in the central part of the State which depend entirely on underground pumping for their water supply. Furthermore, in all these years there has been a constant requirement for more water by the farmer. He could do a better job of growing crops if he knew he could plan on 1 additional acre-foot per acre every year. Without putting new acres under cultivation, with supplementary water, he could add to the area's economy through full development of the crop production potential of the land. Yet the amount of water necessary to give the lands of the project this additional water supply would require approximately one-third more than the present average availability. Of even greater importance than the requirements for additional water for increased crop production is the vital necessity to reduce underground pumping. As others will point out in detail, users of water in central Arizona have been pumping far in excess of underground recharge. The water resources of the Salt River project, consisting of the surface water runoff from our watershed plus deep-well pumping from the underground, have been developed to their maximum potential. Water for increased crop production and decreased irrigation pumping must come from outside sources such as the Colorado River. The project, for years, has measured water at the source and at the delivery points. We have found that the amount delivered to the landowners is approximately two-thirds of the source amount. The rest is represented by evaporation, canal, and lateral losses. The Salt River project, following the reclamation principle of using power revenues to underwrite the major costs of developing, storing, and delivering water in an arid area, has been actively engaged in minimizing water losses due to evaporation and canal and lateral seepage by lining and tiling canals and laterals. These construction programs are moving along at an optimum pace, taking into consideration that some sections of the canals and laterals can only be out of service a short time each year. Nevertheless, we are making every effort to increase our water availability through loss savings. In the 1963-73 period the project will spend an estimated total of $116 million for developing, storing, and delivering agricultural, industrial, and residential water. These costs include the expenditures for water resources development, water saving research, and construction. Again, following the reclamation principle, we expect that $94 million of this total cost will be defrayed by power revenues. The central Arizona project as proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation will operate under the same principle that has been proven by the experiences of the Salt River project during the last 60 years. History has proven, as it did in the case of our project, that the only feasible way of creating or maintaining the economy of arid portions of the West is through the construction and operation and maintenance of reclamation projects in the manner provided by existing laws. Yet there are those who believe that investments in reclamation projects represent a useless and foolish expenditure of the taxpayers money. We who really know from experience what reclamation has done and can do, know that reclamation is not pork barrel philosophy or a dole it is an investment which is being repaid by the users of the products of reclamation projects-benefiting not only the local economy but also the entire Nation. Reclamation law repayment requirements as a two-way street, are in sharp contrast to the one-way aspects of many Government expenditures. As Mr. Kirwan, of Ohio, so well expressed in the Congressional Record on August 14, 1963: Reclamation puts to work the renewable and precious-resource of water, water that is the key to life and prosperity, particularly in the entire western half of our country. The argument that no more reclamation projects should be built because these projects will only contribute to an evermounting surplus is entirely erroneous. An examination of the attached crop report for the Salt River project shows that wheat, a surplus crop, represented less than 1 percent of the value of crops grown on the Salt River project during 1962. Feed grains of all kinds, including wheat, represented only 8.5 percent of the total value-none of which went into surplus. This small amount of these crops is necessary for balanced crop rotation and livestock feeding. On the other hand, seed, hay and forage, vegetables, fruits and nuts, and flowers represented 45 percent of the total value of 1962 crops. Cotton lint and cottonseed made up approximately the same percentage. This distribution of cropping is generally typical throughout the entire irrigated area of central Arizona. The central Arizona project, as envisioned by the Bureau of Reclamation, is simply an expansion upon the concepts and the experiences of the Salt River project. Its cost will be repaid to the Government in the same manner that the cost of the Salt River project has been repaid. There is no other feasible way of sustaining an economy that exists in one of the fastest growing areas of the United States. I offer the following facts to support my contention that investment in reclamation projects is good business for the local area and for the country as a whole. The original Federal investment in the Salt River project was repaid in full in 1955. The assessed valuation in Maricopa County in 1900, when the project was under consideration was $10 million; and in 1962 it had risen to $770 million. A recent study revealed the following analysis of employment in Maricopa County: 1940_ 1950_ Jobs 54, 500 111, 700 Projections: 203, 000 Jobs 357, 000 491, 000 1958_ 1962 267, 200 Employment is one of the Nation's most pressing economic and social problems. The history of the Salt River project proves that where reclamation has provided a water and power supply in an area where none previously existed, an economy has grown and employment has skyrocketed. According to Western Management Consultants, Inc., the value of manufacturing in Arizona increased from zero in 1903 to $86 million in 1946 and to $850 million in 1962. In 1903 when the project was started, the city of Phoenix occupied less than 2,000 acres of project land. In 1962 the Salt River project supplied 65.4 percent of the water used by the city of Phoenix domestic water system and the city occupied about 44,000 acres of the project land. Lands of the Salt River project represent only 4 percent of the land area in Maricopa County, yet contain approximately 80 percent of the county's assessed valuation. The foregoing statistics emphasize the fact that the Salt River project made possible a stable agricultural economy in Arizona, which in turn encouraged population, trade, and industrial growth important to the Nation. It is not hard then to shift from the experiences of the Salt River project to a projection of the effects of the central Arizona project. Conservative estimates of benefits resulting from the central Arizona project, prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation indicate total annual benefits of $125,468,800 which is more than three times the annual cost of the central Arizona project, including amortization of construction costs. The cost of the central Arizona project is too great for any group of men or the State of Arizona to undertake. That was true of the Salt River project when they commenced building it almost 60 years ago. But, if you will take the long-range view for the years that the Salt River project has been in existence, there are many more reasons, as of today, why the central Arizona project should be built than there were reasons in 1903 for commencing to build the Salt River project. A few of these reasons are: There are 13 times more people who will be affected by the central Arizona project. Assessed valuation has increased over the same period 77 times. Crop valuation in 1962 in the Salt River project area was nearly 11 times the valuation in 1912 at the time of the construction of Theodore Roosevelt Dam. Similarly, livestock has grown to a $20 million per year business on the Salt River project area alone. Mining now accounts for about $450 million as a source of Arizona's income, and tourism has grown from a negligible figure in 1903 to the stature of a $350 million industry. Arizona needs the water that will be provided by central Arizona project. Without this additional water the present economy cannot be sustained. More land will have to go out of cultivation; farmers will face the stark reality of failure and the future growth of cities and towns will be jeopardized. The central Arizona project is feasible. The Federal investment will be repaid and the water is needed now. For these reasons on behalf of the Salt River project and its landowners, I urge favorable consideration and approval of S. 1658. (The material referred to follows:) |