There are two major U.S. highways crossing the flood plain and five State roads that also cross the flood plain.

There has been a long history of floods throughout the watershed. The annual flood inundates about 1,500 acres of roughly 3,300 acres of flood plain area used for agricultural purposes and the 50year flood inundates the entire flood plain area shown in yellow here. One of the 50-year floods occurred in July 1958 when the annual damages to agriculture alone were about $57,000.

The highways across the area also sustain substantial flood damages. The winter flood in 1959 caused about $12,000 damage to the United States and State highways as well as the local highways.

In addition, the small suburban area-I might point out that this area at the mouth of Dick's Creek is the town of Middletown, Ohio. There is a suburban area of Middletown, Amanda, which was hit hard in the flood of 1959. The new $1.5 million junior high school was inundated. About 265 residences in the suburban area were inundated and it is estimated that the damages from that 1 flood alone were about $400,000. The land use in the watershed area is 54 percent cropland, 18 percent grassland, 3 percent woodland, 2 percent in wildlife areas, and 23 percent in miscellaneous uses. There are about 293 farms in the watershed which average about 126 acres. The land values for agricultural purposes will range between $200 and $300— roughly $250 average. The land that is suitable for industrial, residential, or commercial development will range from 12 to 90 cents a square foot depending on the facilities and improvements available on that particular land.

The program proposed for the project consists of six floodwater retarding structures as shown in the dark blue, with their drainage areas being the dark green color. There are 17.5 miles of channel improvement along various reaches of both Dick's Creek and Muddy Creek.

The benefits that would be developed by the project are 52 percent to agriculture, 39 percent to nonagricultural improvement, and 9 percent indirect benefit.

The agricultural area that will be benefited covers roughly 3,300 acres in which 220 farmowners have holdings and there will be 139 acres of urban area, particularly in this Amanda suburban area that will be benefited.

As far as protection is concerned there will be provided by the project on Dick's Creek-that is this area here the agricultural land will be protected against a 50-year storm immediately below these structures to a minimum of 4-year protection at the lower end of the flood plain area away from the structures.

In the residential and urban areas, protection will be provided against a hundred-year storm.

I might point out that the Miami Conservancy District is now developing a project for constructing levees around the city of Middletown for the protection of the city of Middletown. They are working with the Corps of Engineers in developing these plans.

As a result, no benefits were claimed for this project below Yankee Road, which is one of the boundaries of the totally urban area.

In other words, no benefits were claimed in the city of Middletown even though there are some benefits obviously that would accrue in there.

The total cost of the project would be $1,581,000, with the local people providing 23 percent, or $368,800, and the Public Law 566 funds 77 percent, or $1,213,000.

The cost-benefit ratio is 1.7 to 1 and the prorated Public Law 566 cost per acre of agriculture land is $181.

As I said before, the subdistrict of Miami Conservancy District has agreed to assume the complete responsibility and maintenance of the project.

There is one other point, Mr. Poage, that I would like to bring out: While a substantial amount of the land easements and rights-of-wayroughly $48,000-are for the 17 miles of channel improvement, in many of the projects those easements will actually be donated. However, we feel very strongly that there is a need for the local organization to have a definite easement on the channel because if there were not an easement the local organization would be unable to perform their function of operation and maintenance on that channel.

Even though the easements are donated for the channels, we do credit the local people, the local organization with the appraised value of those easements so while this may not be an actual cost of land easements and channel work, while it may not be an actual cash outlay it is a value which the local organization is providing as their part of the cost sharing on the project.

Mr. POAGE. Is that an item that is included in all cases for the estimated value of these easements?

Mr. WETZEL. That is right, sir.

The value that is included for land easements and rights-of-ways includes the value of donated easements plus the out-of-pocket cost for easements that must be purchased.

Mr. POAGE. I wonder why the local contribution was so low in this. Local contribution in this is probably the lowest we have had in this series. It is only 23 percent.

Mr. WETZEL. Again

Mr. POAGE. The last one we had was 67.

Mr. WETZEL. That is right, but remember these other projects have had allocations to drainage, where there is required cost sharing for the construction, for the actual construction of the structure. This is an entirely flood prevention project, where the Federal Government by law must provide a hundred percent of the construction cost of the reservoirs and the channels.

The purposes involved have a very substantial effect on the ratio of Federal-local cost sharing.

Mr. POAGE. I am sure it meets the legal requirement.

Mr. WETZEL. This would be relatively high local cost sharing for a 100-percent flood prevention project.

Mr. POAGE. While this project provides 100 percent flood prevention, I understand what that amounts to is drainage up there in all that area where you tell us the two streams coalesce.

You have to drain that area. That is what it amounts to, is it not? Mr. WETZEL. No.

