Before going on to the revised plan itself, I would like to summarize a few ighlights of our fund and contract situation, with particular reference to action y the Bureau of the Budget and hearings before the Senate Appropriations 'ommittee. Taking a long-range look, the main control plan of the Arkansas liver has had appropriated $122 million through fiscal year 1960. (This is, of ourse, not all the projects in the Arkansas Basin but just the multiple-purpose rouping of major projects for navigation and allied purposes.) The approved adget allowance for fiscal year 1961, on the basis of which I testified before the lenate Appropriations Committee, was $53 million. This amount is adequate ⚫ support optimum progress on the four reservoirs of the plan. Last year we hought a considerably larger sum would be necessary; the only reason it is not 3 that bids have ben running so much less than original estimates. For the Oologah Reservoir, the amount is $3,700,000. This $35,100,000 project s about 65 percent complete with most of the work under contract,

The budget allowance for the Keystone Reservoir is $17,400,000. This project s now well underway. The largest contract for the project, covering the spillvay and main part of the dam itself, was awarded in November for the excepionally low price of $16 million. This was one of the reasons we were able to educe the project estimate from $137 to $111 million during the year. Award ras made in January on about $2 million worth of State highway and bridge elocation work, and other contracts will soon be awarded for relocation of telehone, power, and pipe lines. The heavy schedule of relocation contract awards ill continue into the next fiscal year.

The budget allowance on the Eufala Reservoir is $20,700,000. The big conract on the spillway, power intake, and powerhouse substructure went for $14.7 illion, another excellent award. A contract for the first two sections of the sint relocation of U.S. Highway 69 and M-K-T Railroad was awarded on March 2 in the amount of $9.4 million. This relocation will include 26 million cubic ards of fill; so it will be several times as large as the dam itself. We have ade a reduction in the estimate of project cost from $157 million to $141 illion, and expect to reduce it even further next year.

For the Dardanelle Dam the budget recommendation is for $6,100,000. The rst major contract on this $94.6 million project is now about half completed. his was a $3 million job for the first part of the navigation lock and the mbankment of the north side. It is certainly welcome news to know that the rst navigation lock on the Arkansas is now solidly underway. The largest ontract on this dam, the overflow section, has been advertised and will be pened May 5. We expect the low bid to run somewhere on the general order f $10 million.

In summary, as far as the large reservoirs are concerned, we will have the rincipal contract on each of them awarded by the end of May; there has been further slippage on completion dates and we are definitely out of the woods. suggest you visit the site of any of these projects next summer when the big Contractors start rolling. You will find it extremely interesting.

The budget recommendation was for $5 million to continue bank stabilization, under the emergency program. It was apparent during the hearings before the Senate Appropriations Committee that not everyone considered the estrictions surrounding this emergency designation as appropriate and, in the face of engineering facts, I could not take issue with this view. I have again stified before the Senate committee on the savings in cost and engineering advantages of getting on with the bank protection program with completion of much as possible prior to 1964. We are making fair progress this year, with Be funds which are available.

Probably the signal accomplishments of the year lay in planning rather than Construction. As many of you know, the optimum program for completion of the main control plan, including navigation to the vicinity of Tulsa, requires a areful phasing of projects, with planning started on successive groups of projeets as projects under construction pass the peak stage of engineering effort. The next group of projects to be started in the program will consist of dams on the main stem of the Arkansas. However, planning of these individual structures could not be initiated until definite decisions were arrived at concerning the plan as a whole. We had two main problems, and they were worked on concurrently. The first was the route to be followed below Pine Bluff; and in this the action was taken through General Carter of the Lower Mississippi Valley Division and his Vicksburg District. As you have been told at a preious meeting, instead of the proposed North Bank Canal, which was bitterly 54265-60-pt. 4-20

opposed by the residents of the lower valley, we will follow the river route all the way to Arkansas Post, leaving the Arkansas River only for the last few miles. The difference in cost turned out to be much less than had been thought; particularly after we had found that we could leave out one dam on the river route. Consideration of the economic values of future valley development compensated for the remaining difference. All factors of comprehensive planning considered, this was clearly the best alternative, although it did cut into savings made elsewhere.

The remaining problem was one that had concerned me deeply ever since 1953 when I first became aware of it; it was how exactly we would maintain navigable depths through a series of locks and dams on a river such as the Arkansas. This river carries a tremendous natural sediment load, in fact about 100 million tons a year, past this city; and locks and dams have never been constructed on such a river. Even though we could cut off the main suspended sand load at Dardanelle, the river would reconstitute its load by bed scour so that, for many years at least, such loads would have to be passed. We knew the problem could be solved; but it had never been done before; and we did not know the best way to do it. I gave this problem first priority since the first day I arrived as Southwestern Division engineer in 1958. Since then we have made what may be called a system analysis of the Arkansas River and have come up with a perfected plan, based on a concept new to engineering science.

