Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, for a moment just let us forget about navigation. I want you to testify as to what the conditions are above Little Rock with reference to bank stabilization, particularly as to conditions that now exist which may endanger improvements heretofore constructed, or as conditions may threaten to do considerable damage if bank stabilization is not carried on in the upper region there, from Little Rock out into Oklahoma.

Colonel GEE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have before me a map, a copy of which is on the board.

This map shows the locations along the Arkansas River where there exists at the present time an urgent need for bank stabilization works, to afford protection to the existing levee projects along the Arkansas River.

Senator MCCLELLAN. All right, Colonel; will you start at Little Rock and go upstream and name them and make some brief explanation about each?

Colonel GEE. Proceeding upstream from Little Rock, at a point on the river just south of Morrilton, there are two areas where sharp bends occur in the Arkansas River, where existing levees are being threatened.

The only solution presently available to the Corps of Engineers to solve this problem is to set back the existing levees, thus turning over more land to the river in the river bottom.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Colonel Gee, is it not true that setting back levees will not solve such a problem except temporarily, where these bank crevasses occur?

Colonel GEE. Only at such time as the river chooses to meander in that direction again, when it may go to that set-back.

It is only by stabilizing the channel with protective works that the meanderings of the river can be reduced a considerable magnitude, as is the case in the lower Missouri where channel stabilization works have been constructed for many years and have been successful for that purpose and opening up for agricultural production many thoussands of acres of rich bottom land which previously had been taken over by the river.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Aside from the loss of land incurred by these bank cavings, and aside from the loss of land that occurs by set-back levees, as a matter of practical economics, which is the soundest policy: To stabilize the bank and stabilize the current and flow of the river and thus save that land and save the expense of constructing set-back levees-in other words, which is most economic to the Government? Colonel GEE. The stabilization of the channel by means of bank stabilization works is by far the more economical of those two systems. Senator MCCLELLAN. Now, so far, you have mentioned one place. Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Just north of Little Rock. Now, go up

stream.

Colonel GEE. Just downstream from Dardanelle, where a single bend in the river is meandering and the levee system is again being threatened

Senator MCCLELLAN. Is that where we have an appropriation in the current civil functions appropriations bill?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. It is described as near Dardanelle; it is the next bend below Dardanelle.

Senator MCCLELLAN. All right, take the next one.

Colonel GEE. The next point where serious trouble exists is in the vicinity of Van Buren, where there is one local protection project for the community of Van Buren.

Immediately downstream from that, in the Crawford County levee district, there is a project now about 75 percent complete, and a levee which was previously constructed to protect the Crawford County levee district, is subject to attack by the meandering of the stream, and that levee is going to have to be set back, even before we finish the Crawford County project, because there is no bank stabilization work authorized at present which will afford protection.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Can you do it cheaper by bank revetment work, or is it cheaper to construct a levee?

Colonel GEE. I think the initial cost is about the same, Mr. Chairman, but by building your bank stabilization structures, your levee will not again be subject to attack. You will not have assurance when your levee is set back that you will not have to come back within 5 years again, without protective work.

Now, proceeding upstream, the reach from Fort Smith, upstream, to a point about 12 miles above the mouth of the Poteau RiverSenator MCCLELLAN. Is that called Bradens Bend?

Colonel GEE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Bradens Bend is in the reach and is one of the more difficult problems within that entire reach of the river. The river is meandering within that whole reach I described. The banks are subject to attack, as well as the levee.

It is at Bradens Bend that a natural high bank is subject to attack and there is threatened a definite breach of that high bank which will permit the Arkansas River to flow down the lower 6 miles of the Poteau River through the rich Poteau River Valley, where very highpriced crops are raised on that rich land, by the farmers.

These locations which I have mentioned are those which the district engineers presently report are in need of immediate attention.

Another flood and the subsidence of the flow of the flood will undoubtedly develop additional locations where such protection works are required.

If this authorization included in the bill can be extended to permit the undertaking of the bank protection works in these points, that will not only serve to protect the existing flood-control structure, but will form a useful part of the navigation program, when it reaches that point of the river.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, the money expended for this bank stabilization north of Little Rock will dovetail into a part of the navigation project?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Whereas, if the money is not expended to afford the protection needed, then the only alternative is to set back levees, and a set-back levee does not contribute necessarily to a navigation project, does it?

Colonel GEE. Not at all.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Not at all.

Colonel GEE. In fact, it is a detriment to it.

Senator MCCLELLAN. So, it appears from your statement it would be probably unquestionably false economy to carry on the policy of setting back levees to meet these contingencies and these dangers,

rather than to appropriate funds to protect them and, at the same time, as the funds are expended, they actually contribute to the construction of the navigation project that has been authorized?

Colonel GEE. To illustrate that point further, Mr. Chairman, the Bradens Bend breach of the bank would constitute a breach in the natural rim of the reservoir formed by lock and dam No. 24, the authorized navigation project, and that high bank would have to be restored to permit the building of lock and dam 24 in the navigation project.

So, the holding of that high bank now is important, not only to prevent flood damage on the Poteau, but to permit the navigation project to proceed upstream at that point.

Senator MCCLELLAN. And if this protective work is not undertaken and if ultimately the navigation project is carried out and if this break materializes, as is now threatened, then it would simply add additional tremendous cost to the Federal Government in constructing the navigation dam, would it not?

Colonel GEE. It would cost many millions of dollars at Bradens Bend, if it ever broke into the Poteau.

Senator MCCLELLAN. May I inquire at this point.

Whatever funds are authorized for this purpose in this bill-and when I speak of "this purpose" I am speaking of bank stabilization, I ask you if it is prudent on the part of the Congress to give you whatever money it is willing to authorize and leave it to the discretion of the Corps of Engineers as to where and when it should be spent, in order to give the Corps of Engineers the latitude and the opportunity to meet these contingencies as they arise and to take care of those that are most threatened?

