ; the Act of June 5, 1920 (41 Stat.
1054).
2. The Bureau of Reclamation has been mismanaging the Riverton Project for
over 40 years, mistakes in the engineering and drainage and other "rehabilitation
work" has not made the project well under the auspices of the bureau, so isn't it
time to give some one else a chance to try to amend the mistakes that have been
made here?
3. First contract in 1931 provided for expenditures of rio more than $5,000,000
to complete the project ; 1952 Amendatory Repayment Contract increased the
amount to be paid by irrigation to over $7,000,000 and included write-off for non-
productive lands due to seepage ; Supplemental Rehab and Betterment Contract
of Sept. 1956 was for $2,500,000, increasing the expenditures to over $9 million;
during the life of these contracts the District has repaid the federal government
slightly over $1,000,000 during the 40 years the project had been in existance.
4. Landowners in Midvale District could get their water rights adjudicated
u~der Stat~e law, have better `collateral for refinancing ; or to aild to existing farm
units, many of which are too small to furnish an adequate family living.
5. The increase in additional income tax due to more feasible farm operations
here would create additional income for the federal government.
~l. Under this Act further appropriations fOr the Riverton project would not
be required; while under bureau control annual appropriations and new legisla-
tion for "relief" of the project seem to be a continuous process.
PAGENO="0145"
141
SEC. 2. Sale of Pilot Butte Power Plant to the Midvale Irrigation District:
:1. Power plant was initially built to operate drag line for construction of Wyo-
ming Canal and was a part of the project.
2. Power plant was returned to federal agovernrnent agent (Bureau of Recla-
mation) by the 1931 Repayment contract, as at that time the bureau negotiators
convinced the District Commissioners (two of whom were not project land-
owners) that the power plant would be a liability to the District and the bureau
would be doing the irrigators a big "favor" to take it off their bands. Since 1931
the sale of power, under proper management and crediting of revenue, should
have repaid the federal government the costs of the power plant as well as the
construction costs of the District works, therefore, it may be assumed the present
repayment obligation has effect of making the irrigators pay twice for the project.
3. Due to the need for permanent (concrete) canal linings to stop the leakage
4:~f the canals and laterals, as well as major repair and/or replacement of some of
the big drop structures, there is need for a source of annual revenue to rebuild
and correct mistakes that have been macle-this need could come from power
plant revenue.
Sec. 3. Sale of lands in Third Division and Cottonwood bench : ~ ~ ~ .. ~
1. This would get the bureau of reclamation out of the land business as well
as "off" the land classification hook implied where attempts are made to establish
a so-called "economical farm unit" by land class on RFverton Pi~oiect and elimi-
nate the implication of any guarantee by the Government as to arability of the
lands. Also, proceeds from the sale of lands would retUrn to reclamation fUnd a
part of the amount expended to buy out Third Division entrymen.
2. In private ownership the lands would be on County Tax rolls.
3. Limit the amount of land to be owned by an individual yet a man and
wife could own a section of irrigated and a section of dryland. The 320-320
should thus allow a family to convert to a livestock economy.
4. The land limitation under reclamation laws would not apply on lands in
the Midvale District if constikiction charges are cancelled and farm units
could be increased in size to be more in line with present farm operations than
under the original Reclamation Act of 1902 which restricted the acreage to 160.
5. Land owners could adjudicate their water rights under the Statutes of the
State of Wyoming and, thus, have a better opportunity to obtain long term
financing and better appraisals by lending agencies to increase the size of farm
units and/or do needed rehabilitation work such as farm ditehes, drainage etc.
which are now prohibited due to priorities established in favor of the federal
government.
6. Would also preserve the water rights for Wyoming rather than let it go
"on demand" down the river to float barges on the Mississippi.
7. With the lands in Third Division and Cottonwood Bench made available
for purchase and a more favorable climate to obtain financing, it is quite possible
some of the Midvale land owners would want to add to their present holdings;
however, the purchasers of the Third Division and Cottonwood bench lands
should also have the privilege of determining by majority vote whether they
want to come under the Midvale District or form a District of their own and
have a "pro rated share of the joint works" as defined in the Midvale Irrigation
District Amendatory Contract of 1952. (The Third Division Irrigation District
has been established under Wyoming Statutes, and the status of this District
at present has not been determined.)
(Norn.-Substantiatlng evidence for the various points may be found In
various reports, and hearings in regard to the Riverton Project as well as In the
Reclamation laws pursuant to this project.)
BI5MAROK, N. DAK., December 7, 1967.
Senator CLIrvoan HANSEN,
S'enate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
The Upper Missouri Water Users Association convened in 20th annual con-
ference in Blsmarck, N. Dak. today; endorsed proposed reauthorization of
Riverton project and urge enactment of S. 670. Please relay to Chairman
Anderson.
VERNON COOPER, President.
PAGENO="0146"
SPER, Wro., December 10, 1967.
4:35 p.m.
was closed.)
PAGENO="0147"
I
PAGENO="0148"