many Cleveland citizens and by this means have determined that a large majority of the Cleveland people favor early construction of the Keystone Dam. When the dam was first proposed there was a natural, strong opposition to it. As factual information began to reach our citizens and they learned and discussed the benefits to be accrued from such a project, there has been a strong swing to the pro side of the issue. As stated above and at this writing, a strong majority favor the proposed Keystone Dam site. Cleveland, a town of approximately 3,000 people, is the only town located directly on the banks of the proposed Keystone Reservoir. Briefly and specifically, our recommendations are based on the following: It will provide: (1) flood control, (2) hydroelectric power, (3) recreational facilities, and (4) irrigation. The Keystone Dam as compared to the Mannford, Blackburn, and Taft Dams, will inundate less acreage, cover fewer oil wells, and is in all particulars a more satisfactory solution to the problem of controlling the Arkansas River. It is especially important that an approximate saving of $25,000,000 can be attained by building the Keystone Reservoir instead of the Mannford, Blackburn, and Taft Dams. Mr. Jo O. Ferguson, the one-man opposition from Pawnee, Okla., which is located 22 miles west of Cleveland on route U. S. No. 64-and the nearest point from Pawnee to the proposed Keystone Reservoir, will be 22 miles stated to the committee this afternoon that construction of the Keystone Reservoir would close Johnson Oil Refining Co.'s 6,000-barrel refinery located at Cleveland. He further stated that enough oil wells would be inundated or discontinued, so that it would be impossible for them to operate due to a crude-oil shortage. They have gathering lines in this area, and take most of the production of the area to their Cleveland refinery. However, all other information placed before this committee indicates a loss in production of only 250 to 400 barrels daily, or roughly 5 percent of their refining capacity. It is quite obvious that a 5-percent crude cut would not close the plant. We urge and recommend to this committee the authorization of this multiplepurpose project as recommended by the Corps of Engineers. Thank you. GLENN M. COOK. Mr. GRAHAM. Next is Mr. Cal Newport, of Hominy, representing the chamber of commerce. He is also above the dam. STATEMENT OF CAL NEWPORT Mr. NEWPORT. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a prepared statement. I will be through in 1 minute. I represent the chamber of commerce and the American Legion, of Hominy, Okla. We are in favor of this dam. We have a number of big farmers and ranchers near our town on the other side of the river that are for this dam. They were against it in the beginning, but they are now for it, because their land will be inundated in this program. Mr. GRAHAM. Next is H. C. Jones, of Sand Springs. STATEMENT OF H. C. JONES Mr. JONES. My name is H. C. Jones, representing Sand Springs, Okla., which is the town immediately adjoining Tulsa at McLean and the Keystone Dam. The CHAIRMAN. Are you for it or against it? Mr. JONES. I am very much for it. The CHAIRMAN. For which, now? Mr. JONES. I am for the Keystone Dam. The CHAIRMAN. And you may insert your statement at this point in the record, if you would like. Mr. JONES. May I make a 1-minute statement? The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, sir, I beg your pardon. Mr. JONES. This town of Sand Springs is an industrial city. There are 192 industries between Tulsa and the Keystone Dam, some of them are very large, the largest textile mill west of the Mississippi River, the largest tank company in the world. We need this dam at Keystone. The people at Sand Springs are for it. The laborers are for it. The businessmen are for it. I know of no one in Sand Springs that is against the Keystone Dam, and I would like to go on record that I believe it is unanimous that the town of Sand Springs, with 12,000 people, is for the dam. Mr. GRAHAM. Next is Mr. Russell Rhodes, representing the chamber of commerce of Tulsa. STATEMENT OF RUSSELL RHODES Mr. RHODES. My name is Russell Rhodes. I am the general manager of the Tulsa, Okla., Chamber of Commerce. I represent also the city of Tulsa, a city of 200,000 population. Insofar as I have been able to ascertain, there is no opposition in Tulsa to the substitution of the Keystone Dam and Reservoir for the Mannford, the Taft, and the Blackburn Reservoirs. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. McBride is here representing Senator Kerr. He wants to file a statement he made in the Rivers and Harbors Act so that it will be in this portion of it. (The following letter was subsequently submitted by Congressman Steed :) Hon. WILL M. WHITTINGTON, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., May 31, 1949. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR COLLEAGUE: As a member of the Committee on Public Works you have before you certain proposed legislation dealing, among other things, with the Arkansas River watershed. Part of this program involves my congressional district. This letter is written to call your particular attention to the Keystone Reservoir proposal since it is the one in which my people have a direct interest. Representatives of my constituents have previously discussed their problem with you and have left with you certain statements and documents relating to this project. I shall appreciate your consideration of these statements. It is of vital importance to an area of Oklahoma citizens who have given a great amount of time and effort to preparing this data. It is my very strong personal conviction that the Keystone Reservoir project ought not to be authorized at this time. Sincerely yours, TOM STEED, M. C. Mr. GRAHAM. And Congressman Stigler-he was here for a whilehas requested that he be allowed to file a statement. The CHAIRMAN. He will be permitted to file any statement here about this or any other matter that he desires. Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, gentlemen. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM G. STIGLER, CONGRESSMAN, SECOND DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is William G. Stigler. I represent Oklahoma's Second Congressional District. I appreciate having the opportunity of appearing before you gentlemen and testifying concerning a matter of great interest to my people. The Arkansas River and its tributaries drain every acre of land in the second district and I am therefore vitally interested in the program of developing this river. I appear here today urging the authorization of the Keystone Dam and Reservoir as recommended by the Chief of Engineers as a modification of the plan for comprehensive development of the Arkansas River and tributaries. This dam is a substitute for the Mannford, Blackburn, and Taft Reservoirs. The Taft Reservoir, if constructed, would be in my district. I recommend the substitution of the Keystone Reservoir for the three other proposals because it would save 51,000 acres of the most fertile lands in the State of Oklahoma from inundation. It would also save the Federal Government approximately $25,000,000. A statement was filed today with your committee by Mr. Ira J. Hollar, county agent of Muskogee County, Okla. His statement tells you that the lands in the proposed Taft Reservoir are the most productive in the entire State of Oklahoma. This body of land is known as the Choska bottoms. His statement is similar to that of Mr. T. Elmer Harbour from Muskogee, Okla., relative to the agricultural development of this area. It is pointed out in these statements that the area produces vegetables, alfalfa, and other high-value agricultural products. The Keystone Dam will inundate approximately 60,000 acres of land valued at $6,000,000. The Taft Dam would inundate approximately 40.000 acres of land valued at $10,000,000. The three dams for which the Keystone is a substitute would inundate 113,000 acres valued at $17,000,000. The Chief of Engineers in his report states that the saving in construction of the Keystone Dam as compared to the other three reservoirs would amount to almost $25,000,000 and in addition, it would provide hydroelectric power which none of the three other dams would produce. It would also provide an opportunity for recreational development not available in the other three reservoirs. Other witnesses which will appear before you will give details and will substantiate the figures and facts which I have presented to you. It is also my understanding that the Chief of Engineers is prepared to justify this project from an engineering standpoint. Therefore, I urge that you authorize this project. Again I wish to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before this committee. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody else now opposing or advocating this project? If not, the committee stands adjourned until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning. (The committee then at 6:15 p. m. adjourned, pursuant to reconvening the following morning at 9:30, Friday, May 20, 1949.) FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORIZATIONS, 1949 FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1949 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a. m., Hon. Will M. Whittington, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. According to the schedule we have under consideration this morning reports covering the Pacific Northwest area and general statements covering the works previously authorized and for which partial appropriations have been made in the Willamette River Basin and along the Columbia, the status of those works, and specifically along the Albeni Falls project in Idaho, and I understand the Chief of Engineers desires to present a report that is now with the budget covering the Green-Duwamish River and valley in the vicinity of Seattle. I know of no other specific items for consideration except the two mentioned, the one in Idaho and the other in Washington. PACIFIC NORTHWEST PROJECTS The Chief of Engineers made an over-all statement at the beginning of this hearing with respect to the Columbia and the projects previously authorized and he advised that Colonel Weaver, the division engineer, would be here this morning and I understand Colonel Weaver is here; am I correct about that? And Colonel Gee. I assume that Colonel Weaver will make the general, over-all statement as to the conditions of the Willamette, the Columbia, and these two particular items. Colonel GEE. Mr. Chairman, I will present the status of funds in the Albeni Falls and the Green-Duwamish report. WILLAMETTE RIVER Colonel GEE. First, as to the over-all statement affecting the Willamette River, Mr. Chairman, the Willamette River project was authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1938 when the general comprehensive plan of improvement for that basin was approved and first authorization for appropriation was made in an amount in accordance with the report now published as House Document 544, Seventyfifth Congress, third session. The comprehensive plan of improvement for flood control includes 11 reservoirs, bank protection at numerous locations, fish facilities for the proposed dams, at a total estimated cost of $243,700,000. The CHAIRMAN. HOW many dams and the names of them? The CHAIRMAN. Indicate them on the map as you make the statement; let there be no delay. Colonel GEE. The map will be up in just a moment. The Cottage Grove Reservoir in Oregon is complete for flood control. Fern Ridge Reservoir in Oregon is complete, also a flood-control reservoir. There are under construction the Dorena Reservoir in Oregon, at an estimated cost of $14,640,000. The Detroit Reservoir, Oreg., at an estimated cost of $65,377,000. The Lookout Point Dam in Oregon, at an estimated cost of $50,915,000. And bank protection along the Willamette River and major tributaries totaling an estimated $4,854,000. The CHAIRMAN. Are they under way or completed? Colonel GEE. Under construction, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is the local contribution for the bank protection, or is that in aid of navigation and a part of the protective works provided for flood control in connection with the reservoir? Colonel GEE. Rights-of-way are contributed by local interests for the bank-protection work as is the case with a local flood-protection project. The CHAIRMAN. Maintenance? Colonel GEE. By local interests, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, sir. Colonel GEE. The projects authorized but not yet started are: The Cascadia, Green Peter, and Wiley Creek Reservoirs at a total estimated cost of $50,530,000; the Quartz Creek Reservoir at an estimated cost of $49,430,000. In addition, provision for fish facilities in the amount of $1,000,000. This brings us to the total estimated cost for the Willamette River Basin presently authorized of $243,700,000, of which total appropriations to date amount to $41,087,000; and the present monetary authorization is $77,300,000. The total cost of projects complete or under construction is $143,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. That figure is in the reports that were approved by the Congress? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you have not revised them so as to cover increased cost of construction? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Which is it. You said, "Yes, sir," both times. I don't want to be misunderstood. Colonel GEE. These are 1948 cost figures, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You give us for this record the total estimated costs at the time of their approval for this valley, the total amounts of the authorizations and the total amounts of the appropriations. Have you got that before you? Colonel GEE. The authorizations arising from the Flood Control Act of 1938 are $11.300.000. The CHAIRMAN. Not the detail, the total. Colonel GEE. $77,300,000. The CHAIRMAN. The total estimated cost of the approval, including the dams and the local protective works are $77,300,000 in several accounts? |