« PreviousContinue »
desirable because they would impound water to a depth of 25 or 30 feet and cover an area of 50 to 200 or 300 acres. These sites were most desirable because with few exceptions, they fell in pasture or low utility ground. Also more desirable because it would stop any flood before it collected into one large overflow, and that the sedimentation of the reservoirs would be small due to the large percentage of pasture ground in the run-off area.
While we do not propose to submit an engineering plan of flood control based on floodwater retention in the headwaters, yet, we do submit the enclosed section of the United States geological contour map, showing locations which, in our opinion, would merit further study.
We believe these proposed sites do not exhaust the possibility of further and, perhaps, better sites being discovered by a trained crew of engineers.
We respectfully request you to consider the merits of our plan of flood contro!.
1. A casual investigation of the comparative procłuction value of the land to be inundated by our plan and the productive value of the land proposed to be inundated by the Army plan, will show that the loss of production by the inunciation of two or three times the area in our plan would not entail anywhere near the loss of production of the land to be inundated by the Army reservoir.
2. The reservoirs in our plan will not, in our opinion, cause the uprooting of any family nor a serious change in the economy of any community. It will in fact be more of a benefit than loss.
Casualty figures are cold statistics whether they be mortality figures caused by war, or figures representing the number of families to be uprooted by a manmade flood. These figures cease to be cold statistics when our sons or daughters are included in these reported losses, or when our own homes are included in a list of 30 families to be uprooted by a man-made flood.
We reverently call this to your attention as we are the victims of this proposed man-made flood, and although 30 families are few in this Nation of ours, yet we few are human, endowed with human rights, guaranteed freedom from governmental interference in our normal way of life, and have done our bit to make our Nation the best. We ask you to consider us as individuals and not as statistics.
We recognize our obligation to mankind and realize in certain cases one group or an individual must sacrifice for the good of a majority, but we feel in our case our sacrifice is unjustified. We feel that the same good-yes-additional good can be accomplished by following our plan.
3. Our plan utilizes with few exceptions submarginal lands and will tend to stabilize the heavy erosion that is steadily deteriorating the land.
4. Our plan will reduce flood loss and provide protection to an additional 6,000 or more acres of highly producing farm land.
5. Our plan will provide water storage in a territory where water storage is needed for livestock consumption.
6. Our plan will attract more competition in the construction by reducing the size of the units of work. We are informed that in order to qualify and finance the structures necessary to create a reservoir, such as at Kannapolis in Ellsworth County, Kans., it was necessary for several large contracting firms to consolidate into one organization. We believe when work is let in such large units that competition is eliminated with a consequent increase in cost.
7. We believe that the inundation and taking from production of 3,000 to 6,000 acres of premium farm-producing ground in a world that is facing large-scale starvation is unjustified when the same good can be accomplished by the construction of smaller reservoirs in submarginal lands.
8. The average assessed valuation of lands required for our small reservoirs is $31.81 per acre; whereas that required for the Army reservoir is $46.32. Also our plan will destroy only acreage actually inundated and not seriously affect any individual economy, whereas the proposed Army reservoir will seriously affect the economy of 93 families directly, and the entire county indirectly.
9. We believe a more complete survey by competent engineers will prove our plan has merits and respectfully request a study be made to determine not only its merit as a flood-control unit, but also its comparative effect on the economy of our territory.
President of the Committee. Attest:
ARNOLD E. FUNK, Secretary of the Committee.
JANUARY 26, 1948. To the LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL,
Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN : We, the Board of County Commissioners of Marion County, Kans., endorse the plan of the committee for the construction of small, 50 to 300 surface acre type of flood-control reservoirs.
This type of flood-control reservoir has many economic advantages. 1. It does not disrupt an entire community.
2. It will not change the economy of a community that will materially affect surrounding towns.
3. It does not destroy the wealth of a county. The single reservoir proposed by the Army inundates the finest agricultural land in Marion County, the smaller reservoirs fall in pastures, waste ground, or at best, in less productive land.
4. The erection of a water barrier approximately 16 miles long through the center of Marion County will affect the economy, habits, and welfare of many times the 90 or more families directly affected.
5. The loss of assessed valuation, as proposed in the single reservoir for taxing purposes will seriously handicap school districts, townships, and the county in their normal governmental function. The loss of valuation in the smaller reservoirs will not so materially affect the governmental units.
6. The construction of the smaller reservoirs will tend to increase the valuation of the community in which it is constructed, if it should be found possible to permanently impound a small volume of water for livestock use.
