Senator KERR. Well, under the terms of the bill the engineers are one of the interested parties making the study; are they not?

Mr. WHITE. They are one of the four.

Senator KERR. You think that they would perform an operation that would interfere with their own program?

Mr. WHITE. I think they would if the Commission told them to. Senator KERR. You are aware of the fact that under the present law if they find changes that they feel should be made, in the course of their own operation, that they are not only authorized but directed to make recommendations about it; do you not?

Mr. WHITE. Senator, I do not believe that means major changes. Senator KERR. You do not?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir; I do not.

Senator KERR. You are aware of the fact that the Eufaula project in Oklahoma was authorized in 1946 as one big project; later on, on their own initiative and in spite of the practically unanimous disapproval of people in Oklahoma, they came up with an alternate proposal and, as of today, they do not know if it is going to stand or not-do they, Colonel Gee?

Colonel GEE. I believe that the Corps of Engineers and the State of Oklahoma, the State planning and resources board, are generally in agreement that the one-reservoir plan of the Eufaula Reservoir is the one which would be executed.

Senator KERR. But the point I am making is that that has come about on the initiative of the engineers themselves.

Colonel GEE. It is still in the discussion stage.

Senator KERR. You are aware of our obligations to do these things; are you not?

Mr. WHITE. I am asking you, Senator Kerr, why is this provision in the bill: That certain projects will not be included in this study? Senator KERR. All right; suppose you show me what part of the bill you are afraid of.

Mr. WHITE. I am talking about page 13-well, I am afraid of several parts of it. I am afraid of that part on page 4 about the Commission, the organization of the Commission.

Senator KERR. Now, Mr. White, I note your suggestion that the Commission be composed of eight representatives appointed by the Governors and that the representatives of the agencies be advisers to them.

Now, I ask you this: Who do you think is going to pay for this program?

Mr. WHITE. Well, the United States Government; but the change from five men to eight men would not make much difference.

Senator KERR. Well, if the States wanted to create a compact and develop these streams, do you not think that the Congress would give them permission to do so?

Mr. WHITE. I think so, but, why-well, what voice will the 8-man advisory committee have?

Senator KERR. They will have the opportunity to present to the Commission all of the information which the several States have with reference to the economic advantages of the entire program of conservation of soil and water.

It is not the purpose of the authors of this bill to set up an agency that will create an antagonism between the States and the Federal Government. It is quite the opposite.

Mr. WHITE. I realize that.

Senator KERR. It is our purpose to set up an organization that will bring about cooperation and that will not only coordinate the efforts of the States and the efforts of the Federal Government, but which will give them an advantage that they do not now have.

Now, you have got a great Board in Louisiana. You have a proud history and you have got a great record of achievement, sir.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator KERR. And you people in the Board know the resources of your State. It was my idea-frankly, I do not mind saying that I would rather see the 13-man Commission; but, in the development of this, the Bureau of the Budget took the position and the other agencies here and I can understand their viewpoints-that they thought a better program could be worked out by a 5-man Commission and representatives of the States in an advisory capacity. So, as far as I am concerned, I am willing to work it out that way.

The purpose of putting them in there was to give this Commission the benefit of all the information that you have in your State and which our people in Oklahoma have and which our friends up in Arkansas have.

Now, you know that under the 1944 Flood Control Act not even Congress is going to authorize any projects that your Governor does not approve, do you not, in your State?

Mr. WHITE. That is right, but the Commission-well, if the representatives from the State of Louisiana on this advisory committee offered recommendations, is there any assurance that the Commission would accept that?

Senator KERR. No. No; but, by the same token, I think it would be a mistake to assume that it would arbitrarily disregard it.

Mr. WHITE. Well, I do not think that they will do that; but I am fearful and apprehensive over this question of what voice, if any, they would have as an advisory committee. I think it would be a great deal better if the States had a voice and a vote.

Senator KERR. Well, I feel certain ways about certain things, myself, Mr. White; but, in working those matters out, I find that I have to consult the viewpoints of others. I find that a Senator is trying to work a project out, finds it necessary to bring about the cooperation of many. And, in doing that, as the great Ben Franklin said, you have to take a little off here and add a little there and try to work it out.

So the responsibility of all will be recognized and the voice of all will be, as nearly as possible, harmonized.

I have found out that I just cannot go ahead and do those things that I want to do exactly the way I would like, specifically, to do them.

Now, how do you work these things out in Louisiana?

Mr. WHITE. Well, we have the same thing, but we work them out for the best of all concerned.

Senator KERR. Well, do you not kind of go out on a cooperative basis?

Mr. WHITE. Certainly we do, Senator.

Senator KERR. And every fellow has a vote, you know, and if he does not want to he will not vote your way, so you have to consider him. You do not have to help him out if you do not like it.

Mr. WHITE. That is right.

Senator KERR. In other words, you need cooperation.

Mr. WHITE. That is right.

Senator KERR. And information. Well, that is what I am trying to do up here, trying to work them out as you work those things out in Louisiana.

Mr. WHITE. I know that, but there is a difference of opinion, and it is a fair difference of opinion.

Myself, I am of the opinion that the State representatives ought to have a voice and a vote, but they have no vote.

Senator KERR. Well, when the bill made that provision, you were just as strongly against it as you are now.

Mr. WHITE. Yes. That is not the major objection we have, but one of the major objections.

Senator KERR, Let me ask you this, Mr. White. How could I write this bill so that you would be for it?

Mr. WHITE. Well, if you change that around and make it eight members-not an advisory committee, but the Commission itselfSenator KERR. Mr. White, you do not think that the Congress of the United States

Mr. WHITE. You were asking me.

