damage over a 10-year period from flash-flood water from the hills than there is from river-water damage. I wonder just how many dams any one river demands? A study of the plan for control of the Republican River Basin calls for about 25 dams. Of these 25, 9 have been approved and at least 4 are under construction. In the Kaw Basin there are 7 additional authorized dams. It seems these dams should be given an opportunity to prove their adequacy or inadequacy before any more are approved. We wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the Milford Dam was not a part of the Pick-Sloan plan as it was originally adopted. This hearing is for an extension of the Pick-Sloan plan to include Milford. Deferring approval of Milford certainly cannot unbalance the mechanics of the Missouri Basin control, as it was not included when this original balance was reckoned. We therefore request the approval of the Milford Reservoir be deferred until the inadequacy of Harlan can be proved. The reports of the engineers state the Milford Dam is practical for flood control only. Then how can the project be justified in the light of the following statement by Col. Paul B. Berrigan, district engineer? This statement was made by Colonel Berrigan on a tape recording over WIBW. We had this replayed for verification of the following statement: "The 1935 flood control could have been completely stored in this reservoir and would have saved land damage below here." Colonel Berrigan further states: "This dam will be effective for flood control for the Republican Basin all the way to the mouth. It will also greatly benefit Kansas City and Topeka, although the results will diminish the further it gets away from the dam." He continues: "We will never have another disastrous flood in the Republican Basin after this dam is completed." We didn't expect the Army engineers to agree with us, but we did expect them to agree among themselves. How can Colonel Potter make a survey and say the Milford Dam is necessary as a flood-control measure on the Republican River and Colonel Berrigan by the same token state that there will not be any more flood on the Republican River after Harlan is completed. As I stated in the beginning, we are confused on the project so we request the approval on Milford be withheld until the necessity can be established by actual performance. I would further like to call attention to the so-called economic factor of the Milford Dam. I can't offer any explanation of how this figure is designated by the Army engineers, but certainly several factors listed by them are in gross They value the condemnation of the city of Wakefield at about $1,000,000. This would just about pay for public property and utilities. The value of private holdings is surely that much or more. error. The average cost of acquistion of the land to be condemned is $105 per acre. Even in the depression this land had a market value of more than $105 per acre. Now it is about double that figure. In reckoning the costs against the benefits of the dam, they did not take into account at all the loss of crops now being produced on this land. There are probably other errors in the basic figures, but the three above are the most outstanding. If these figures were corrected, the economic factor would certainly be unfavorable. In connection with the Harlan Dam, the AAA program under the Department of Agriculture has broadened their assistance to farmers for flood-control practices. This year they are urging construction of retention dams to replace the old pasture ponds. Objection was raised to pasture pond dams because they were always full in wet seasons and did not store or retard surplus waters. The new type of dam will empty in about 36 hours and be ready again to retard volumes of water in times of excess rainfall. I understand the new proposed agricultural program now under consideration in this Congress is stressing more than ever, rigid soil-conservation measures. Certainly these features in conjunction with the Harlan Dam about 54 percent completed, will fully control the Republican River. In conclusion, I would like to submit to you a report of a special advisory committee of the Governor of Kansas. This committee is composed of engineers from various State departments to make recommendations to the Governor on flood-control projects. REPORT OF THE SPECIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE GOVERNOR OF KANSAS ON PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO THE UNITED STATES CORPS OF ENGINEERS' REPORT, ENTITLED "REVIEW OF REPORT ON THE KANSAS RIVER, COLO., NEBR., AND KANS." HELD AT TOPEKA, KANS., DECEMBER 16, 1948 REPORT The special advisory committee, in the process of examining the Corps of Engineers' report, entitled, "Review of Report on the Kansas River, Colo., Nebr., and Kans.," held a public hearing at Topeka on December 16, 1948, for the purpose of obtaining an expression of views of local interests as to the recommended projects. There were 205 persons who registered their attendance at the hearing. They came from 32 communities in the Kansas River Basin and 3 communities in the Marais des Cygnes Basin. The largest delegations included 35 from Topeka, 29 from Osawkie, 22 from Wakefield, and 15 from Clay Center. Representatives were present from offices of the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, and the Union Pacific, Missouri Pacific, and Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroads. THE MILFORD RESERVOIR ON THE REPUBLICAN RIVER Representing Junction City, Geary County, and the Junction City Chamber of Commerce, Lee Rich stated that they were in favor of the project. The mayor of Milford said he represented the majority of people in that town and they favored the project. Lyman Denver said his father owns land on which part of the dam would be located and they were in favor of the project. Elmer Ousdahl, speaking as commissioner of Douglas County and Arthur Gabriel of De Soto, who said he represented the people in that part of Johnson County, both endorsed the project. The chairman of the flood control committee of the Topeka Chamber of Commerce advised that the board of directors had gone on record as endorsing construction of the project. Edwin F. Abels, president of the Kaw River Flood Control Association, represented all of the various interests concerned about