We urgently recommend that you consider this committee's plan, and authorize funds for a more detailed study of the same before authorizing funds for the construction of the large Army-proposed reservoir. Yours truly,
P. W. WILLIAMSON,
Marion County, Kans. Attest:
A motion was made by George S. Jost, seconded by Ed Nicklaus, that the board of county commissioners favor the proposed plan for flood control, submitted by local committee, for 40 or more small dams rather than the Army plan of one large reservoir. All voting "aye.”
P. W. WILLIAMSON.
JANUARY 24, 1948. To the LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF FLOOD CONTROL,
Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN : I have worked with the Marion County committee proposing a series of small reservoirs for flood control, and, in my opinion, it is worthy of your consideration.
1. A casual examination of the proposed sites of reservoirs proves that there are sufficient possible sites available to equal the total capacity of the proposed single reservoir.
2. This plan will retain the water on only 60 percent of the watershed proposed by the Army engineers, but the compensating fact is that it retains the actual headwaters. The waters from the steep headlands that actually generate most floods. Attention is also called to the fact that this survey was only a tentative survey and additional reservoir sites may be found, not only within the area set out by the Army plan, but other reservoirs may be found as we progress down the stream.
3. That the impounding of water as proposed by the committee will not uproot any families and not seriously affect the economy of many families.
4. That the land the committee proposes to inundate does not have one-third or one-half the production value of the land proposed to be inundated by the Army plan,
5. That the cost of procuring right-of-way for the sites proposed by the committee should not exceed one-third or one-fourth of the cost of the right-of-way for the single large reservoir.
6. That the cost of construction of the smaller reservoirs should be less than the cost of the large single reservoir.
(a) The smaller reservoirs would require less expensive discharge units.
(0) The smaller reservoirs would be such units of work as to attract more competition in the bidding. Hundreds of contractors would be eligible to assume the responsibility of constructing the smaller reservoirs, whereas only a few contractors could qualify for the construction of the single large reservoir.
7. That the resulting danger to loss of life and property is minimized in the construction of many small reservoirs rather than impounding all the flood waters behind one dam. (While danger is slight, yet sufficient dams fail to make it a possibility, and the danger is critical, should we ever engaged in another war.)
I heartily recommend that you cause proper authority to make a complete study of the committee's recommendations, as it appears to me to have many advantages over the single-reservoir plan.
I call your attention to the trend in flood control. Generation by generation engineers have been moving upstream to control floods. From the original levees and flood basins on the lower Mississippi of our grandfather's time, they are now recommending a comparative few reservoirs of the three to ten thousand surface. acre class in the upper regions of the stream. Surely it is logical as we study the "trend curve" to assume that a future generation will find these larger reservoirs are not yet at the source of flood and will move onto the smaller reservoirs as proposed by Marion County, Kans. Ye; even beyond that to more efficient contour farming and strip planting.
Must Marion County, Kans., suffer its loss of good producing farm ground while we wait on progress, or shall we forge ahead and construct the ultimate now? Very sincerely yours,
JAMES F. MEISNER, Registered Professional Engineer.
MARIOX, KANS., January 12, 1949. To the Marion County Flood Control Committee, Marion, Kans.
GENTLEMEN : In accordance with your request, I have studied further the proposed reservoir sites submitted as an alternate flood-control plan for the upper Cottonwood River in Marion and McPherson Counties, Kans.
I call your attention to the fact that to make an accurate study of such a project, it would require months of field work with a crew of designers and surveyors and estimators. Such assistance has been, of course, denied me, first because of lack of time, and secondly because such an accurate study would financially be prohibitory to a small group of private citizens. We can at most only hope to make an estimate from information at hand and consider it only as a general estimate.
In order to evaluate the information I am submitting to you, I wish to outline my procedure.
The enclosed map is a section from the Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, of this area. While our visual inspection on the ground did in the majority of cases fit the platted contours of the map, yet we must consider a survey of this kind as general and not place too much responsibility on its accuracy regarding the actual size of the proposed reservoirs.
The proposed reservoir sites were platted on this contour map, taking into account the actual location we determined at our visual inspection and adjusting it to the contours determined by the United States Geological Survey.
The surface area of the reservoirs so platted was then computed by a planimeter.
The probable depth of water was determined by visual inspection on the site.
The cost of the dam was estimated by assuming 3:1 slopes on the upstream, 2:1 slopes on the downstream, and a minimum 20-foot top section. The length was scaled from the plat. Earthworks was estimated at $0.50 per cubic yard.
The cost of land was determined at a basic rate of $100 per acre on the lower reservoirs and $75 per acre in the pasture country. The proposed reservoirs would not necessitate the removal of any improvements other than fences. The rates above assumed were from three to four times the assessed valuation of that land.