Mr. POAGE. What is the difference in the drainage? A lot of that is channel work, is it not?

Mr. WETZEL. You never have drainage resulting from what we would call abnormal precipitation. Any abnormal precipitation would be considered as flood prevention. This intermingling of the streams occurs only during periods of abnormal precipitation and the fact that there is a very low divide causes the water primarily from Dick's Creek to break over and flow down through Muddy Creek to Turtle Creek.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POAGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. What do the dark green areas show?

Mr. WETZEL. They are the areas that have always been light green on the other maps. This has gotten quite dark. This particular structure here, this reservoir, which is shown in light blue, the drainage area that is controlled by that structure, is shown in dark green.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. That is higher land?

Mr. WETZEL. This is all higher land.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. What about the white land?

Is that more flat?

Mr. WETZEL. That is sloping land between the upland area and the flatter flood plain area, which is shown in yellow. It is not part of the actual flood plain. It probably is the same kind of land as shown in green but it is not controlled by a reservoir.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Are you going to do anything in that project to stop the water from flowing back and forth from one stream into another?

Mr. WETZEL. I cannot say for sure, Mr. Johnson. I would say that with this channel improvement work that is going to take place you would have a more rapid rate of carrying it away and it may stop it. Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. That is the first time I have ever heard of that.

Mr. WETZEL. We have several projects where the divide between the two watersheds is so low, so indefinite that it is little hard to tell which way the water will go.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. In my area we have a big enough fill to keep it.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any further questions?

Mr. WETZEL. I might say that Mr. Coy, from the Miami Conservancy District is here today. He has worked very closely with the Soil Conservation Service in the development of the plan and I am sure will be able to answer any questions that I have not been able to handle. Mr. POAGE. Does anybody care to question him? Do you care to make any statement?

Mr. Coy. Yes, I do have a short statement.

Mr. POAGE. All right, sir. We will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF L. BENNETT COY, SECRETARY-TREASURER, MIAMI CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, DAYTON, OHIO

Mr. Cor. My full name is L. Bennett Coy. I am treasurer of the Miami Conservancy District, Dayton, Ohio.

The statement is this, sir: The Dick's Creek-Little Muddy Creek Subdistrict of the Miami Conservancy District has been formed to become the local cooperating agency for the development of a watershed protection and flood prevention program (under Public Law 566) in the Dick's Creek-Little Muddy Creek watersheds in Warren and Butler Counties, Ohio.

The Miami Conservancy District is vitally interested in this proposed project as the subdistrict was formed upon the petition of landowners within the above-named watersheds. The subdistrict would become the contracting and maintenance agency should this project receive favorable consideration by this subcommittee.

The staff of the subdistrict stands ready to perform all functions and services in order to carry this project through its successful

conclusion.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much. If there are no questions, we are very much obliged.

Mr. Cor. Mr. Chairman, there is a gentleman here with me from Butler County, Ohio, Mr. Marvin Stahl, who is coordinator for the county governments, in the area of this Dick's Creek-Muddy Creek Subdistrict. I wonder if he might have an opportunity to make a

statement.

Mr. POAGE. Certainly. We will defer for a moment.

STATEMENT OF MARVIN STAHL, COORDINATOR FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENTS, DICK'S CREEK-MUDDY CREEK SUBDISTRICT

Mr. STAHL. My name is Marvin Stahl, Lebanon, Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I have coordinated this project from the time it first started with the two counties, Butler and Warren. I have been sent up here by the people to express their interest in this project and we think it is a worthwhile project. We feel very proud also that we have been fortunate enough to have the Miami Conservancy District as the local sponsoring agency for this project.

I think that everything else has been pretty well covered on this project by the two Congressmen and Mr. Wetzel.

Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Stahl.

KENT CREEK, TEX.

We will now take up the Kent Creek watershed project. (The Kent Creek watershed work plan is as follows:)

KENT CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location: 27,008 acres in Briscoe and Hall Counties.
Tributary to North Pease River, Red River.

Sponsors: Cap Rock Soil Conservation District, Hall County Soil Conservation District, Kent Creek Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, Hall County Commissioners Court.

Project purposes: Watershed protection and flood prevention.

Project measures: Soil conservation practices on farms and ranches; and structural measures consisting of eight grade stabilization structures, about 9 miles of stream channel improvement, and seven floodwater retarding structures with a storage capacity of 2,404 acre-feet.

Area benefited: 1,813* acres.

Number of beneficiaries: 49 owners of agricultural land plus nonagricultural facilities.

This is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost sharing from Federal funds appropriated for the agricultural conservation program may be available if included in the county program developed each year in consideration of approved State and National programs and the annual authorization by the Congress.