flood control in the Kansas River flood plain area in Jefferson, Douglas, Leavenworth, Johnson, and Wyandotte Counties and submitted their several resolutions endorsing the Pick-Sloan plan, including particularly, the "Milford Dam, Perry Dam, and all other dams which are included in said Pick-Sloan plan." Objection to the project was voiced by people in the vicinity of Wakefield and Clay Center. Statements were made by representatives of the Lower Republican Valley Development Association, the Clay County Farm Bureau, a number of school boards, Republican Township, Madison Creek Valley, communities of Broughton and Wakefield, and people within the proposed reservoir area. Apprehension was expressed as to possible loss of transportation facilities, decrease in tax revenues, and increase in health hazards. It was proposed that contruction should at least be deferred until the Harlan County Reservoir was in operation and it was determined that the Milford project was still necessary. All of the objectors expressed the belief that putting a solid conservation program into effect would eliminate the need for the flood-control reservoir. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the above factual summary of the hearing of December 16, 1948, the committee endorses the local levee projects for Salina, Topeka, Lawrence, Marrian, and Stonehouse Creek. The committee withholds approval from levee projects at Abilene, Manhattan, and Marysville, and the proposed reservoir projects at Milford and Perry. The committee feels that there is need for a restudy of the comparative annual costs and benefits allocated to the two reservoir projects. While credit is taken on the side of the benefits for crops that might thereafter be grown on land laying below the dam and in the flood plain of the river, no account is taken of the loss in production of the land inundated by the reservoir, other than the carrying charges on the estimated purchase price of the land, which purchase price is considered to be low. In addition, the justification of credit given to flood benefits and navigation on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers is questionable. It seems probable that, if all these factors were properly and equitably evaluated, the annual benefits might be less than the annual costs and the projects would be found to be economically infeasible. Respectfully submitted. Frank C. Arthur, Maurice E. Fager, John C. Frye, J. O. Jones, R. C. JANUARY 6, 1949. Lt. Gen. R. A. WHEELER, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C. DEAR GENERAL WHEELER: Reference is made to your review of report on the Kansas River, Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas transmitted to me with your letter of November 10, 1948, for review and comment in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Public Law 534, Seventy-eighth Congress, and Public Law 732, Seventy-ninth Congress. The report has been carefully examined and the views of local interest were determined. As to the local flood-protection projects, it was found that the recommended plans for Salina, Lawrence, Merriam, and Stonehouse Creek are fully endorsed by the people in these communities. While some objection was expressed to the Soldier Creek cut-off in the Topeka project, it has the approval of a large majority having an interest in it. The projects at Abilene and Manhattan have definite opposition and no support and the Marysville project has neither opposition nor support. A large number of substantial interests in the Kansas River flood plain area: from Junction City to Kansas City favor flood control in principle. Inasmuch as the Milford and Perry Reservoirs have been assumed by many of these interested parties to be an integral part of the Pick-Sloan plan for flood control, they have given them their endorsement. Specific endorsement to the Milford project was given by the mayor and citizens of Milford. Opposition to the projects centers principally in the areas where the reservoirs would be located in Clay and Jefferson Counties. There is apprehension as to the possible loss of transportation facilities, decrease in tax revenues, and an increase in health hazards. Others object because the projects would remove land from production, displace landowners, disrupt educational, religious, civic, and business institutions and damage business derived from the reservoir area.. Objectors to the Milford project urged that its construction at least be deferred until the Harlan County project was completed and in operation to see whether it would not provide sufficient flood control by itself. All of the objectors expressed the view that putting a soil conservation program into effect would eliminate the need for the reservoirs and urged that it be substituted to accomplish the purposes of the proposed projects. I transmit these comments as an expression of the views of interested persons, cities, counties, drainage districts, and civic groups in the State relative to the projects which were recommended. As to projects for which a justifiable need has been shown and which are strongly and specifically supported, it would seem that they should be submitted to Congress for authorization, but as to projects which are not supported by the people who would benefit from them, their · authorization should not be sought. Yours very truly, FRANK CARLSON, RESOLUTION Whereas the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors sent notice to Clay County that they will review the proposed Milford Dam and Reservoir as proposed by the division engineer on February 26, 1948, and we cannot be present to place our objection; and Whereas this proposed construction of a dam at the Milford site will cause an irreplaceable loss and damage to Clay County and the citizens of it, we do oppose it because; There will be taken from the tax roll, the supporting element of the county, some 56,000 acres of the most productive and highly valued land in the county and: There will be an estimated 3,000 citizens displaced and in the majority will leave our county, leaving their homes, their friends, their place in community life earned by long years of living and owning their homes in one community. These are the human elements and one that cannot be replaced by damage payments and effect those who own and those who do not own property alike, even