Authority advocates rest their argument on the idea that Congress is unable to resist minority protests. I hope that your committee will not withdraw approval of the high-level Garrison Dam. Yours very truly, JOHN B. GAGE. Mr. DONDERO. They are all for the 1,850-foot elevation? Mr. DONDERO. None of the telegrams are against it? The CHAIRMAN. No. If any are received on the other side they will be included in the record. Will the representatives of the Conservation Service come forward, please? Mr. Pickett desired to ask you some questions yesterday about the conflict of work down there in the Department and this work here that we have under consideration. STATEMENT OF J. C. DYKES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Mr. DYKES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is J. C. Dykes, and I am Assistant Chief of the Soil Conservation Service. I have prepared a statement which I desire to submit for the record, with your permission. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. That may be done. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF J. C. DYKES, ASSISTANT CHIEF, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE AUTHORIZATION The Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (Public Law 534, 78th Cong.), authorized works of improvement for run-off and water-flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on 11 watersheds in substantial accordance with the respective approved survey reports. These watersheds are: Buffalo Creek (N. Y.) (H. Doc. 574, 78th Cong., 2d sess.). Coosa River (above Rome, Ga.) (H. Doc. 236, 78th Cong., 1st sess.). Little Sioux (Iowa, Minn.) H. Doc. 268, 78th Cong., 1st sess.). Los Angeles (Calif.) (H. Doc. 426, 77th Cong., 1st sess.). Middle Colorado (Tex.) H. Doc. 270, 78th Cong., 1st sess.). Potomac (Va., W. Va., Md., Pa.) (H. Doc. 269, 78th Cong., 1st sess.). Trinity (Tex.) (H. Doc. 708, 77th Cong., 2d sess.). Washita (Okla., Tex.) (H. Doc. 275, 78th Cong., 1st sess.). Yazoo (Miss.) (H. Doc. 564, 78th Cong., 2d sess.). WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT BEGUN In October 1945, some funds were made available to the Soil Conservation Service from budget reserve to start operations activities. As anticipated by the language in the authorizing act, it was necessary first to prepare plans and make specific arrangemetns for cooperation with local groups to carry out the work. Work plans for minor watersheds selected for priority on the basis of critical contribution to the floodwater and sediment problems were begun that fall in each of the 11 watersheds. Soil-conservation districts operating in each of the watersheds are the indispensable link in supplying the local leadership with whom the Federal assistance for works of improvement is carried out. Through their programs and work plans, already functioning for soil- and water-conservation activities in these areas, and with the district governing body's first-hand knowledge of the interest, willingness, and ability of the landowners and operators of the district to cooperate, determination of highest priority subwatersheds is being made to accomplish the flood-control objectives outlined in the 11 survey reports. In the larger watersheds such as the Little Sioux (1,740,000 acres) and the Washita (5,189,000 acres), a central working group composed of representatives of each district facilitate watershedwise operations, so that the combined facilities of the Federal Government and local interests are brought to bear on the most critical problems. How much work to tackle each fiscal year is carefully scheduled with the help of these working committees, so that a proper balance is maintained between Federal budget requests and the rate with which local cooperation can be made available. In my judgment, the success of this work is dependent on a thorough understanding by all concerned of what works of improvement are needed and the wholehearted, willing, voluntary cooperation of the landowners and the local leaders in getting these measures installed. Only in this way can it be expected that the measures, after installation, will function continuously as intended by reason of an informed, flood-control, conservation-conscious watershed group. Accordingly, a large share of the early activities in the fiscal years 1946 and 1947, and with no let-up in emphasis since then, was directed to working out these arrangements with the local people, even down to the neighborhood group of five to six farmers, realizing that the real impetus to run-off and water-flow retardation and soil-erosion-prevention (flood-control) accomplishments would come with the landowners furnishing their own incentive. The attached summary shows the number of subwatershed work plans prepared as of December 31, 1948, the number of farms, and the acreage included in the sub-watersheds planned; also given for comparison is the total area authorized for work of improvement in each of the eleven watersheds. The estimated cost of the work planned thus far is based on current prices and shows that it is approximately a 60 (local) to 40 (Federal) proposition. WORK UNDER WAY A brief summary of the works of improvement accomplished as of December 31, 1948, is as follows: 1. Detention reservoirs planned: 306 for detention of 150,248 acre-feet; 13 completed for 2,450 acre-feet. 2. Debris basins planned, 1,417; completed, 285. 