Page images
PDF
EPUB

TABLE I.—Present crop and livestock organizations in 5 counties involved in proposed Missouri River Basin irrigation project, 1943—Continued

NUMBERS OF LIVESTOCK ON FARM JAN. 1

[blocks in formation]

TABLE II.-Crop organization and production, present and one possibility under

proposed irrigation project, Beadle County

[graphic]

2 Tons.

1 Bushels. TABLE III.Livestock organization and production, per farm, present and 2

alternative plans under proposed irrigation project, Beadle County

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

1 Pounds.

? Gain.

3 Wool.

Lambs.

6 Dozen.

TABLE IV.-Estimated volume and value of sales, per farm, present and 2

Nalternative plans under proposed irrigation project, Beadle County

[graphic]

120 720 512 300

1 Tons.

2 Pounds. NOTE.—These figures represent the estimated gross income that might be expected under the present and projected plans under irrigation farming, and do not take into consideration the additional costs of bringing the water on the farm, annual water and maintenance costs, extra seasonal labor needed during growing and harvesting season for specialized crops, etc.

TABLE V.-Estimated labor requirements under present and 2 alternative plans ?

[blocks in formation]

1 These labor requirements cover only estimated days of labor needed in performing actual crop and livestock work, and do not include labor needed to maintain irrigation system on farm, or in distributing water during season.

Senator MILLIKIN. And, in addition, we had an understanding yesterday about a further paper that is to come in. I would like to have that paper made a part of the record when it comes in.

Senator OVERTON. All right. It will be made a part of the record.

(The further statement referred to by Senator Millikin is as follows:) BRAZOS RIVER CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION DISTRICT,

Mineral Wells, Tec., June 20, 1944. Flood-control bill, H. R. 4485 : Statement by John D. McCall, Dallas, Tex. Hon. John H. OVERTON, Chairman of Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Commerce,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: You will please consider this as the statement of John D. McCall, general counsel of Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation District. My office address is Kirby Building, Dallas 1, Tex. The Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation District is a public agency created by and acting for the State of Texas. The district, which according to modern usage would be considered an "authority,” is in the process of constructing a series of some 13 major multiplepurpose dams on the Brazos River and its tributaries. It has been subsidized by a continuing annual appropriation by the State of Texas in the amount of $309,000 for a period of 20 years. It has also received certain assistance from the United States Government.

To the Brazos district as the agent of the State has been entrusted the control and supervision of the waters of the Brazos River and its tributaries.

I feel that it is to the public interest that the three pending amendments be adopted. Reasons supporting this conclusion will be given briefly as to the several amendments.

1. This is the amendment which among other provisions permits an affected State and the Secretary of the Interior to be heard prior to the filing of a final report by the Chief of Engineers if the proposed works of improvement for navigation or flood control are concerned with the use or control of waters rising west of the ninety-seventh meridian.

If this amendment is adopted the Congress will have before it, to aid it in its final determination, the views not only of the War Department whose principal interest is properly concerned with navigation and food control but also the information which can be furnished by the representatives of affected States and of the Department of the Interior. The governor of a State and his technical assistants should be in position to advise the Congress through the hearings before the Chief of Engineers of the effect of the proposed improvement on the people of his State. The Secretary of the Interior should be in the best position to advise the Congress by means of such hearing of the effect of the proposed improvement on the peoples of the several States generally. It is conceivable that whereas the Congress might readily approve the proposed works of improvement as an aid to navigation or flood control upon the showings correctly made by the War Department it might well require that the project be modified to accommodate other interests which would be injured. The proposed amendment seeks to provide such an instrument for the Congress.

2. The second amendment offered affects section 4 of the bill. In its present form section 4 provides that the Secretary of War is authorized to sell for domestic and industrial purposes surplus water at a reservoir under his control upon such terms as he may deem reasonable..

If the proposed amendment is adopted the Secretary of War must make any such sale of water in conformity with the State laws applicable at the place of use.

Of course, another essential use of water is considered separately in section 6, namely, irrigation. I am assuming that "industrial" includes uses for mining and recovery of minerals and development of hydroelectric power. The Texas laws specify still an additional use, viz: recreation and pleasure. It is believed that the committee will conclude that the actual sale of water at a reservoir constitutes not an act of interstate commerce, but a transaction which should be governed by the laws of the State. The legislature of the State where the water is to be sold should be in a favorable position to determine the priority of uses which should be made of water.

Insofar as the State of Texas is concerned, giving consideration to the terms ander which the Republic of Texas was admitted to the Union, it is believed that ownership of the streams in this State is vested in the State of Texas. Possibly other States are similarly situated.

