Mr. POAGE. We are not saying that it interferes with it. We are only asking that it proceed as it is recommended that it proceed. We all want this dam. We all know that our economic life is depend ent on this dam. Mr. Chairman, I represent the territory on down below that. Even that territory 10 years ago was one of the most productive territories in central Texas. That Little River bottom has today gone to Johnson grass. We have had as many as five overflows a year down in Milam County on this Little River. This is the Little River [indicating on map]. This is the main stream of the Brazos, the largest stream in Texas. This is the Little River and this is the Leon [indicating]. Now, if you will notice, it is nothing in the world but a name. This is one stream from these headwaters to where it comes into the Brazos River. There is no change in the situation simply because you come to Three Forks. That we call the Little River from this point on to the main Brazos, but that territory is one of the largest valleys in Texas. It must be 80 or 90 river miles; is it not? Colonel FERINGA. I think so, Mr. Congressman. Mr. POAGE. That territory is one of the richest in all Texas. It overflowed-I don't remember a year in the last 7 or 8 that they have not had at least one overflow and generally more than one. We are not contending that the flood-control benefits are to be confined to the valley that is called the Leon. We are contending that the flood-control benefits are primarily in the valley that is called the Little River and substantially in the valley that is called the Brazos, from here on down, because I have seen floods when the main stream of the Brazos, which also rises in an arid country, had no flood whatsoever there, but this Leon-Little River developed such a flood as to put the Brazos River out of its banks from this point to the Gulf, and to overflow the entire area down there, flowing on down by Hempstead and on down by Richmond, so the benefits of this dam go clear on down to the Gulf of Mexico. The water does not cease to flow because we change the name. I want to call attention to another thing, and it sounds incredible, but I am sure that the engineers will verify it. In the great flood of 1921 on the Little River there was more than one-third as much water passed Cameron, Tex., as ever flowed down the Mississippi at one time. Now, that situation seems incredible, but that is the flood situation we are facing, and there has not been one single dollar of Federal money ever spent to correct that flood situation, not one. We have no protection. But some 11 years ago we got a resolution through this Congress to begin investigating this Brazos River territory, of which this is one of the biggest dams. Our State had been working on it a few years before. But you know States cannot carry these things. The State of Texas created the Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation District, the first district in the United States ever created to include the whole drainage basin of a river from the sea to its headwaters. That agency also decided on conservation and decided on a site right at this point [indicating], but they did not have any money to effectuate it. They decided it would be well to give consideration to this Little River Valley as well as the Leon. So we feel that we have got a situation that involves a great territory down there. Now, to tell us that we should be denied any relief until perchance it is decided what might be done on these upper reaches—if I might suggest, Mr. Chairman, it would be comparative with telling the people of Louisiana or the people of Arkansas that nothing should be done on the Mississippi until we have surveyed every creek that flows into the Monongahela, or every creek that flows into the Yellowstone. Certainly, when we reach the state of perfection we may want to know just how much water we may expect to come down the Rosebud up here in Wyoming in order to know just how high the levee should be along Memphis or West Memphis, but we could get that information, and we do know that we have got a very valuable territory that is being flooded every year. Senator MCCLELLAN. Congressman, if I may interrupt, what is your reaction to the suggestion that the construction of this dam as now proposed might interfere in some what with the proper upstream development? Mr. POAGE. I canont say that it will interfere whatsoever, Senator. The only way that it could interfere, of course, is if it were possible to establish a dam, say, up at Eastland, toward the headwaters of this stream. Eastland is right here [indicating on map], and, as I pointed out, I contend some familiarity with that town because that is where I was married. Suppose you put a dam at Eastland. They have a dry territory up there. If you could show that you could impound a substantial amount of water up there, you could relieve the amount of water that it is necessary to impound up here [indicating]. But the point that it seems to me has been overlooked here is that that is an area of deficient rainfall. It is only occasionally that you get sufficient rainfall out there to create enough water to materially affect the river down here [indicating]. You get most of your rainfall in here [indicating]. All of you who are familiar with that western country know that there is a rather sharp line of demarcation between the territory that gets the storms and the territory that gets the kind of weather that you get, Senator. Senator GOSSETT. What is the river mileage