In order to make this system analysis, of such great importance and unprecedented nature, we had to get help. So, we constituted an advisory consulting board of eminent specialists consisting of Dr. L. G. Straub, Dr. H. A. Einstein, and Mr. D. C. Bondurant. However, their ideas had to be coordinated with those of the experienced engineers in our various offices, namely, my own office at Dallas, the Lower Mississippi Valley Division, the Tulsa District, the Vicksburg District, and the Little Rock District. Also, the U.S. Waterways Experiment Station soon came in the picture as we developed requirements for model studies. In the interests of coordination, we assigned the main burden for analytical approaches to the Little Rock District. Colonel Jacoby suddenly and mysteriously developed a great interest in esoteric branches of hydraulics which hitherto he had considered of minor interest. Mr. Jay Pyle, Mr. Madden, and others of the Little Rock office faced up to a tremendous load of work. We had to bring experts from the office, Chief of Engineers, down for conferences, because time did not permit formal submission and review of papers. I participated personally in all key discussions, to help remove roadblocks.

In the end, we arrived at a new concept and a new plan, and, to our great surprise, found that all of our experts and all the offices concerned agreed on it, both as to principle and as to detail.

In essence, the new concept is simply the spacing of dams further apart, with variable-width regulated channels between the dams, the width being calculated so as to provide equal sediment-carrying capacity throughout the entire length of the navigation pools. We will dredge out the upper end of each navigable pool; and the extra contraction of that part of the channel will be sufficient to keep that extra depth scoured out. Although the mathematics behind it is highly technical and involved, we have checked it, tested it in model studies, and are sure it is reliable. This new concept will produce quite simple practical results. We have been able to eliminate three previously planned locks and dams between Dardanelle and Arkansas Post. Pool levels will not have to be raised; in fact, 5,000 acres less land will be required than would have been taken by the previous system. With the entire main control plan in operation, including the upstream storage projects, significant reductions in flood heights will occur; for example, it is estimated that the maximum flood of record modified would have reached a crest of 28 feet at Little Rock with the plan in operation as compared to the maximum experienced of 33 feet. The navigation conditions will be improved by elimination of three lockages on every tow, and there will be a net construction savings on this account of $37 million. We had to work night and day to get all the new plans and estimates approved by the Chief of Engineers, so that I could testify at the hearings on the basis of a complete plan.

Now that these questions have been settled, we know exactly how many major structures we will need between the head of navigation at Catoosa and the mouth, namely 19, rather than 24 or some other larger numbers that had previously been considered (except that one of the dams above Dardanelle may possibly not be required). We know what type each will be, and approximately

where it will be located. We can aunounce locations, so that plans of local interests can be adjusted accordingly. Also, cooperative planning now underway concerning drainage and groundwater problems with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Agriculture can be continued on a firmer basis. Of course, the exact locations and pool elevations will still be subject to some change locally as a result of detailed planning and design of individual structures. From an engineering point of view, we are now ready to proceed with detailed planning of individual structures at such time as appropriations are made. Now that we have settled down on specific structures and locations, we are working on a revised numbering system which will simplify identification. While not firmly established, I will refer to a system of numbering beginning with No. 1 for the lock and dam nearest the Mississippi River and go serially upstream. The numbers are assigned to locks and pools in sequence and where there is a separate dam in conjunction with a lock it will bear the same number as the lock to which it is related.

The Vicksburg District has already provided information on the structures below Pine Bluff so I will not repeat that information at this time. The first structure above that point, lock and dam No. 5, is near mile 128, about 12 miles above the Jefferson County Free Bridge at Pine Bluff. The nominal elevation of the pool below is 196 feet above mean sea level and pool No. 5 is at elevation 213, giving a normal lift of 17 feet. Measured by river miles, pool No. 5 is 26.4 miles long. Lock and dam No. 6 is at mile 154.4, about 10 miles below the Main Street Bridge at Little Rock, is east and a little south of Sweet Home. The Little Rock pool or pool No. 6 will have a normal elevation of 229 feet above mean sea level. This is the equivalent of 5.4 feet on the Main Street river gage and is 1 or 2 feet below the river at today's stage. The Little Rock pool will extend on upstream from Main Street for around 6 miles to river mile 171.8 near the north edge of Cammack Village. Lock and dam No. 7 is at that point and pool No. 7 will have a normal elevation of 249 feet above mean sea level giving a lift of 20 feet. This pool is 28.7 miles long extending past Palarm and the mouth of the Fourche La Fave River on up to mile 200.5 in the vicinity of the Toad Suck Ferry. Lock and dam No. 8 at that point will provide a normal lift of 16 feet into a 24-mile-long pool with a normal elevation of 265 feet above mean sea level. Lock and dam No. 9 is about 2.5 miles above Morrilton and will have a normal lift of 21 feet. The elevation of pool No. 9 is 286 feet which is the nominal elevation of the tailwater from the Dardanelle Dam. The normal lift at the Dardanelle Lock will be 52 feet.

I will not at this time go into any details on the channel above this point; however, the appropriate district engineer will be glad to provide information throughout the length of the project and can give additional details to those with a more intense interest in the project.

