We

closely with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Prairie Bend feasibility study. This study, in conjunction with the Platte River Options Study, is essential to our state level effort of considering future uses of Platte River water. encourage continued funding for both the Prairie Bend feasibility study and the Platte River Options Study.

Bank Stabilization on the Missouri River

This year, we would like to make a special and strong plea to your Subcommittee to provide an appropriation to the Corps of Engineers to continue bank stabilization work on the Missouri River on the reach between Gavins Point Dam and Ponca State Park. This stretch of the river is a federally declared National Recreation River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This designation provides a narrow range of opportunities to develop and manage the river. Mechanical stabilization of the banks of the river may be about the only maintenance that may be applied under the terms of the federal authorization. Such stabilization is most essential to the adjacent agricultural lands.

Much thought and concern has been expanded on this section of the river. Over the years the Commission has enjoyed a close working relationship with a group of citizens banded together as the Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association. That organization has made many appearances before your Subcommittee. With the support of the States of South Dakota and Nebraska and others, the group has been successful in encouraging Congress to provide funds for several bank stabilization demonstration projects along the river.

However, in recent years the demonstration work has ceased and unfortunately we are told that even maintenance of these sites has been dropped. We feel it is most unfortunate this important activity has been abolished and we do ask for careful reconsideration. Therefore, the Natural Resources Commission is pleased to join with Governor Robert Kerrey, the Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, and many others in requesting an appropriation to reinitiate bank stabilization work on this important stretch of the river.

The Nebraska Natural Resources Commission appreciates the opportunity to provide this statement for the hearing record.

STATEMENT OF JACK ODGAARD, Executive VICE PRESIDENT, Nebraska WATER
RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this formal statement with attachments is submitted for the record on the hearings for continuation of the O'Neill Unit reclamation project of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. It is submitted on behalf of the officers, directors, and more than 5,000 members represented by the Nebraska Water Resources Association who urge your continued support for financing and construction completion of the O'Neill Unit that was authorized by the Congress in 1972.

In past testimony and presentations made in support of the O'Neill project, I have detailed the numerous benefits of the O'Neill project to its area, the State of Nebraska, the region, and the nation. These have included the economic impacts, the value in food production and maintenance of a significant area of family farm operations, enhancement of jobs and employment opportunities, energy conservation, water quality and environmental enhancement, fish and wildlife and outdoor recreation needs and opportunities, and social benefits.

My testimony of last year reviewed the strong support there is for the O'Neill project, including the local support shown in two elections held on the project in 1979, and the overwhelming statewide support indicated for the project in a special hearing conducted by the Nebraska Legislature's Public Works Committee in 1982. At that hearing more than 50 individuals testified representing some 47 organizations and nearly 300,000 members in support of the O'Neill project. That compared to 25 people in opposition representing 12 organizations with fewer than 1,600 members.

The organizations that supported the O'Neill project in that hearing included statewide, regional, and local entities. Among those were county boards and city councils; natural resources districts and irrigation and reclamation districts; statewide and area and local water and resources organizations; statewide agricultural organizations; chambers of commerce, business organizations, and labor organizations; sportsmen organizations; and other local organizations.

Since environmental litigation was filed against the O'Neill project more than seven years ago, several additional studies have been undertaken and completed by the federal government in furtherance of the Final Environmental Statement, as part of the environmental impact requirements of federal law. All of the environmental issues have been satisfactorily addressed for the federal district court, and the final hearing on the last two studies is scheduled for December of this year. The two remaining issues that are expected to be adequately addressed to the

satisfaction of the court are dam stability and economic alternatives to the

project.

Because the O'Neill project has been one of a dozen or so such projects targeted for deauthorization by national environmental organizations, and because the project in this time has not had the strong and united support it formerly enjoyed from among Nebraska's congressional delegation as do targeted projects

-

in other states, the Congress in recent years has directed two separate studies to be undertaken to consider alternatives to the project as originally and currently

designed.

One such study of several alternatives was completed two years ago and concluded that no other alternative was economically feasible. The second study is a joint federal-state study of a specific alternative to construction and use of the Norden Dam and Reservoir to meet the project needs. It is being led by the State of Nebraska, and is scheduled to be completed early next year.

During the past few years, with the less than unanimous support for the O'Neill project among Nebraska's congressional delegation, those environmental organizations that oppose water development projects have stepped up oppositon and made concerted efforts to have the O'Neill project deleted or deauthorized in the Congress, and to have public opinion and opposition expressed to the project.

The Congress and the federal government generally seek new information from testimony on projects and programs during hearings such as this, and in keeping with our efforts to accommodate those desires, the Nebraska Water Resources Association in this hearing will present brief information about the misinformation and falsehoods being spread by the various environmental organizations in opposition to the O'Neill project.

