costs. We have been advised by the Office of the Chief of Engineers that this provision is applicable in this instance. If estimates when finally checked are approximately the same as recently made by the district engineer, the total local costs would remain about $1 million. Mr. JENSEN. That is still a pretty large load. What else could be be done? General WALKER. I don't believe that any other late legislative action is feasible but you would know that better than I. I believe it is possible, however, that cost can be substantially reduced by holding the relocations of the existing highway and other roads and utilities to a minimum. For example, a major reduction could be effected by eliminating the relocation of Highway 30A which is now a local access road. Under this plan, the road would be inundated for very short periods at intervals of many years. Mr. JENSEN. Have you talked to the city about any of this? General WALKER. Yes, on March 17 the district engineer met with Mr. White to explain the effect of the 1936 Flood Control Act and the other possibilities of reducing local costs. Later he heard from Mr. White that the city council still desires the project and desires that planning studies be continued on the basis that local costs would not exceed 50 percent of the total cost. He stated also that the council would be desirous of reducing the local cost still further. Mr. JENSEN. General, when will the project get started? General WALKER. Funds for initiation of construction of the reservoir project are in the budget. We will be able to move on this as soon as the design memorandum and detail design can be completed and formal assurances of local cooperation obtained. However, information from the State conservationist of Iowa indicated that a portion of the project being performed by the Soil Conservation Service for erosion control may not get underway as rapidly as desirable to secure completion by the date our project would go into operation. Mr. JENSEN. Thank you, I will be in constant touch with you on this matter. LAWRENCE, KANS. Mr. BOLAND. Lawrence, Kans., $300,000. (The justifications follow:) LAWRENCE, KANS. (New) Location. The project is located along both banks of the Kansas River about 50 miles above its mouth at Lawrence, Douglas County, Kans. Authorization.-1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio.-1.1 to 1. 1 In addition, local interests have expended $243,000 to provide partial flood protection in the project area. Lawrence, Kans., the county seat for Douglas County, is rapidly expanding as an industrial area. The area to be protected north of the river contains about 8,000 acres of residential, industrial, and agricultural area. The areas to be protected south of the river contain the Santa Fe Railroad yards and the municipal water and sewage treatment plants. The July 1951 flood caused damages of $3,382,000 in the project area, of which about 60 percent was loss to business properties. There were 2,500 persons evacuated from the area prior to and during the flood. The area contains over 500 residences, about 60 industrial and retail business establishments, and important railroad, highway, and utility facilities. A recurrence of the 1951 flood under 1963 conditions and prices would cause estimated damages of over $6,600,000. The proposed improvements in conjunction with upstream reservoirs would protect the area from this flood. Fiscal year 1965.-The requested amount of $300,000 will be applied toInitiate construction of levees and channel improvement.. Engineering and design.... Supervision and administration.. Total.... $175,000 100, 000 25, 000 300, 000 The amount of $300,000 is required to initiate construction. Non-Federal cost.-The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project, is estimated at $400,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages.. Total..... $215,000 185, 000 400,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon completion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance and operation will total $15,000. In addition, local interests advised that they have incurred costs of $243,000 for levee construction and other work in connec tion with partial flood protection in the area and just recently constructed a new pumping plant the cost of which is not available at this time. Status of local_cooperation.—The requirements of local cooperation have been outlined to local interests at several meetings held since authorization of the project in 1954. The Board of Commissioners of the city of Lawrence on April 3, 1962, passed a resolution of intent to furnish required assurances of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.-The current Federal cost estimate of $5 million is an increase of $1,370,000 over the latest estimate ($3,630,000) submitted to Congress. Adjustments on proposed levee height and alinement and construction of new levees in lieu of raising existing levees, together with increased relocation costs, offset partly by refinement of design in channel work on Mud Creek and the elimination of a proposed pumping plant, resulted in a net increase of $1,115,000. Price level advances resulted in an increase of $93,000. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $162,000, based on a reanalysis of requirements. Summary construction program (PB-1), fiscal years 1964 and 1965 It is noted that the benefit-cost ratio on this project is only 1.1 to 1 and the local contribution is less than 20 percent. However, you indicate that damages saved in one flood could be more than the cost of the project. Why are the economics of the project so marginal? General WALKER. The benefit-cost ratio has been reduced because of increased costs that have developed as a result of our redesign of the height of the levees. This redesign in itself was necessary in order to carry the flows which will be passed at Topeka. Mr. BOLAND. This is a local protection project, is it not? Mr. BOLAND. And the contribution is less than 20 percent. This is unusual, is it not, on local protection projects? General WALKER. Yes, sir, and at the direction of the committee last year we queried the city of Lawrence and they, in reply, in a letter of February 12, 1964, stated again their willingness to act as a sponsor for the project and to cooperate with the Federal Government irrespective of the possible new requirement relating to a 20-percent participation. They did, however, in this same letter, lodge a strong protest to the 20-percent requirement. Mr. BOLAND. Will you put the exchange of letters in the record at this point? General WALKER. Yes, sir. 32-218-64-pt. 1- -23 (The letters referred to follow :) Mr. HAROLD HORN, City Manager, Lawrence, Kans. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, Kansas City, Mo., January 31, 1964. DEAR MR. HORN: The sum of $300,000 is recommended in the Presidential budget for the fiscal year 1965 for a construction start on the Lawrence, Kans., flood protection project. Please refer to our letter to the Lawrence City Commission, dated March 28, 1962, in which we quoted an excerpt from the House Appropriations Committee report for fiscal year 1962, concerning the committee's desire that 20 percent of the costs of local protection projects be borne by local interests. In the fiscal year 1963 report, the House committee reiterated and modified this policy as follows: "Contributions on local protection projects: In its report last year the committee set up the policy of applying a requirement of 20 percent of total cost as the local contribution share on local protection projects. It was explained that the committee expected to apply this standard to all planning starts as they became eligible for construction funds. In other words when the normal local cooperation requirements of rights-of-way, relocations, and protection from damages have a cost equivalent of less than 20 percent of the project cost, the difference between this amount and the 20 percent would be contributed in work or cash. Testimony taken by the committee this year indicates that this would impose an undue hardship on certain projects where local interests have made previous contributions by initially constructing their own protective works. In view of this the committee intends to modify its position to the extent of permitting such prior investments to be included in calculating the 20-percent contribution. None of the funds for projects in the bill for the fiscal year 1965 which are affected by this policy has been deleted." The fiscal year 1964 report again referred to this policy. You realize, of course, that an extensive amount of detailed planning has been done on the project since our letter of March 28, 1962. As a result of this additional planning, the current estimate for the Lawrence project is as follows: 1 Excluding engineering and design and that supervision and administration which is applicable to engineering and design. The above project costs are still considered preliminary and may vary slightly pon completion of detailed design studies. As shown above, the extent to which local costs are less than the 20 percent would be $338,000. The House Appropriations Committee has requested that we get the reaction of the city of Lawrence on participating to the extent of the 20-percent requirement. It is requested that the city furnish information as to its willingness and ability to provide the increased amount in work or cash. In order for the information to be available for the committee hearings, your reply should be received not later than February 15, 1964. Because of the interest of the Douglas County Kaw Drainage District in the Lawrence project, a copy of this letter is being sent to Mr. Emil Heck. Sincerely yours, MILES L. WACHENDORF, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer. CITY OF LAWRENCE, KANS., Re city of Lawrence local flood protection. Col. MILES L. WACHENDORF, Corps of Army Engineers, District Engineer, DEAR COLONEL WACHENDORF: The Lawrence City Commission met Tuesday, February 11, 1964, to review your letter of January 31, 1964. They have asked that I convey to you and to the House Appropriations Committee the following remarks. The present governing body of the city of Lawrence has taken the position of solid support for the full development of the proposed local flood protection program, just as I believe every governing body has done now periodically for the past 10 years the project has been authorized. Even before the city of Lawrence officially agreed to be local sponsors for this program, great effort had been put forth in both time and money by the Douglas County Kaw Drainage District. Local efforts toward this project date back to 1936. The city of Lawrence, as local sponsor for this project, wish to again restate their willingness to cooperate with the Federal Government irrespective of the possible new requirements relative to the 20-percent participation. This project means a great deal to all of us. We will be able to proceed locally toward the acquisition of the necessary rights-of-way just as soon as the Corps of Army Engineers have supplied us with the necessary information as to land requirements. While we wish to reaffirm our support of this project we wish to again register a strong protest to this new requirement of 20 percent local participation that has been proposed by the House Appropriations Committee. We feel that we have been unjustly singled out for special treatment. The history of our local interest, support and actual authorization by Congress all predate any discussion of 20 percent local participation. We feel that we should be treated under the old formula that existed when this project was authorized and utilized for our sister cities along the Kansas River. Because of the sequence of time they were permitted to furnish only the rights-of-way, easements, and maintenance. We are indeed greatly encouraged to note that $300,000 construction money has been recommended in the Presidential budget for the fiscal year 1965. We are anxiously awaiting the action of the Congress to enable us to proceed with whatever local actions may be required. I wish to thank you for keeping us advised as to the current status of the project. Should you need additional information do not hesitate to call on me. Very truly yours, HAROLD E. HORN, City Manager. NORFOLK, NEBR. Mr. BOLAND. Norfolk, Nebr., $300,000. (The justifications follow:) NORFOLK, NEBR. (New) Location. Norfolk, Nebr., is located in Madison County in northeast Nebraska at the confluence of the Elkhorn River and North Branch of the Elkhorn River, approximately 110 miles northwest of Omaha, Nebr. Authorization.-1950 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio.-1.7 to 1. |