O'NEILL UNIT, NEBRASKA

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JESS, DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES, STATE OF NEBRASKA

ACCOMPANIED BY H. LEE BECKER, STATE HYDROLOGIST

Senator Exon. At this time if the Chair is willing, I would like to introduce Mr. Mike Jess who will be followed by Mr. Lee Becker.

Senator STENNIS. All right. We are glad to have you here, Mr. Jess. You may proceed now.

Mr. JESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want this morning to report to you the progress we have made thus far with the State lead alternative study that is jointly funded first by the Congress and by the State of Nebraska and the various State agencies that have been involved as well as the private sector and the North Central Irrigation District, Alfred Drayton being the chairman.

STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES

We embarked on this study last summer with the idea of striving to find an alternative for a water supply that would not involve construction of a major dam and reservoir. Earlier it was suggested that a largescale well field could be constructed in the Niobrara River Valley. Our reaction to that was that there are a good deal of mechanical problems with such a large-scale well field operation that there certainly would be the likelihood of an alternative to that.

We began looking at facilities in other parts of the United States and other parts of the world as an example of an engineering facility to supply these large quantities of water and our first reaction was the infiltration gallery which is essentially a buried perforated pipe network constructed in such a way as to be parallel to a riverbed, excavated in a trench below the elevation of the riverbed which, when it operates, in effect induces into an infiltration from the flow of the river into the gal lery system and then it is led away then to a pumping plant and supplies water for project needs.

We have actually toured the facilities at Des Moines, Iowa, which is an infiltration gallery that has been in place and in operation since the turn of the century with essentially very little operation and maintenance difficulties; in fact, as I understand, there have been none since at least World War I. This being one alternative, we have also looked at the possibility of another innovation from our friends in the municipal water treatment industry, the rapid sand filter used by many cities, including Washington, DC, for treatment of water for municipal purposes.

The point with all of these facilities has been to obtain a large supply of water free of sediment. If you look on the handout that I have provided, there are some artist's sketches of first the typical infiltration gallery and then the rapid sand filter. Going on, the purpose of these facilities, as I indicated, is to provide sediment-free water because we envision a project that would be somewhat nontypical to what you may

consider as conventional irrigation projects. We would instead look at the recharge of our underground reservoirs, our aquifer system. Sediment-free water, of course, is essential to prevent a plugging up of the facilities.

Some have tried construction of pits on the surface and, of course, the sediment in the water will soon become plugged up. Also with the growth of algae and other materials in those shallow pits they tend to contribute to the plugging of the recharge facility. Instead, if I could have that sample passed around for the chairman, we have the widespread installation for what you might consider to be a leaky pipe network.

What is being distributed here is a plastic perforated pipe and has what is called a sock around the outside. We envision in the project area that is to say, in the area where the irrigated lands are and where there is an aquifer underlying those lands-that this material be placed below the frost line and that the supply water be allowed to pass through it, it would go out the small perforation inside and, in effect, provide the quantities of water for recharge purposes of the underlying aquifer system.

Of course it is that system that the irrigators in the O'Neill project are currently mining, drawing more water from the aquifer than nature returns by the natural means. So, we are, in effect, trying to devise a system to assure a sustained yield from that aquifer system.

There are portions of the O'Neill project lands that are not underlined by an aquifer system or an aquifer system that could be readily recharged and those locations we have felt that in order to fulfill the authorization of Congress in supplying water to those lands, that water would be supplied directly on demand during the growing season. Those lands compromise a small portion of the total, however, than those lands underlain by an aquifer.

We are trying to, at this point, accomplish testing in the field, testing of the water supply capability in the Nibrara Valley as well as testing the possibilities for use of the perforated pipe for sustained and widespread recharge purposes. I am sure if we come back again a year from now we will be able to report to you the results of those tests.

PRELIMINARY COST OF ALTERNATIVE

We are also as a part of our study intending to examine into the cost of the alternatives that we will investigate. I don't have at this point the precise cost estimate because our study is really less than half complete, an 18-month study, and we are not quite half through it yet. However, preliminary costs would suggest that the total project costs would be much the same as the Bureau of Reclamation predicted in its alternative study completed in 1981. As an indication we would feel that the total project cost perhaps on the order of $200 million would be at least a ballpark figure to think in terms of total cost.

The study goes on. We will also be doing a legal, institutional, and environmental review. Last year the Nebraska Legislature passed the

pretty far-reaching bill-L.B. 198-which authorizes water rights to be granted for such a project. The State law in Nebraska prior to that was not clear on the appropriateness of a water right for this sort of project and we feel that the law also authorizes irrigation districts to collect assessments to accomplish this purpose as we have discussed before.

We have initiated discussions with our State Game and Parks Commission which are simply preliminary at this point with the initial reac tion. We believe it has been favorable and I suspect that stems from

the

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Jess, I am sorry. You have used up your time. We are going to ask that your written statement be placed in the record, and if you have some additional points you want to make in writing or include in the record, we will be glad to have you do that.

