Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. MATTHIAS. We want to take a second to thank the chairman and the committee for the people who came down to the Red River and made a personal inspection of our problems last fall. We wist that all of you could come and see at firsthand what our problems are We are deeply appreciative of past favors of this committee and wi thank you for the generous allotment of time given us. That con cludes our statement.

Mr. ALBERT. May I have permission to revise and extend my remarks regarding the Broken Bow and Pine Creek Reservoirs.

Mr. CANNON. You may make that insertion when the transcript comes to you, and you may do it also, Mr. Harris, the distinguished gentlemen from Arkansas.

Mr. MATTHIAS. We have a letter here from the Governor of Oklahoma that I would like to have included in the record.

Mr. CANNON. It will be included at this point. (The letter referred to follows:)

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS,

Oklahoma City, April 4, 1960. Hon. MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations, House of Representatives.

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE : Since it is impossible for me to appear before your committee personally in support of the Broken Bow protect, located in McCurtain County, Okla, on Mountain Fork River, a tributary of Little River, Red River Basin, I am designating Dr. Lloyd E. Church, vice chairman of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, to present this statement for me to your committee.

The Broken Bow project is a very meritorious project and is urgently needed for flood control, municipal and industrial water supplies, fish and wildlife, and 3.7 recreational benefits. I urgently request that your committee make sufficient funds available in this session of the Congress to initiate construction.

Further, I call your attention to a resolution adopted by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board on January 12, 1960, which will also be presented to your committee by Dr. Church, wherein the State of Oklahoma pledges its cooperation in the project for the inclusion of municipal and industrial water supply storage 301 as provided by title III, Public Law 85-500, 85th Congress.

I will greatly appreciate any courtesies shown Dr. Church and the members of the delegation representing the Broken Bow project. Sincerely,

J. HOWARD EDMONDSON,

Governor.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE RED RIVER

Mr. BROOKS. I would like to say that I am very much interested in the development of the Red River. I am not going to take up much time of this committee but would like to present a statement backing up the request of those from Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma with reference to their needs.

I want to thank you and the members of your subcommittee for the fine courtesies you have extended to me over the years. Yearly I have been appearing before this committee with recommendations for the developing of Red River and I have always found this group very considerate of

my views. This year, for the Louisiana portion of the Red River, we are not asking for any real large amounts. It is true that we are vitally interested in bank stabilization for the entire Red River below Denison and we need $1 million for this purpose. The Engineers have been

49

most effective in their work in stabilization of a very limited portion of the river and additional sums of money will be well spent in preserving valuable property in the Red River Valley and protecting lives from loss by its savage floods which we have known in the past.

We are also interested in obtaining funds for a survey for Bodcau, Red Chute and Loggy Bayous, La. The sum of $39,000 is needed for this purpose. The Red River pollution abatement study will require $150,000 and these funds should be granted.

Again I want to say that I am supporting developments in the apper portions of the river including those in Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas. The final analysis is that the Red River Valley is one basin and should be treated on that basis. Each portion of the valley is interested in proper flood control and river development. With this in mind I ask that the committee give most attentive consideration to the request from this valley and consider assistance in stabilizing the Red River, thus preventing

damages from floods, overflows and swollen streams.

Again, let me thank the members of the committee for their courtesies.

MONDAY, APRIL 4, 1960.

St. LOUIS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

WITNESSES

HON. FRANK KARSTEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF MISSOURI JOHN H. POELKER, COMPTROLLER, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO. V. C. HANNA, CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE TERMINAL RAILROAD

ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS R. C. MARQUART, INDUSTRIAL REPRESENTATIVE, CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE OF METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS JOSEPH COUSIN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, TREASURER, BUILDING

AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 1. L. COLWELL, RALSTON PURINA CO., ST. LOUIS MORTON MEYER, PRESIDENT, ST. LOUIS FLOOD CONTROL ASSO

CIATION Mr. CANNON. We will now hear from our colleague, Mr. Karsten. Mr. KARSTEN. I am Frank Karsten, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri. It is always a pleasant experience to visit this Committee on Appropriations, but it is doubly so this morning. I appear not only on my own behalf, but in lieu of our colleague, Mrs. Sullivan, for whom this time had been granted and this hearing arranged to hear representatives of the St. Louis Flood Control Association and other civic leaders and labor leaders from St. Louis.

Mr. Cannon. We are always glad to hear Congressman Karsten because upon him and his committee devolves the responsibility of providing all the money that this committee proposes to spend. Mr. KARSTEN. I might say to the gentleman that he has considerably lightened the load. In this case, however, funds for the St.

Louis floodwall are included in the current budget and additio, revenues to finance the work are not needed.

