Senator BURTON. That would lay a foundation for rather liberal treatment on the part of the Federal Government and the lowering of the local contribution, would it not? But here we have in this Red River and Shreveport case a rather high local contribution, which I think would be out of line rather than in line with that general previous history.

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; but the case at Shreveport is principally bank protection, and there are instances where in fixing upon cash contributions credit has been given for expeditures already made by the local people.

Senator OVERTON. At that point may I interrupt you to point out that when the Commerce Committee was considering the river and harbor bill the other day there came up a project of the Josias River in Maine, and there it was shown that there had been considerable local contributions; in fact I think the local contribution is as much as that recommended by the engineers, which was rather heavy. So we took it upon ourselves to amend the bill, providing that after authorizing the project, by inserting this provision:

Except that the useful work done on the project by local interests shall be accepted toward fulfillment of the requirements of local cooperation.

In other words, this committee recommended that they be given credit for the local contributions previously made in respect to the project.

I just offer that as an example of what you are now stating; and there are other cases.

General REYBOLD. It is along the line that I cited a moment ago. When the Federal Government entered the lower Mississippi Valley and was able to recognize the expenditures that the local people had made in the past in their attempt to defend against damaging flood waters in that great valley, those expenditures were accepted as sufficient cash contribution for the future.

Senator OVERTON. Yes, but also in reference to particularly isolated projects, the Congress has changed the amount of local contribution. General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. As, for instance, in connection with this Josias River in Maine; and it was a navigation project, but the principle is the same.

I did not want to interrupt you, Senator Burton.
Senator BURTON. That is all right. That is all.

Senator CORDON. General, there was testimony here Monday with reference to the Shreveport project, that that was unique in that it was the first project where the work consisted wholly in bank protection, and that therefore there was no precedent for allocation of costs; is that your understanding of it too?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. Of course, the damage that accrues to the community of Shreveport is a result of flood waters, because an erosive effect takes place at the higher stages when the greater discharge is flowing by.

Senator CORDON. Do you have in mind the basis upon which that contribution was determined-the reasons that actuated your board. in determining that the local interests should contribute substantially half of the cost?

General REYBOLD. That is merely the best judgment that the president of the Mississippi River Commission could offer.

Senator CORDON. It seems so much out of line, is the reason I was asking you.

General REYBOLD. Sometimes the ability and the willingness of the people to contribute to a project of that nature becomes involved, and should be considered.

Senator CORDON. In other words, to some extent at least the fact that the people affected by the project feel that its urgency is so great that they are willing to assume this heavier load was one of the factors used by the Corps of Engineers in reaching its conclusion that it would be proper for them to contribute that?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; it is just a matter of judgment. You must realize that the local people in connection with that particular project have in the past expended large sums and have made a determined effort to correct the trouble. The Congress may wish to give additional credit to that fact.

Senator CORDON. That would appear to me to be a reason to reduce the participation rather than increase it.

General REYBOLD. It depends upon whether you view the improvement as purely a Federal project, with the local people making a contribution, or whether it be a local project with the Federal Government making a contribution.

Senator CORDON. Has it such a status as you suggest here, that is different from the status in these several other cases where you have a project of flood control? In other words, is there anything to differentiate the Shreveport project from any of the other projects that we have where the contribution has not been so large?

General REYBOLD. I believe if you took into consideration the ability and the willingness of the people to contribute as related to a strictly agricultural stretch of river where the people may be willing to pay but unable to pay, there would be a difference; but that still remains for the Congress to determine.

Senator CORDON. I would gather from what you tell me that the chief reason for the contribution which has been recommended by the engineers is the willingness of the people to assume that share of the cost.

General REYBOLD. They have so indicated, insofar as their financial ability goes in the matter.

Senator CORDON. Then you feel that if the Congress upon examination of your report and all the evidence feels that their necessities are such that they are willing to contribute to that, if the Congress feels that they should not be called upon to go to that extent, it would be altogether proper to modify the report to the extent of calling for a less contribution, and that such action would still be in accord with the general policy?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; and one that rests wholly with Congress. Senator BURTON. May I just ask, just at that point-if such a policy were adopted and the more liberal attitude were taken by the Congress than is taken by the engineer's report on this matter, would that open up a large field of comparable instances of the Federal contributions, or is this unique enough so that it would be confined pretty much to this one? Are there many others like it?

General REYBOLD. Now, Senator, you are getting into the complexities of this problem.

Senator BURTON. Because, once we start, we have to go all the way, because there is nothing worse than discrimination in this world.

General REYBOLD. How much effort has been made by the other communities to correct their local defects with local funds? I think that is evidence that is worthy of very serious consideration by this committee and by the Congress. Of course, if we should indulge in a program of revetting and protecting all the thousands of miles of the rivers in this great country of ours, it would be a very expensive undertaking, there is no question about that, but I maintain that each and every one of the proposals must be studied out on its own merits, and I do not believe that in his instance it would establish a precedent for reveting all the streams in this country that may be troubled with bank erosion.

Senator CORDON. General, your revetting was planned for the purpose of preventing a flooding of the area, was it not?

General REYBOLD. To maintain the banks in a stable condition. That may be done by paving-"revetting" as we call it-or it may be done by a system of dikes; or both; but the objective is to maintain the banks in a stable condition, whatever the engineering approach may be.

Senator CORDON. There was evidence here Monday that there was danger of a break-through on the Red River which would result in a flooding of a large agricultural area, in the Twelve Mile Bayou area, and that this project was intended to act as a preventive of such a break-through and resultant flood, in which event this is to that extent a flood-control project.

Senator OVERTON. That is very true, but to be perfectly frank about it, the division engineer at Vicksburg did not accept unqualifiedly that suggestion, and rather based the recommendation on the caving of the banks, and without the banks caving, to a certain extent, that the river would form a new channel through Twelve Mile Bayou, or its water overflow the Twelve Mile Bayou and damage those lands devoted to agricultural production.