Colonel GEE. I believe the answer to your question is "Yes," and the result of that action on the part of the Congress will be to make it possible for us to protect existing Federal investments along the Arkansas River.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is what I mean. You cannot tell where a threat may arise after a flood, can you, as to just what areas the attack will strike, as you speak of it?

Colonel GEE. No, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. And, of course, if you are restricted to a certain section of the river or restricted to designated projects that are now known to be a source of danger, you would not have funds and you would not be prepared to meet those emergencies that could arise?

Colonel GEE. That is correct.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I believe your statement is that you requested $39,000,000 for the entire navigable section of the Arkansas River for bank stabilization.

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. If that entire $39,000,000 were expended as. you contemplate, would all of it actually contribute to the navigation project?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir, it would.

Senator MCCLELLAN. So that there would not be a duplication of expense for constructing set-back levees on the one hand, and then, later on, constructing the navigation project?

Colonel GEE. That is correct, sir. When this stream is under control as the result of the building of adequate upstream storage, not only to hold back floodwaters, but to trap silt, which is now carried by this river, there will be no need for such a wide and large channel as the Arkansas River now requires for its meanderings in its unstabilized state.

Therefore, it is possible, if bank stabilization is undertaken at an early date, to decrease the amount of good bottom land which must be surrendered to the river in carrying out this project.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You then strongly recommend that the authorization be increased to your original request of $39,000,000, and that you be permitted to expend it wherever needed at these different danger areas?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Any questions, Senator Kerr? You are interested in this.

Senator KERR. Colonel Gee, is it not true that thousands of acres along this stream, both east of Little Rock and west and north of Little Rock on the Arkansas River have been washed away?

Colonel GEE. That is correct.

Senator KERR. By reason of the delay in doing this bank stabilization work in the areas you are talking about?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator KERR. That land is worth $200 or $300 an acre.

Colonel GEE. And that will continue until such time as we can get the bank stabilization works in place.

Senator KERR. And that is true even without floodwaters.

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator KERR. That is all.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Do you have any questions, Senator Martin? Senator MARTIN. No.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Is there any further statement you wish to make about it, Colonel?

Colonel GEE. No, sir; I believe that covers the situation.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much.

May I inquire, gentlemen, if you have anything else to offer on the California projects?

Senator DowNEY. I do not think we have, Mr. Chairman, but the Bureau of Reclamation is here, represented by Mr. Dixon.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes. Well, let me finish with another witness, first. I would like to state for the record that I have received telegrams from the Conway County Flood Control Association signed by Mr. A. V. Ormond, chairman; and the Arkansas Basin Association signed by Mr. Reece Caudle, director; Peoples Exchange Bank of Russellville, by Don Barger; Bank of Dover, by Wayne Wallace; Russellville Rotary Club, by Kenneth Ketcherside; Russellville Lions Club, by Wilson Falls; Western Arkansas Telephone Co., by Gus Lane; J. W. Hull; J. B. Ward; Boyce Tidwell; Bob Bailey, Jr.; and county judge, J. V. Turner; in support of further authorizations for the multiple-purpose plan for the Arkansas River Basin, particularly the Dardanelle Dam.

S. 1576-RESUMED

STATEMENT OF H. K. THATCHER, REPRESENTING OUACHITA VALLEY ASSOCIATION AND WHITE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION

Senator MCCLELLAN. State your name to the reporter and whom you represent.

Mr. THATCHER. My name is H. K. Thatcher, from Little Rock, Ark. I am representing the Ouachita Valley Association and White River Flood Control Association.

I am opposing Senate bill 1576, generally known as the Kerr bill. I have some telegrams that I would like to read into the record, and, if I may, I have several that I would like to mention and file for the record.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In order to expedite it, may I suggest that you just read excerpts from them and identify them and state what the general substance is of the others and who they are from. It is not necessary to print every one of them in the record, I do not think.

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; I was going to put them in the record, three of them, that give me the authority to appear before the committee. Senator MCCLELLAN. All right, you may proceed.

Mr. THATCHER. These telegrams I have are copies of telegrams that have been sent; some of them came to me and some to Senator McClellan and some to Senator Long.

The first one is from E. Gordon Wright, president of the Ouachita Valley Association, which went to Senator Long. The telegram reads:

Senator Kerr is apparently endeavoring use our Ouachita River and its numerous advantages for the benefit of his Kerr bill and the State of Oklahoma in the Friday hearing. This will delay our successful accomplishments possibly 3 years. The Ouachita project is complete in itself, drainage, flood control, and navigation all having approval of Government engineers. Know we can count on your aggressive opposition. Please keep me advised.

I have another telegram here from H. W. McMillan, secretary, Ouachita Valley Association, addressed to Senator McClellan. Mr. McMillan is from Arkadelphia, Ark.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I may say that he called me and wanted to come up here, and I did not want him to, because I thought that I knew the situation, and it was not necessary to have a delegation up here, so I told him just to send a telegram.

Mr. THATCHER. The telegram reads:

Kerr bill No. 1576, as amended, now more vicious than before because it will require restudy of all projects not yet authorized. This means delay of several years and complete set-back for the Ouachita River. Please oppose this bill both as a part of the omnibus bill and as a separate bill. In any event see that Ouachita is specifically excluded from this bill.

I have one more telegram here from John P. Morrow, who lives at Batesville, Ark. He is president of the White River Flood Control Association. The telegram reads:

We are unanimously opposed to the Kerr bill, especially since it has been changed three times. Think last amendment would hinder work now under way.

I also have a telegram from Mr. O. F. Suggs, who lives at Malvern, Ark., and who is president of the Ouachita Area Development