those who are not in the reservoir. Population is a basis for computing wealth and estimating trade in a community; without it a loss is suffered over the whole county. We believe this loss of population is more serious than the loss of acreage. There will be two communities, Wakefield and Broughton, both losses the Union Pacific Railroad eliminated, causing hardships to those who use these communities as markets and points of credits: Now, therefore, it is hereby Resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Clay County, Kans., in regular session this 23d day of February, 1948, That they do protest and oppose the construction of a dam or reservoir on the Republican River at or near Milford as proposed by the division engineers of the Engineers for River and Harbors for the reason that it will do excessive and irreparable damage to the county and the citizens of Clay County. Attest: H. A. BLANC, Board of County Commissioners, Clay County, Kans. I. P. HAHN, County Clerk. Done at the Office of County Commissioners at the Court House in Clay Center, Kans., February 23, 1948. The CHAIRMAN. We shall be delighted to hear from Representative Stefan at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. KARL STEFAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Chairman, I appear in behalf of Elkhorn River and tributaries, dealing with flood-control survey at Norfolk, Pierce, West Point, Waterloo, Nebr., on Giles Creek from Tilden, Nebr., to the mouth on Battle Creek, from the town of Battle Creek to the mouth and all in the Elkhorn River Basin. The committee has a report from the Army engineers. I understand they are recommending the report to go to the Congress and I hope there is no objection to the plans of the engineers to get some actual work done on that very important project. You will recall, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that in 1944 we had a disastrous flood in that part of Nebraska causing millions of dollars worth of damage and some facilities, damage to property, livestock, and there was some loss of life. We were very unfortunate in Nebraska this year, the year of 1948, and part of 1949, when we had tremendous snows. You have heard a great deal about the snow lift in which General Pick participated and rendered valuable service to the people all over that part of the country. The unfortunate part of this storm was that following the successive blizzards, we had rains and warm days followed immediately by cold which held back floods which were disastrous. I have gone all over the territory with members of the Army from the Omaha district office and also with the officials from every one of the towns from one part of the river to the other. I personally saw the damage that resulted from the terrible flood in 1944. I know the chairman of this committee is well acquainted with that history. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that your committee will act favorably on this report. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement. The report is favorable and, as previously stated, in the event this report finally reaches us, the committee will give it careful consideration. If it does not reach us, it will be available for the other body, don't you understand, because we only include projects where the reports have been submitted to the Congress. Thus far it has not, but we knew that it had been forwarded and we wanted to hear you. We are glad to have your statement. I believe our next witness is Mr. Beall. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BEALL, ATTORNEY, CLAY CENTER, KANS. Mr. BEALL. Mr. Chairman, I am an attorney from Clay Center, Kans. The CHAIRMAN. Is that in Clay County? Mr. BEALL Yes, sir; the county seat The CHAIRMAN How long have you lived there? The CHAIRMAN. And you represent what interests? Mr. BEALL. I represent the city of Clay Center and the chamber of commerce. The CHAIRMAN. And you understand the dam that we have under consideration are you for or against the project? Mr. BEALL. We are against it at present. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement. Mr. BEALL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this Milford Dam as it was first proposed is to protect the lower reaches of the valley from floodwaters that might originate in the upper reaches of the valley. At this time, as I understand it, there are seven reservoirs either completed or under construction, or authorized to be constructed, on the Republican River. We are sure that when these are constructed they will protect the lower reaches of the valley and also the Kaw Valley from floods. Now, I want to point out to the committee that the Republican Valley fans out from the site of the Harlan County Dam and it covers a wide area in southern Nebraska and in eastern Colorado and parts of northwestern Kansas, and there are many creeks of more or less sizable condition flowing into that part of the river. Now, from the site of the Harlan County Dam, on down to the Milford Dam, a distance of some 200 miles, as has been pointed out, 200 river miles-I have it here in my report as 180-the river is narrow. The valley is narrow and there are not many creeks flowing into the river, flowing into this part of the river. The CHAIRMAN. How wide is that valley in the vicinity of the river. Mr. BEALL. The valley itself, the bottomland, of course, is wider as it moves up. The CHAIRMAN. In the vicinity of the dam? Mr. BEALL. The area drained by the river there is much more narrow than it is above the Harlan County Dam. I am unable to give you any figures as to the number of acres in that area, but I do know it is a much restricted area compared with the area drained by the river above the Harlan County site. As has been pointed out here, there has been only one flood originating below the site of the Harlan County Dam in recorded history that caused any trouble and that was the flood of 1903. Now, every major stream that flows into the Kaw River, except the Saline and the Solomon, as I understand it, are in the process of being controlled either by dams already constructed or authorized for construction. Now, as I stated, this Milford Dam is supposed to be for flood control. Yet the proponents of the dam at Milford in previous hearings, I am told, have stressed, and it has been brought out here this morning 92329-49- -19 |