We did not reduce the overall cost estimate of $1,201 million as a result of the project cost reductions I have been telling you about. We still have a long way to go, and the Engineering News Record of construction costs has been climbing 3 or 4 percent every year. There may be other contingencies which will come up-for example estimates on bank protection costs on the river below Pine Bluff have had to be increased as a result of experience in the flood last year. While indicating assured reductions on individual projects underway, we have escalated other unstarted projects upward conservatively. However, the net indicated savings appear sufficient that we have now set aside $45 million in general contingency reserve, over and above the cost for which we could surely Complete the program at present price levels. This represents a sounder basis and more conservative estimate than we had last year.

During the early days of my times as division engineer, I sometimes encountered thhe view that the corps need not be too hasty about the Arkansas; it was said that the appropriations to complete it on the early schedule would never be forthcoming. That I refused to accept. Our job, I said, is to get ahead, so that the engineering is ready for the optimum program. Any decision to reduce the optimum rate of progress is a matter to be decided in the usual manner between the people of the area, the administration, and the Congress, but in any event not to be due to the failure of the Corps of Engineers to complete the engineering on time. It has been a source of great pleasure and pride to me to have had the opportunity to guide the engineering of this great program through a critical period. I look forward to the day when the project will be complete, with navigation bringing ever increasing industry and commerce to the great Arkansas Basin.

Mr. NORRELL. The time is up. We have presented our case to you. I realize you have a terrible problem on your hands, but I believe and these people here believe that you and the other members of the committee will do your best for us. We want to thank you on behalf of all of us for the kind attention you have given us. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PILLION. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Pillion.

Mr. PILLION. On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our appreciation for the very fine, orderly presentation by Mr. Norrell. Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I say Mr. Norrell always makes that sort of presentation.

Mr. NORRELL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RABAUT. It is well to say in his presence that he is greatly admired.

Mr. NORRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1960.

BEAVER DAM

WITNESS

HON. J. W. TRIMBLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. RABAUT. Now, we shall hear from Representative Trimble. Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. These men who are leaving are on the Arkansas River, and that also cuts through my district. I am interested in that. However, you granted me this time on behalf of the Beaver project on the White River. The budget requested $2,800,000. I hope the committee can grant that request to initiate construction. I ask unanimous consent to file my statement.

Mr. RABAUT. Without objection, your statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. W. TRIMBLE, MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to make this statement in favor of construction funds for Beaver Dam on the White River in my district.

Preliminary construction work has already commenced on the project. The budget request for the coming fiscal year is for $2,800,000. This will enable the engineers to proceed as planned.

On behalf of the people in my area who are interested in the development of the White River I wish to express sincere appreciation to the committee for its consideration and help on this project. It is our earnest plea that the committee recommend the amount requested by the Budget Bureau.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I personally welcome Mr. Trimble for the subcommittee. He is one of nature's noblemen. Mr. EVINS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I do not know of any Member of Congress who has been more diligent in advocating his project than Mr. Trimble. He has certainly worked at it.

Mr. TRIMBLE. I am grateful for those statements. John, I hope you took note of that.

Mr. ELDRIDGE (John D. Eldridge, Augusta, Ark.). I did.

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1960.

DREDGING OPERATIONS ON WHITE RIVER, ARK.

WITNESS

JOHN D. ELDRIDGE, SECRETARY, WHITE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL AND NAVIGATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. RABAUT. You may proceed, Mr. Eldridge.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, my name is John D. Eldridge. I am a practicing attorney of Augusta, Ark., and am secretary of the White River Flood Control & Navigation Association. This association has authorized me to request that this committee consider the appropriation of sufficient funds to permit the Corps of Engineers to resume dredging and snagging operations on White River in Arkansas, as recommended in the report of the Mississippi Valley Association's resolutions committee dated February 8, 1960. I quote from that report, as follows:

We urge Congress to take the necessary steps to reestablish navigation on White River and to make the necessary funds available to the Corps of Engineers to complete, as rapidly as possible, their restudy on White River between Batesville and the mouth in Arkansas.

Mr. Chairman, by an act of July 13, 1892, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to maintain channel navigation in White River by snagging, dredging, and contraction work. This work was carried on regularly by the Corps of Engineers for a period of 50 years. The dredging operations were discontinued by the Corps of Engineers in 1942 because the corps considered that traffic on the river did not justify it. Snagging operations on White River, on a limited scale, were continued until 1951. Since that time no further appropriations have been made. I realize, of course, that most of you gentlemen have no personal knowledge of the potentialities of White River. Let me say, however, that this is one of the few major, clear, unpolluted, large streams now remaining in the United States. Because of the construction of several major multiple-purpose dams on White River and its tributaries, we now have in White River a major stream with a fairly constant flow in which silting is now reduced to a minimum. Many changes have occurred in the use of White River and the country which it traverses since dredging operations were discontinued in 1942, and even since the Corps of Engineers made its last study in 1956.

In 1942, for example, the average production of soybeans in the State of Arkansas was 1,139,000 bushels. This has grown almost unbelievably to a 1958 production of 49,600,000 bushels and to 56,700,000 bushels (estimated) in 1959. Arkansas now ranks third among the States in the production of soybeans, surpassed only by the States of Illinois and Iowa. Soybeans are peculiarly adaptable to transportation by barge, and commencing about 4 years ago granaries situated in towns on and near White River began to construct loading facili