down there to your reservoir? Mr. POAGE. The river mileage, I suppose, would be over 300. The actual distance would be around 70 or 80 miles straightaway. Colonel FERINGA. This is about 250 here. It would be about 300. up here [indicating on map]. Mr. POAGE. It would be roughly 300 in river-miles. Senator GoSSETT. Roughly over 150? Mr. POAGE. Yes, sir. I would say it was about 180 by air line. Senator MCCLELLAN. Just one other point that would help clear up the objection on the part of the Department of the Interior. I can see how they would say, "Well, all you are saying is true. If that dam was built it would do what you expect, and it ought to be built, or at least comparable benefits ought to be provided that this dam will provide," but they say, "If you build this dam and spend that money on it and effectuate the flood control that it affords, then when we go to consider a project, a multiple-purpose project, upstream for irrigation and flood control, the flood control has already been provided for and they cannot take flood control into account to give economic justification for the multiple-purpose project, or the irrigation project standing alone cannot be economically justified." Now, that is their problem upstream. Mr. POAGE. That is their problem, Senator. I think you have described it accurately. The same problem existed on the Red River. They built one dam here, and it is not sufficient, as we know, to protect things downstream, but every dam you build on the Red River east of Denison obviously reduces the possibility, just as this does, of bringing dams out here on the Prairie Dog Fork or North Fork near Altus, Okla., or out near Canyon, Tex., or anywhere out there for irrigation, and yet we feel that we are in the same situation in which you gentlemen's States are, that we need not be penalized in order to carry an irrigation project somewhere on the western reaches of the stream. We happen to live in that unhappy territory where we cross that line between the arid and the humid sections of the United States, and onr problems are different, and we recognize that our problems are different. But again I think it is so clear, the situation is, that you could not have built a levee on the Mississippi River had you applied this principle. Had you had to wait until you know what amount of water is to be impounded on every tributary, you simply would not build them. All we are asking for is action now. We feel that we have gone a long time. The Army engineers worked on this thing just prior to the war and we were just about ready to make a report on this thing when the war came along, and we all know what happened. Then, when things eased up a little bit, we went before the committee in the House and asked for a special resolution to bring in a report on this, and General Robbins suggested that it would not be necessary to prepare a report; they would bring it in. As I stated before, we have no criticism of anybody involved, but we do pray this committee that you allow us to go ahead with the construction of this reservoir, and as the program unfolds we have no objection to giving these people out here our sympathy. My own personal property is in this arid area. I have no hostility toward them, but don't let that be used as a means of preventing these people from getting flood protection down on the Little River and the Brazos River in Texas. It is a tragic situation. Those of you who are familiar with the flood control of these streams know that it is vitally necessary. That country will again be a fertile and productive area, without any shadow of a doubt, if we remove the curse of these recurring floods. Now, the engineers have told us that in any comprehensive program they must store water on the Leon. There is not any way of giving adequate protection to the lower part without a substantial storage such as they have provided here on the Leon, and let us call your attention to the fact that we are not trying to build something in here under the cover of some other name. We are coming in here under a flood-control project. We are coming in here because people drown every year down there in the Little River. They are not simply rescued sometimes. There have been over 300 drowned in this Little River and in the Brazos River on down to the Gulf. We are talking about the worst flood situation in Texas, in regard to which the Federal Government has not done anything in recent years. I appreciate very much the courtesy you gentlemen have shown, and if there are any questions, I will be glad to answer them. Senator OVERTON. I am sorry, Mr. Poage, that I had to be away attending a conference on the Navy Department appropriation bill, and I have just come in and I have not been able to follow this, but I will get at the bottom of it before we act on it. Mr. POAGE. Thank you, all. (Discussion off the record.) FURTHER STATEMENT OF J. W. DIXON, DIRECTOR, BRANCH OF PROJECT PLANNING, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. DIXON. May I correct the record on one thing? Colonel Feringa indicated that the position of the Department of the Interior was the same on the Red River as on the Leon, substantially the same. Colonel FERINGA. I was referring to the suggestion that that project be delayed until the final report came in. Mr. DIXON. We did not recommend that the Red River projects be not authorized. I would like the record to show that, Mr. Chairman, because, as you know, Mr. Straus reiterated that in the opening statement which he made to this committee the