The character of dam necessary was assumed to be earth. A survey might establish the fact that the character of earth at the site is not suitable for such a dam, but in my opinion this would prove to be the exception. It is assumed that these earthen dams would require riprapping on the upstream section. The cost of this riprapping is hard to estimate without even general plans but it is assumed to not exceed the cost of the earthworks. There is sufficient limestone rock in Marion County for this riprapping at a nominal length haul.
It is assumed that these dams would be constructed of such capacity that they would retain the run-off in the majority of cases, that there would be an outlet pipe in each dam to drawn down the water level between rains, and that the spillway section would be over grassed land and would not require protection with rock or concrete.
In regard to outlet works, it is assumed that in reservoirs of this size an 18-inch or 24-inch outlet with control tower and valve would be sufficient. That such outlet works should not cost on an average of over $500 each.
The individual reservoirs I list as follows:
From this listing we find the approximate acre-feet in the 40 reservoirs to be 65,100 acre-feet. The approximate number of acres of land required to be 6,285 acres.
It is estimated that these 40 reservoirs would require dams containing approximately 1,100,000 cubic yards of earth. The cost I estimate at $0.50 per cubic yard or $540,000.
Summarizing the costs as follows: Earthworks
$540,000 Riprap and protection
540, 000 Outlets
200,000 Incidentals, 17 percent.
1, 500,000 ('ost of land
502, 500 Incidentals, 19 percent.
600, 000 Total cost of 40 reservoirs-
2, 100, 000 To this cost would be added engineering, design, inspection, and overhead costs.
This estimate is submitted not as an engineering estimate, but as a rough estimate not substantiated by even tentative plans. Your truly,
JAMES F. MEISNER, Registered Professional Engineer.
('HAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Hillsboro, Kans., February 10, 1948. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF FLOOD CONTROL,
Washington, D. ('. HONORABLE SIRS: The Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce wishes to express its disapproval and objection to the proposed construction of the dam on the ('ottonwood River in Marion County, Kans., according to present plans. The purpose of this construction is for flood control and water conservation for the lower reaches of this watershed. We are advised that an alternate plan which will accomplish these purposes has been prepared and wish strongly to urge that this plan be considered and that the entire project be restudied and resurveyed to the extent of reshaping present plans to conform to this alternate plan for the final construction on the project.
These are our reasons for our objection to the present plan: (1) The alternate plan will impound more water than the present plan.
(2) Cost of the alternate plan is a half to a third as much as that of the present plan, an important item when Government economy is being called for on all sides.
(3) The most productive land in Marion County and a large share of its total tillable land will be lost to production when increased food production is the goal of our Nation.
(4) The economy of Marion County will be greatly disrupted by loss of production and loss of high tax rate land from tax rolls.
(5) At least 30 long established families will be displaced by the present plan with no chance to locate elsewhere in the community.
We do not reject the need for flood control and water conservation for the lower valley, but since there is a choice of plans which are adequate for the purpose of the project we believe that the one giving the least disturbance in loss of land, homes, and production and the one which is most economical should be accepted. We believe the alternate plan 'meets these requirements and again ask for a restudy and resurvey of the project that this plan will be used if at all possible. Respectfully submitted.
HERBERT FRIESEN, Chairman,
DURHAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
Durham, Kans., February 4, 1948, LEGISLATIVE ('0'MITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL,
Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN : The Chamber of Commerce of Durham, Kans., requests that a resurvey be made of the flood control project as presently poposed for Marion County, Kans. It is requested that a survey be made to provide a series of smaller reservoirs at the head of waters of the Cottonwood River north and west of Durham, Kans. This would give Durham flood protection of which the presently planned reservoir does not provide whenever rainfall at the head of the Cottonwood River is greater than what the Rock Island Railroad bridge in the city of Durham will allow.
The opening under the Rock Island Railroad bridge in Durham, Kans., is 115 feet long by 17 feet high. When more water flows into the Cottonwood River than what the bridge can take care of it backs up into the business and residential district of the city.
It is our sincere belief that a series of smaller dams situated at intervals along the Cottonwood River would give greater flood protection to Durham as well as other cities and land located throughout this territory.
Other factors favoring the construction of smaller reservoirs over that of a larger reservoir as proposed by the Army engineers are: Would involve taking out of cultivation a large acreage of the most valuable and productive cultivated land of the county, whereas smaller reservoirs could be built on noncultivated and cheaper land; taxation lost to the county would be seriously impaired and bring a greater tax burden on the population of the county; displacement of farm families would not be necessary by a series of small reservoirs.
In conclusion the Durham Chamber of Commerce and the entire community urges that the flood-control project of Marion County, Kans., as surveyed by