Senator KERR. Yes; but let me first ask you this question about it. Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Senator KERR. You do not think that the Congress of the United States would create a commission appointed by the governors and let these agencies here that have been doing these jobs for hundreds of years just become advisers to them, would you?

Mr. WHITE. Well, you could put them all together in a 13-man commission and

Senator KERR. Well, supposing we did that. If we did that, would you be for the bill?

Mr. WHITE. No; we would not.

Senator KERR. Is there any way by which we could fix this bill so that you would be for it?

Mr. WHITE. It would have to be fixed awfully good and different from what it is now, Senator, because-well, you can certainly appreciate why we are opposed to it.

Every year that we go on without these flood-protection projects, our people are facing the possibility of a major flood.

Senator KERR. And if you are speaking about flood control, protection from the danger of major floods, we in Oklahoma and the people in Arkansas are just as interested in that as you are.

Mr. WHITE. I know that you are. But on page 13 there seems to be an effort to delete those projects and――

Senator KERR. All right; suppose that proviso was taken off.

Mr. WHITE. Well, certainly the effort to cure that would be far better if that proviso were taken out.

Senator KERR. And, Mr. White, if we were to take that proviso out, would you be for the bill?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Senator KERR. I believe that is all.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator Stennis?

Senator STENNIS. I simply want to ask what proviso they were talking about just then.

Mr. WHITE. Page 13.

Senator KERR. On page 13.

Senator SPARKMAN. Section 6.

Mr. WHITE. That is the provision where the Commission may make recommendations for desirable modifications of these projects and the affected Federal agency shall make the changes.

Now, the word "may" and the word "shall" are in there. You see, the agency has no alternative when you say "shall." That is a whole lot different from "may."

Senator KERR. All right, suppose we change "shall" to "may."
Mr. WHITE. Well, that would help it a great deal.

Senator KERR. That would lessen your opposition to it?

Mr. WHITE. Yes; it would lessen our opposition to it.

Senator KERR. All right.

Mr. WHITE. But, I do not see why you cannot cut out that proviso altogether.

Senator KERR. Well, if we did cut that proviso out, would you be for the bill?

Mr. WHITE. No. I think you should take care of everything from the Denison Dam up and leave us alone. We object to the bill.

Senator KERR. Well, would you want to cede the eastern half of Oklahoma to Louisiana?

Mr. WHITE. Well, that would be all right.

Senator KERR. And, if that was done, you would not give them a vote, that privilege?

Mr. WHITE. Yes; we would give them the vote; yes.

Senator KERR. Well, how about ceding Louisiana from Alexandria north to the State of Oklahoma?

(No response.)

Senator KERR. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator Sparkman?
Senator SPARKMAN. No questions.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you, Mr. White.

May I announce to the committee that two witnesses on this project from Arkansas have come all the way up here to testify, and I am going to hear them briefly so that they may consider their schedules in going home.

GRAND PRAIRIE-BAYOU METO-RESUMED

STATEMENT OF H. C. STUMP, SECRETARY, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, STUTTGART, ARK., ACCOMPANIED BY T. J. FRICKE, CONSULTING ENGINEER, STUTTGART, ARK.

Senator MCCLELLAN. NOW, Mr. Stump, you may state your name to the reporter and also your position and the project to which you wish to address your remarks.

Mr. STUMP. My name is H. C. Stump, secretary of the chamber of commerce, Stuttgart, Ark.

Present with me, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. T. J. Fricke, a consulting engineer of Stuttgart, Ark.

Senator MCCLELLAN. What project are you going to speak about? Mr. STUMP. We are interested in the Grand Prairie-Bayou Meto project.

Senator MCCLELLAN. All right; you may proceed with your

statement.

First, I may say this to you now. We want to expedite this, so I will say to you now that, as far as I know, there is no opposition or controversy with reference to the need for the project.

The issue before the committee, the opposition expressed to the project, is in the form of the project, in that the Department of Agriculture will be the agency of the Government to administer the project as far as collecting the benefits or the repayments from the farmers. That is the first issue.

Secondly, the ratio of repayments does not conform to the national policy with reference to reclamation projects, inasmuch as in reclamation problems the water consumer pays an amount expected to amortize the entire cost of the project, but this is so set up under the report of the engineers that they would pay only about 60 percent of the original cost of the project.

Now, I believe that those are the considerations at issue, and if you can be helpful to the committee in those respects we will appreciate it. Mr. STUMP. Senator and members of the committee, I will make this statement as rapidly as possible and I will make an answer to your questions later on.

I am here in the interest of about 60,000 people that live in the Grand Prairie, Ark. That is a strip of country composing about 1,000 square miles with 640,000 acres, of which about 455,000 acres are in cultivation, and a major part of this cultivation depends upon irrigation for production.

I might say, indeed, that better than 90 percent would be dependent on irrigation, because those crops that we refer to as dry-land crops are now being irrigated in order to increase the production, and they are being irrigated to a greater or lesser extent, and more and more is being irrigated every year.

The reason for this is the increase in production resulting from irrigation.

We find that if we irrigate, for instance, cotton, the yield goes up from a bale and a quarter to a bale and a half and more. We find the same increase in yield with clover hay. The same thing applies to soybeans and other crops.

So, of course, you can see that down there we have been very much interested in an additional supply of water.

Now, then, to come down to the factual information. You already have filed with you a complete report of the findings of the United States engineers, as well as statements that have been filed by Mr. Fricke, who is here with me. He has a statement now that he would like to file today.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes; you may file the statement and it will be printed in the record.