Pick-Sloan and the MVA

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I note that the Mississippi Valley Association has replied to your editorial attacking their policy with regard to Pick-Sloan v. MVA and criticizing Pick-Sloan in general. While I have nothing to offer that can equal the array of facts and references compiled by your staff, I do have a few incidental points.

(1.) Your statement concerning the amounts of water necessary to operate Pick-Sloan is confirmed by Rufus Terrel in his book "Missouri Valley" (New Haven, 1947). His exhaustive critique of the P-S plan includes the fact that more water will be needed to operate it than can be obtained from the Big Mo.

(2.) If enough water is present in the Missouri to fill the nine-foot channel, fine. But since the commencement of the nine-foot channel on the Missouri, a 12-foot channel has been started in the Mississippi. The nine-foot channel on the Mo was chosen in preference to the proposed six-foot in order that the system might correspond to that on the Mississippi. Now, with the 12-foot channel already planned for the Mississippi, the P-S crows plunge blindly ahead with their nine-foot ditch for the Missouri.

(3.) The ultimate criticism of Pick-Sloan is that it attempts to restore the marginal land of the valley to production of surplus crop wheat rather than encouraging new paths of endeavor for areas which have no business in agriculture. Does Pick-Sloan attempt to take advantage of the vast, untapped manganese deposits lying along the upper and middle Missouri? No. Does it offer power for the development of the iron and coal (lignite) deposits in Colorado and other parts of the system easily within reach of a MVA power project? No. In short, through blindness and stubborness, Pick-Sloan, turn their backs on the real solution to the valley's problems. B. Robert Carman '51