We believe this is extremely important, and that the Congress should be made aware of this false information because it is upon those false and misleading statements that we have seen congressional statements made in opposition to the O'Neill project. It is unfortunate that the news media today, particularly that far removed from the area in which an issue is concentrated, so often accepts as fact and truth statements made by one side or group in an issue without even attempting to verify the accuracy and authenticity of the statements.

Yet that is precisely what has happened in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and others. The false and misleading information is being disseminated in magazines, brochures, newsletters, and correspondence produced by

such organizations as the Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Wildlife Federation, and

Nature Conservancy.

We have copies of these publications and articles, and we are aware that much of this material has been distributed from the corporate headquarters or Washington-based offices of these organizations to members of Congress. Because of their volume and number, and the probability that they have been widely distributed among the Congress, we will not include them with this statement

for the record.

We will be happy to provide copies for any mbmers of Congress who wish to have them, but with this statement we submit copies of new material that the Congress will not be familiar with. Those items, we believe, will help the members of the committee and the Congress understand the lengths to which water conservation development opposition organizations will go to influence the public and our elected officials. Hopefully, by having the truth and facts for comparison with the false and misleading information being disseminated, members of Congress other than those of the appropriations committees who are more informed, will be able to address correspondence and concerns of contituents raised because of the fraudulent mail and propaganda campaigns of these opposition organizations. I will summarize the major discrepancies here, and then provide copies of two new papers that documents the falsehoods and misinformation being perpetrated. As the members of the committee know, major emphasis in such campaigns to discredit projects, programs, or issues, is arranged to appeal to the emotions of the public. Such statements as "environmental destruction," "$2.3 billion cost to the taxpayers," and "flooding of 55,000 acres to benefit huge corporations" are the emotional but false statements that appeal to the public.

The false information in the brochures and pamphlets distributed by the Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, and others are now part of an organized door-to-door campaign being conducted by a new organization that was formed as a coalition of representatives of these groups in Nebraska. That group, the Nebraska Water Conservation Council, is attempting to get signatures on unofficial petitions to be used by supporters of the environmental organizations in the Congress.

Among them the

The major issues in that campaign and in the literature being distributed by the opposition organizations, involve numerous falsehoods. following statements and allegations, often conflicting even among the organizations and their literature, are included with the true facts:

(1) Allegations: The project will inundate more than 30,000 acres; it will

flood 30,000 acres to irrigate 40,000 acres; it will inundate a 55,000-acre wildlife refuge. Fact: The reservoir will have a surface of 6,300 acres, it will irrigate 77,000 acres, and it will not inundate a wildlife refuge.

(2) Allegations: The project will destroy the Niobrara River, it will

reroute the river, and will destroy a unique ecological area. Fact: It will not reroute the river or destroy it. The Norden Reservoir will be only 19 miles long

of the more than 430 miles total length of the Niobrara River. It will not destroy the river but will add a beautiful reservoir for fish and wildlife and outdoor

recreation.

(3) Allegations:

The project will cost $1 billion to $2.3 billion, and

it will be paid for by the taxpayers. Fact: The current estimated cost of the project is under $380 million, and the project will be repaid by irrigators and from power revenues of the Pick-Sloan program.

(4) Allegations: The project won't affect the water table or ground water levels. It won't provide any benefits, and there are little or no ground water problems in the area. Fact: The project area has severe ground water declines that the project will reverse and stabilize. Without the project, a large area of farmland will be without water in the near future.

(5) Allegations: The project isn't going to be good for recreation. It's not even decided if recreation will be included. Fact: Recreation plans include thousands of acres of developed and undeveloped land for public access. Anticipated outdoor recreation use is 300,000 visitor days per year. New sport fisheries and migrating waterfowl habitat will be provided that does not now exist.

Numerous other faise and misleading statements have been made about the

O'Neill project and its Norden Dam and Reservoir.

These five major issues are

mentioned because they are the basis of the emotional and false campaign being

waged against the O'Neill project.

The two attachments that accompany this statement bear out the use of this false and misleading information by opponents of the project. The first of these is a transcript from a tape recording made May 25, 1982, of a presentation made by a representative of the Nebraska Water Conservation Council to a resident of Omaha, Nebraska; and the second is a synopsis of notes taken at a similar presentation given to two Lincoln, Nebraska residents on February 8, 1984. Additional copies of these and other materials are available for the committee and any members of Congress. The facts about the O'Neill project, including all of the issues falsely presented by opponents of the project, are contained in the brochure we have available entitled, "Noden Dam and Reservoir: Saving Nebraska's Water for Nebraska."