3. The third amendment shows a revision of section 6. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, after examination, to make a recommendation to the Secretary of War. After receiving that recommendation when the Secretary of War has determined that a dam or reservoir project operated under his direction can be consistently utilized for irrigation purposes the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct and operate under the provisions of existing laws such additional works in connection with the reservoir as he may deem necessary for irrigation purposes. The amendment further provides that the irrigation works thus undertaken shall be administered under the general gation laws. Without the proposed amendment section 6 seems inadequate. It is likely that no objection will be manifested as to this amendment. Respectfully yours,

JOHN D. McCALL. Senator OVERTON. We will now hear Congressman Clason, of Massachusetts. Congressman, please give, for the benefit of the record, your full name and the district in Massachusetts you represent.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES R. CLASON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Senator OVERTON. Congressman Clason, I understand, although we have passed that subject matter, that you desire to testify in reference to flood control relating to Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

Representative Clason. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

Senator OVERTON. I will also state for your information, and probably you have been apprised of it, that the Vermont people, represented by Senator Austin and others, objected very strenuously to the location of so many dams in Vermont, giving their reasons for their objection. However, as it developed the principal objection was leveled against the dam on West River, called in the report the Williamsville Dam, referred to both as the West River and the Williamsville Dam. order to remove the objection, to eliminate the dam on West River, and that appeared to be agreeable to them. I understood then that there was no objection from Connecticut, and there was no one present, either for or against, from Massachusetts. Therefore I am inclined to reopen the question in order that we may hear from Massachusetts on the subject.

Representative Člason. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MILLIKIN. Congressman, might I ask what part of Massachusetts is in the second district ?

Representative Clason. From the Connecticut line north I go to the town of Hatfield, I would say a distance of 40 or 50 miles, more than half way across the State.

Senator BURTON. Is Springfield the principal city?

Representative Clason. Yes; it is the principal city in the Massachusetts part of the valley, but Hartford is the largest city in the valley.

Senator BURTON. I meant in your district.

Representative Clason. Springfield is the largest city in my district.

CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN-resumed Senator OVERTON. I will state that the building of a dam on West River as proposed by the Army engineers would have reduced the 1936 flood level at Springfield by a foot and a half, according to my recollection; and at Hartford by 1.2 feet.

Representative CLASON. I think it is the reverse, Mr. Chairman.

Senator OVERTON. Maybe so. Anyway, it was a reduction in floodstage levels at one point of 1.2 feet and at the other point 142 feet.

Representative CLASON. Yes, sir.
Senator OVERTON. That brings you up to date.

Representative Clason. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, to understand the situation in the Connecticut Valley I would say that we have been visited by three major floods in the last 17 years, those major floods occurring in 1927, 1936, and 1938. In each of those floods thousands of persons were rendered homeless and had to be taken care of, as many as 10,000 at the time of at least one flood, in schools, churches, and other public buildings. They had to be fed, in part clothed, and otherwise taken care of. Our power was out and we were visited by the kind of calamity that always accompanies a flood in a big city. I mean, the people of Springfield, Hartford, and other places, were quite bad off.

After the 1927 flood 'the local municipalities attempted to do something along the river, but whatever they constructed in the way of dikes proved to be valueless when the 1936 flood came along.

Following the 1936 flood there was considerable agitation in Congress for flood-control work on a much larger scale than previously had been planned. We had our flood early in 1936, and

Senator OVERTON. Let me observe in that connection that unfortunately local efforts to protect against floods are usually valueless. In other words, the dikes and levees put up are not scientifically built, and the.result is that they are swept away when a real flood comes down a river, and therefore we have to rely upon the Army engineers for proper construction.

Representative CLASON. I think that is undoubtedly true, Mr. Chairman; and I think one of the biggest services that we in Congress furnish is to provide flood control as a national project.

Senator OVERTON. Are you a member of the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives?

Representative CLASON. I happen to be the ranking Republican on the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives, and that was why I really felt a little averse to coming before this committee.

Senator OVERTON. Oh, you need not feel that way about it.

Representative CLASON. After the 1936 flood it was evident that something had to be done. We lost 28 lives and almost $144,000,000 in property as a result of the three floods I have mentioned. So, after the 1936 flood we attempted to enter into an agreement among the four States of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts, for a compact under which a certain number of reservoirs, probably eight, would have been built. The expense would have been borne 50 percent by Massachusetts, 40 percent by Connecticut, and 5 percent each by New Hampshire and Vermont. Those contracts are all in the record of the flood-control hearings of the past.

Senator OVERTON. But the construction of such works would have been only a partial solution, not a complete solution?

Representative Clason. That is true. They could not have been. They would not have been adequate, and I doubt if they would ever have been satisfactory, either in operation or in the carrying out of the compact. I say that, for one reason at least, because there was no unanimity of feeling among the officials of the various States, so that that would likely have been true even if we had ultimately got the compact through.

I came to Congress in 1937 and I, so far as Massachusetts was concerned, attempted to lead the fight for the compacts on the floor of the House, but we were defeated. At that time the Government decided the best way to handle the flood-control situation was on a national basis, with the Federal Government paying the entire cost of construction of reservoirs, and contributing to the cost, making the major contribution in fact to the cost of local protective works. And that has been the program followed since that time. I agree with the chairman in the statement just made, for I believe it has been the only possible solution of the difficulties on the great rivers.

« PreviousContinue »