other day. Senator OVERTON. He said he had no objection to the Red River? Mr. DIXON. That is right. This next item, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the Canton floodcontrol project on the Arkansas River. That project was under construction at the outbreak of the war, and it has for many years been a part of the dreams and plans of the local people, to have this project in combination with an irrigation project of the same name. Plans for the irrigation project are now nearing completion by the Bureau of Reclamation. The plan provides for water supply from the Canton Dam by means of a diversion dam to be built by the Bureau of Reclamation on the North Canadian River about 15 miles below the Army's Canton Reservoir. The irrigation water would be taken from this diversion dam through a main canal 44 miles long and into the distribution system, to provide an irrigation water supply to about 18,000 acres of fertile land. The irrigation project is within 55 miles of Oklahoma City, in Blaine and Canadian Counties. The success or failure of this project depends upon the provision of 69,000 acrefeet of storage capacity in Canton Reservoir to provide the needed water supply. The Corps of Engineers has been cooperating with the Department of the Interior in endeavoring to make such a supply available. I might add further that the Corps of Engineers has, if I am correctly informed, provided for the necessary outlet works in Canton Dam. The Bureau of Reclamation has recommended that storage in Canton Reservoir be allocated in such way as to include the 69,000 acrefeet for the irrigation water supply. In a letter dated April 12, 1945, from Mr. Don McBride, chairman of the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, to the Chief of Engineers, he stated that storage in the Canton Reservoir should be provided for the Canton irrigation project lands. He indicated that an irrigation district was in the process of organization. He stated further that the 40,000 acre-feet of storage allocated in the Army report for pollution abatement, and such other conservation storage as needed, should be allocated to irrigation of the Canton project lands. Mr. McBride, in his letter, called attention to the resolution of the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, dated August 14, 1942, which clearly indicates that the need for this storage has been recognized over a period of years and is well understood. The resolution states: Further, it is the decision of the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board pertaining to the use of waters of the North Canadian River that irrigation shall have a superior right over the use of waters for dilution of pollution. Further, it is the decision of the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board that the plans of the United States Army engineers for the control of floods on the North Canadian River above Oklahoma City, the Department of Agriculture for water-flow retardation, and the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior for irrigation development, are adopted as the State plan for the development of the water resources of the North Canadian River. It is in this connection, and after conferences with the Office of the Chief of Engineers, that we recommend the insertion of an amending statement in the Arkansas River Basin item at the end of line 6, page 16. I think the present item covers only an increase in the monetary authorization for the work on the Arkansas Basin. Senator MCCLELLAN. That is a suggested amendment? Mr. DIXON. This amendment, and I would like to say before I read it, that in our conferences with Colonel Feringa and others in the Office of the Chief of Engineers, they have quite properly taken the position that they wanted to meet our objective but at the same time protect adequately and fully their responsibility in connection with the Canton Reservoir. Hence, this proposed amendment contains the language that Colonel Feringa recommended to achieve that purpose. I can give you a copy of the amendment so that you can see it while I read it, Mr. Chairman. I have only one more copy here. Insert at end of line 6, page 16: The Chief of Engineers is authorized to provide in the Canton Reservoir on the North Canadian River 69,000 acre-feet of irrigation storage, upon the condition that when siltation of the reservoir shall encroach upon the flood-control allocation, the irrigation storage will be reduced progressively unless provision is made to raise the height of the dam or otherwise provide compensatory storage for flood control on the basis of an equitable distributin of the costs among the water users and other beneficiaries of conservation storage, as determined at that time. We urge very strongly that the committee give favorable consideration to the inclusion of this amendment. Senator MCCLELLAN. I see no objection to it. Senator OVERTON. Neither do I, unless we make it much shorter. The flood-control storage will not be varied, but when siltation occurs, the flood-control allocation ought to be varied. Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dixon showed that to me yesterday afternoon, although he spoke to some of our people about it, as I was very anxious to see that flood-control storage should not be encroached upon. I am probably guilty of some of that wordage. I can see no objection to the amendment as developed. Mr. DIXON. The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is what we are concerned with. The language is incidental. |