3. Revegetation: Grasses and leguines, planned, 296,956 acres; completed, 40,502 acres. Woody plantings, planned, 34,576 acres; completed, 1,213 acres. (Include critical slopes and silt-source areas where vegetative cover provides watershed protection.) 4. Minor waterways planned, 80.48 miles; completed, 15.93 miles. 5. Tributary channel stabilization planned, 257.6 miles; completed, 5.5 miles. 6. Diversions planned, 200.3 miles; completed, 31 miles. 7. Gully control planned, 11,534 acres; completed, 260 acres. 8. Roadside erosion control planned, 914.5 miles; completed, 17.2 miles. 9. Structures planned, 1,299; completed, 436. SURVEY ACTIVITIES The survey activities were suspended during the war, and funds already appropriated were placed in budget reserve for the duration. (1) In May 1946, some funds were made available from budget reserve to resume the survey work. (2) On June 27, 1946, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a memorandum designating the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service as the agencies to carry out the Department's responsibilities in investigations and for works of improvement. (3) On December 19, 1946, the Secretary of Agriculture approved the "Handbook for Preliminary Examinations and Surveys," developed by the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service. This handbook covers procedures and provides guidance for technicians of both Services in making preliminary examinations and surveys. This arrangement has worked out very well. (4) The major portion of the funds made available to the Department of Agriculture by the Congress each fiscal year since the war has been allotted to the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service. (5) Mr. Will testified yesterday concerning the survey reports which are now pending in the Secretary's Office and in the Bureau of the Budget. Six of the seven-Pee Dee (N. C., S. C.); Sny (Ill.); Queen Creek (Ariz.); Missouri (Mo., Iowa, Minn., Kans., Nebr., S. Dak., N. Dak., Mont., Wyo., and Colo.); GrandNeosho (Ark., Kans., Mo., and Okla.), and the Little River (Tex.)—were prepared under the leadership of the Soil Conservation Service. (6) Additional survey activities under the leadership of the Soil Conservation Service include: Field work completed.-Draft of report being reviewed by interested local groups, State and Federal agencies: Lehigh, Pa. Savannah, S. C., N. C. Apalachicola, Fla., Ala., Ga. Mississippi (above Cairo, Ill.), Ill., Mo., Iowa, Wis., Mich., Minn. Red, Tex., Okla., Ark., La., N. Mex. Rio Grande, N. Mex., Tex. Salinas, Calif. Russian, Calif. Moses Coulee, Wash. Willow Creek, Oreg. Brazos, Tex. (except Bosque and Little). Preliminary examination reports completed and transmitted to Secretary of Agriculture (survey not yet begun).— Altamaha-Ogeechee, Ga. Chowan, Va., N. C. Preliminary examinations, field work under way. Delaware, N. Y., N. J., Pa., Del., Md. Kentucky, Ky. Arkansas (above Tulsa, including Canadian and Cimarron), Colo, Ark., Okla., Kans., Tex., N. Mex. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dykes, will you give us the high points of your statement and then, I might say that I should like to get as examples the Yazoo and the Tallahatchie projects, and when I asked the Forestry Service about it, it was stated that only a small matter had been allotted to them and the large amount spent by the Soil Conservation Service. Will you tell us just the type of work you are doing on projects like that and tell us wherein those types of work differ with the work done by the Soil Conservation Service? Mr. DYKES. Mr. Chairman, all of the work under the flood-control appropriation in these 11 approved watersheds is being done by small watersheds. They may range in size from relatively small ones of 500 or 600 acres, up to 2,000 or 3,000 acres, and they involve from 7 or 8 farms to 20 farms. The plan for each watershed is separately developed and includes the necessary land treatment on the farm land in that subwatershed plus the additional measures for waterflow retardation and soil erosion prevention for the benefit of the lands and the waters downstream. To the extent that these additional practices and measures are required, this activity differs from the normal conservation program that is carried on by my service in cooperation with the soil conservation districts. There is really no difference, Mr. Chairman, between the kinds of conservation work done on the farm lands itself, which is for the protection of the lands themselves, if we take an individual farm as an example. But in the case of these approved flood-control areas, the individual farm does not become a unit but a small subwatershed becomes a unit and the farms are planned together, with the necessary conservation work on the individual farm integrated with the