In other words, as I understand the report of the division engineer, while he brings this out, yet he bases his recommendation on items other than that apprehension of water flowing through the Twelve Mile Bayou; but I think it is is a matter on which the evidence is before us, and we can pass on that. It is for us, ourselves. That is correct, is it not?

General REYBOLD. That is correct, sir. In reading the report you will find that the engineer of the Department of Public Works of Louisiana entertains certain anxieties concerning a possible breakthrough, whereas our division engineer in studying the situation does not view the possibility as serious.

Senator OVERTON. That is stating it correctly.

Now, to sum up on that Shreveport project, as I understand it the local interests are very much concerned about the project. They have been endeavoring to correct the caving banks for a number of years, and they have spent considerable money, over $2,000,000I have forgotten the exact amount-without success, and their anxiety is so great because theirs is a city of over 100,000, that to a certain extent is imperiled, especially if the caving continues and the waters break through into the Twelve Mile Bayou and make an island out of

the city; and in addition to that, the damage to the water front, the properties, and so forth, by flooding, and so on, on account of the caving banks and loss of property. They are so anxious for the Federal Government to come in that they are willing to make such contributions as they can conveniently make, though they do not set any amount that they can contribute.

I have understood from Mr. Dickson, who is president of the Caddo Level Board, a very estimable gentlement, thoroughly reliable, and thoroughly conversant with the situation, that this requirement of the Federal Government for local contribution is beyond what they can undertake. I thought possibly before the hearings were over I might have him here and have him make a statement in reference to it, so that is the situation in the Shreveport area. I thank you very much, General, for appearing.

GREAT SALT BASIN

SEVIER RIVER, NEAR REDMOND, UTAH

Senator MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I was advised by the clerk of your committee that it was the intention of the committee to reach the Sevier River project near Redmond, Utah, this morning, and I just wanted to be here.

Senator OVERTON. We had hoped to be able to do so. We still have, following the order and sequence of our schedule, the Des Moines River in Iowa, and the Chariton River in Iowa and Missouri, before we reach the Sevier River in Utah. I would see no objections, if it is agreeable to the members of the committee, to accommodating the Senator, if you cannot conveniently return later.

Senator MURDOCK. I might make just a very brief statement at this time, if I may.

Senator OVERTON. Very well. That will be on the Sevier River.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ABE MURDOCK, OF UTAH

Senator MURDOCK. This is on the Sevier River, near Redmond, Utah. Redmond is a small town, Mr. Chairman, wholly agricultural and stock-raising. It is in a very fertile county and section of Utah. The inhabitants of the community there are very industrious, practical farmers, and by reason of certain conditions along the river a great amount of damage has been done to the farming lands in that section. If similar floods occur in the future, according to the report of the engineers, a great deal more damage is anticipated.

The project as I understand it involves channeling of the river and building some levees, and it would involve an expenditure on the part of the Federal Government of about $281,000.

Senator OVERTON. Are there any reservoirs?

Senator MURDOCK. Yes; there are two diversion dams in the program, but the Board of Engineers has recommended, as I understand it, that the cost of construction of those two diversion dams be contributed by the people of Redmond or the people of that vicinity. That cost is estimated at $18,000.

The Board of Engineers has also insisted on four other conditions, the obligations of which must be assumed by the people out there, in

addition to this contribution of $48,000 for the diversion dams. It is my understanding that all of the conditions imposed or requested by the Board of Engineers have been agreed to by the people there, that they are perfectly willing to assume them; one of which of course is the maintenance after the project is built.

Senator OVERTON. That is what we call the (a), (b), and (c) provisions?

Senator MURDOCK. Yes. Now, of course, in Utah and in all the irrigation States we have two troubles with water; one is taking care of it in a sense so far as flood control, getting rid of it; and the other, of course, is its conservation for irrigation purposes. All flood-control projects in Utah and other irrigation States of necessity include those two things-protection against floods and at the same time the conservation of the water for irrigation purposes.

Both of those features are incorporated in this project. I have been over it many times with the local people. I know that it is absolutely necessary, in order to protect them and to allow them to continue their homes and their farms there. It is rather a small project, I assume $281,000-compared with others; but to the people out there of course it has the same importance as a much larger one.

I think as to details I can leave that to the engineers, and when they present that, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I most urgently request that it be authorized. I understand that the Bureau of the Budget has stated that, due to the fact that it would not contribute greatly to the war program, the item of appropriation could well be delayed until after the war, but I do think that it is necessary to authorize it so that the people can be laying their plans for the contribution that they have to make; and I respectfully urge you to give it favorable consideration.

Senator OVERTON. Thank you, Senator.

Shall we finish this right now, as long as Senator Murdock is here? Senator BURTON. Yes.

STATEMENT OF COL. GEORGE R. GOETHALS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHIEF, CIVIL WORKS DIVISION; OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

Senator OVERTON. Suppose you take up this Sevier River now, in Utah. Can you do that now, so we can finish it, as long as we are started on it?

Colonel GOETHALS. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, the report on the Sevier River at Redmond, Utah, is contained in House Document 614, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, under provisions of Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938. The map now under display, Senator, is orientated in such fashion that north is almost to the right of the map rather than in the usual form of orientation. The river flows nearly northerly for most of its course, rising in the mountains of southern Utah, and flowing 240 miles in a general northerly course, thence making a hook and winding up in a southwesterly course of 85 miles, finally emptying into Sevier Lake, which has no outlet.

The principal tributary, the San Pitch River, enters from the east 12 miles below Redmond.. The section of Sevier River Valley under consideration in this report extends from the crossing of U. S. Highway