Your testimony has been very helpful. Thank you very much. [The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JESS, DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES, NEBRASKA

STUDY DESCRIPTION: An alternative proposal advanced by the Nature Conservancy was the impetus for the state-led study. Briefly, that proposal called for 196 wells to provide the water supply for transportation to and recharge of water bearing formations underlying many project lands. The Nature Conservancy claims its proposal is less costly. If true, the benefit-cost ratio would be more favorable than that projected by the Bureau of Reclamation for the authorized O'Neill Unit.

Intended to "pass through" the Bureau of Reclamation to the State, Congress in August 1983 authorized $100,000 for the review. State matching efforts will equal that commitment. Local officials, state and university agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the private sector are participating in the endeavor.

By substituting several more innovative elements within the proposal, the state-led study has focused upon service to the same 77,000 acres authorized for service by the Congress. Five key questions will be addressed.

(1) In the absence of a major reservoir (Norden), can an alternative means be devised for supplying project demands?

(2) Where recharge is impossible or impractical, can direct, conventional service be provided?

(3) Can recharge be sustained on a large-scale basis?

(4) In terms of out-of-pocket costs to irrigators as well as federal, state and local outlays, what are estimated costs for the alternatives investigated?

(5) What legal, institutional and environmental considerations does the alternative proposal raise?

Water Supply

For the larger, approximately 69,000-acre block lying north of Atkinson and O'Neill, several water supply alternatives are being examined. Each would withdraw ground water from alluvial deposits in the Niobrara River valley. Despite being labeled "untried and unproven" by some, each alternative technique has in fact been utilized for generations in many parts of the world.

A horizontal collector system is noted in biblical passages. The first contemporary design and installation in the United States was prior to the Civil War. The horizontal collector consists of buried perforated pipe installed away from, but roughly parallel to, the river's bank. Alternatively, the pipe can be installed beneath and perpendicular to the stream bed. In either case the perforated pipe would terminate at a central location where a large diameter caisson or pit would be excavated. From there water would be removed for conveyance to project lands by pumping.

When operating, water from the river would pass through the bed and to the buried system. It would enter the collector through the pipe perforations. If properly designed, the system would perform much the same as a conventional water well. Sediment-free water (essential for intentional ground water recharge) would result from filtration through subsurface earth materials.

A second water supply alternative consists of an adaptation to the commonly used rapid sand filter which was developed during the period 1900-1910. In practice we envision a concrete structure located within a channel of the Niobrara River. Resting on the base in each of ten cells aligned parallel to the river, a perforated intake pipe would be covered with specially-sized and graded sand and gravel. In much the same manner as the buried collector, river water would be filtered as it passed downward through the sand and

gravel to the perforated intake pipes. As before, the water would be piped to a central caisson for conveyance to the project lands. Periodic backflushing of each cell would remove trapped sediment, thus improving the intake rate. Other alternatives such as a Ranney collector or a series of small vertical wells connected to a central caisson by means of syphon tubes are also under review. Beyond supplying sediment-free water, we believe several important advantages exist for these types of systems over the 196-well proposal of the Nature Conservancy. When properly designed, any one of these systems is capable of extracting large quantities from shallow, thin and fine-grained aquifers. A centralized pumping facility would be more cost effective, and it would allow for easier access and reduced maintenance responsibilities.

For the smaller 8,000-acre tract near Springview, we have concluded that a traditional river intake and pumping facility is most feasible.

Service to Project Lands

Our preliminary conclusions suggest that without extensive operation and maintenance responsibilities, sustained, wide-spread recharge by means of surface pits or through existing irrigation wells is improbable. An alternative means, however, appears superior.

We plan to evaluate a subsurface recharge network fundamentally amounting to a conventional agricultural drainage system (a tile-drain system referred to by some) operated in reverse. Instead of draining water from the soil profile, the subsurface network would be utilized in recharging the underlying aquifer(s). By way of design and intentional control, water would slowly seep from a "leaky" buried pipe network. Low-cost, perforated plastic materials will be evaluated in the field.

Intentional raising, lowering or stabilizing of ground water levels could be achieved through management and supervision of leakage from the recharge network. Migration of recharge water beyond project boundaries could be minimized. Weather conditions adverse to land surface basin or pít recharge operations would not be a hindrance to successful recharge performance. Encrustation and plugging, problems frequently reported by those recharging through conventional wells, would be eliminated. Government acquisition of land for basins or pits, as well as health and safety problems inherent with their presence, would also be eliminated.

For those lands not overlying an aquifer system or because of greater depth and the presence of intervening impermeable strata, recharge is deemed impossible or impractical. Irrigation service to these lands must be by conventional means.

Water demand estimates have been made for each segment of the project. "Sizing" of project components is underway. An estimated 130 cubic feet per second (cfs) pipeline is envisioned as necessary for direct service to project lands near Springview.

A second pipeline of approximately the same capacity would serve the larger block of land north of Atkinson and O'Neill. This pipeline would operate year round, in contrast to the pipeline serving the Springview lands which would operate only during the summer months. The second pipeline would serve the lands not susceptible to recharge during the summer. During the remaining months it would provide supplies to the recharge network. Year round operation permits pumps, pipelines and other features to be of more moderate size than could otherwise be specified.

Project Costs

While only rough, preliminary cost estimates have been made, it appears that each alternative under review would be less costly than the authorized project. The primary savings is achieved by eliminating construction and land