additional measures for flood control, waterflow retardation, and soil erosion prevention. The CHAIRMAN. Just for the information of the committee, taking these two and any others that the committee may ask you about-and I imagine Mr. Pickett may want to know something about the Trinity, what are you doing about the Yazoo and the Tallahatchie since those were the first flood-control projects. In other words, describe for the record what kind of work you were doing there? Mr. DYKES. Gentlemen, there have been prepared in the Yazoo watershed 19 of these subwatershed plans. Those 19 subwatershed plans have a total of 1,747 farms, and include an area of 277,000 acres. The CHAIRMAN. All we are asking now is what you have done under the authority of the watershed appropriation. Mr. DYKES. I understand, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. What is it? Mr. DYKES. There have been planned 1,259 debris basins, that is, trapping the silt to keep it out of the reservoirs and out of the mainstream channel, of which 277 have actually been installed. The CHAIRMAN. In what counties. Mr. DYKES. Webster, Calhoun, Lafayette and, I believe, Tate Counties. The CHAIRMAN. What else besides those? Mr. DYKES. In Yazoo there are a number of critical areas which contribute a large amount of silt to the stream itself. The CHAIRMAN. We know that. Mr. DYKES. We have planned revegetation of 63,748 acres, of which, up until December 31, 1948, 6,600 acres had actually been established. That is, the vegetation had been put there. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by vegetation? Mr. DYKES. Grasses and legumes. The CHAIRMAN. What kind of legumes? Mr. DYKES. In that particular case, I think it is lespedeza servicea and kudzu. The CHAIRMAN. I should like you to verify that. Mr. DYKES. We will show you that. The CHAIRMAN. I might say that I have some land out there, but I have not been able to find the vegetation. Mr. DYKES. The woody vegetation planned includes 13,000 acres and there has been planted, until December 31, 637 acres. The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that you extend your remarks to include that, and at this time, Mr. Pickett desires to interrogate. Mr. PICKETT. I understand that the Soil Conservation Service, in attacking the flood-control problem, operates on a small unit or series of units basis in a subwatershed. Mr. DYKES. That is correct. Mr. PICKETT. I gathered from what Mr. Will has said that the Department is engaged in preparing an over-all comprehensive plan for a tremendous river basin area. Do you know whether the plan that is being followed for survey in the Missouri River conforms to the plan that has been carried on with your Department heretofore? Mr. DYKES. Mr. Pickett, I do not think there is any conflict. There was an over-all plan on the Trinity River, on the Yazoo, and an overall plan on the Missouri. When you actually come down to apply it, the work, you must do it on a small unit basis, and that is what we are doing in all of these 11 watersheds. Mr. PICKETT. What about the survey problem? You were here when I interrogated Mr. Will this morning, were you not? Mr. DYKES. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKETT. I assume you gathered the import of my questions? Mr. PICKETT. How do you approach the survey problem in that regard? Mr. DYKES. In what respect, Mr. Pickett? Mr. PICKETT. For instance, the resolution to survey the lower half of the Trinity River that was adopted last year has not been accorded any treatment to the extent that it has been implemented by work done; but I understand $250,000 or more has been spent on the Missouri River within the past year. Mr. DYKES. I think I can explain that to the satisfaction of the committee. The President's message concerning the Mississippi on December of 1947, did leave to certain constructions in the appropriation language, particularly the report on the bill, which meant that expenditures could be made in the Missouri and Mississippi River systems that we could not have made anywhere else, Mr. Pickett. In other words, there was restrictive language on the funds for those surveys and as I recall the 1948 language, at least $500,000 of the survey funds had to be spent within the Mississippi system. Mr. PICKETT. Which includes the Missouri? Mr. DYKES. That is right. At that time we were engaged in work on certain sub-basins in the Missouri. With the Pick-Sloane plan ahead of us, that is, the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation moving forward the large engineering works on the Missouri, the Bureau of the Budget was responsible for calling a meeting at which the Department of Agriculture was asked: With these additional funds which have been made available by the Congress, and with restrictions on their language that meant they could be spent nowhere except the Mississippi Basin surveys, whether or not we would not push the surveys on the Missouri River, and we did so. We could not have used the funds for any other purpose except some other part of the Mississippi Basin, and we were already started on the Missouri. |