Fiscal year 1965.-The requested amount of $3,500,000 will be applied to: The amount of funds requested in fiscal year 1965 is required to continue construction at an orderly and economical rate. Non-Federal cost.-Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. This reimbursement is presently estimated at about $5 million, exclusive of interest. Status of local cooperation. Local cooperation required is limited to repayment of costs allocated to water supply features of the project under contracts to be negotiated at the proper time. The Mountain-Lakes Water District, by resolution dated August 15, 1961, requested that water supply storage be included in the project for future water supply needs, recognized the requirements of repayment of costs allocated to water supply, within the life of the project and assured that demand for the use of this storage will be made within a period of time which will permit paying out the cost allocated to water supply within the life of the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.-The current Federal cost estimate of $21,200,000 is the same as last presented to Congress. Summary construction program (PB-1), fiscal years 1964 and 1965 Location. The project is located in Ellis County at river mile 5 on Waxahachie Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River, about 5 miles south of Ennis, Tex. Authorization.-Public Law 86-399, approved March 31, 1960. Benefit-cost ratio.-2.5 to 1. Design capacity (maximum pool):74,300 cubic feet per second. The project will provide flood protection in varying degrees to about 495,000 acres of land within the flood plains of Waxahachie Creek, Chambers Creek, Richland Creek, and Trinity River. The project is an important element in the comprehensive plan for the ultimate control and development of the water resources of the Trinity River Basin. The last serious flood occurred during April and May 1958 causing damages estimated at $7,083,000 at then prevailing prices. Under present conditions the project would prevent about $919,000 in damages from a like flood. Fiscal year 1965.-The requested amount of $6,500,000 will be applied to: Continue land acquisition_.__. Continue relocation of State and Federal highways__ Continue relocation of county roads____ Complete relocation of utility lines and cemeteries. Initiate and complete reservoir clearing_ Continue embankment and spillway. Complete outlet works.. Buildings, grounds and utilities, and permanent operating equipment. Supervision and administration.......... Total____ Funds requested for fiscal year 1965 are considered to be the minimum amount required in order to meet the scheduled date of dam closure and project completion. Non-Federal costs.-Local interests are required to pay the part of the total first cost of the project and the annual cost of maintenance and operation of replacements allocated to water supply, presently estimated at $3,900,000 and $27,000, respectively. Status of local cooperation. In a formal contract approved by the Secretary of the Army on June 24, 1963, the Trinity River Authority has agreed to fulfill all requirements of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.-The current Federal cost estimate of $13 million is the same as last reported to Congress. Summary construction program (PB−1), fiscal years 1964 and 1965 Location. The improvement is located in the city of Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Tex., on Big Fossil Creek, a tributary of the west fork of the Trinity River. Authorizarion.-Flood Control Act of 1960. Benefit-cost ratio.-1.6 to 1. Improvement 1.9 miles along Big Fossil Creek. Clearing 1.5 miles to confluence with West Fork of Trinity River. Appurtenant interior drainage facilities. Pumping plants: 1 pumping plant with attendant sump. Percent The project will provide protection to about 174 acres of urban land in the city of Richland Hills. The area to be protected from flooding consists of residential development with a total value of $5,552,000. The project would afford a very high degree of protection against damages that may be expected to occur in the area to be protected. The last serious flood occurred in September 1962 causing damages estimated at $750,000. A recurrence of this flood under present conditions of development and price levels would cause damages estimated at $758,000, all of which would have been prevented by the project. Fiscal year 1965.-The requested amount of $1,340,000 will be applied to: Complete channel improvement and construction of levees and sump.. $936,000 Initiate and complete pumping plant.... Engineering and design.. Supervision and administration... Total.... 296,000 11,200 96,800 1,340,000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1965 are required to complete the project. Non-Federal cost.-The initial investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $606,000 broken down as follows: Lands.. Relocation of utilities. Cash contribution (land enhancement). Total.... $340,000 256, 000 10, 000 606, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon completion. The annual cost for maintenance and operation is estimated at $19,000. Status of local cooperation.-The city of Richland Hills, Tex., by letter dated March 7, 1959, indorsed the local flood protection plan on Big Fossil Creek and indicated willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation. By letter dated May 24, 1963, the city of Richland Hills, Tex., furnished the required assurances of local cooperation. These assurances were accepted on October 14, 1963. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.-The current Federal cost estimate of $1,970, 000 is the same as last submitted to Congress. Summary construction program (PB-1), fiscal years 1964 and 1965 Location. Local protection for Houston, located in Harris County, Tex., in and west of Houston along Buffalo, White Oak, and Brays Bayous. Authorization.-1938 River and Harbor Act, and 1939 and 1954 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio.-1.9 to 1. |