Rather than trespass upon the committee's time, I should like have the committee hear these distinguished witnesses who have co from St. Louis.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN POELKER

First, I will call upon Mr. John Poelker, the comptroller of t! city of St. Louis, representing the city of St. Louis.

Mr. POELKER. First of all, I would like to express the regrets o Mayor Raymond R. Tucker, who was unable to accompany us, and add his appreciation to ours for this opportunity of appearing in be half of the St. Louis flood protection project.

We need not review the history of this project, which is now unde construction and proceeding in accordance with the Corps of Eng neers timetable. The $6,250,000 included in the 1960–61 fiscal yea budget is based on a construction timetable that will be met.

The city of St. Louis is prepared to meet its obligations in th furtherance of this project as was evidenced by the bond issue of $7, 547,000, approved by the voters in 1955.

Further, in accordance with the memorandum of understanding with the Corps of Engineers, city representatives meet regularly with representatives of the Corps of Engineers to coordinate planning, site acquisition, construction, design utility relocations, alternations, and removals. In order to expedite this work, the city has employed outside legal, engineering, and appraisal firms.

The various phases of the city's responsibility for acquiring rightof-way, relocating utilities, and providing the necessary legal assurances have kept pace with the construction and design planning of the Corps of Engineers. We are prepared to continue this coordination so that construction can be accomplished in accordance with the Corps of Engineers timetable.

In view of this progress and our ability to work so closely and effectively with the Corps of Engineers, we earnestly ask that your committee retain the $6,250,000 in the proposed budget for fiscal 1961.

Mr. KARSTEN. Next, I would like to call Mr. V. C. Hanna, chief engineer of the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.

STATEMENT OF MR. V. C. HANNA

Mr. HANNA. As chief engineer of the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, and as an officer of the St. Louis Flood Control Association, it has been my privilege during the past 7 years to represent the general interests of the terminal and those of its proprietary lines that are vitally concerned with flood damage on the west bank of the Mississippi River in St. Louis, the only major city on the great river without protection of any kind. I am submitting a prepared statement but would like to take a moment to refresh your memory on general salient points.

St. Louis, the great transportation gateway to the South, Southwest and West is the second largest railroad center in America. The extent of terminal's operations, and its vital position in the of the metropolitan area, is evidenced by the fact that it interchanges 7,000 to 9,000 freight cars with 22 railroads and 2 barge lines every 24 hours, handles 326,000 loaded and empty cars for the 322 industries

economy

it serves on the west bank of the Mississippi River and all passenger trains entering St. Louis from all points of the compass.

It may be noted from the attached map that a large portion of the main line and yard operations of terminal north of the Eads Bridge, including freight yards, shop facilities and many buildings, and similar facilities of the C.B. & Q., M.K. & T. Rock Island and Tabash Railroads, are completely within the reach 3 flood area. All of these tracks and properties would be inundated at 52-foot gage to depths varying from 7 to 22 feet. The Merchants Bridge, terminal's lifeline over the Mississippi River would be out of service due to floodwaters orer its west approach tracks as well as the city-owned MacArthur Bridge for the same reason. This loss with resulting congestion would reduce rail traffic over the river to such a minimum that crippling embargoes would seriously curtail movement of perishable products priority freight and defense equipment and materials.

The staggering amount of 250 miles of main lines and yard trackage would be under water at a 52-foot gage with depths of 22 feet near the Eads Bridge; 16 feet over Pike freight yard, and important freight yards at Mound and Tyler Streets; 12 feet over main line, yard tracks, and shop buildings at Bremen Avenue; and 8 feet over Harlem freight yard and car shops at Carrie Avenue. Such depths of swift water over this large area in reach 3 extending 7 miles from the Eads Bridge to Maline Creek would result in devastating damage to tracks, structures, and equipment of all the concerned railroads. Extensive damage in this area has occurred several times in the past with a stage of only 40 feet.

Of great importance from the railroad point of view, often overlooked, is the length of time required for a recession of the floodwaters from a 32-foot gage. It has been rather definitely determined that in this erent the duration of flooding at this gage would vary from 14 to 80 days depending upon the depth of inundation at å given location, the average in reach 3 being approximately 45 days. Over this long period of time physical damage would be greatly increased, a large segment of railroad employees, as well as industrial workers, would suffer severe loss in wages and railroad revenues would be drastically reduced due to embargoes and interruption in service. A careful survey and evaluation of the disastrous effect of a 52-foot flood indicates that terminal alone would suffer $2,900,000 damage in reach 3. For all the railroads in this area this figure might well amount to and even exceed $10 to $15 million.

The inundation of the entire railroad and industrial area on the west bank of the Mississippi at St. Louis for an extended period at 52-foot gage, involving the loss of a large portion of our most important yards, main lines and other facilities within our city; the elimination of traffic over the Merchants Bridge; the extended unemployment of large numbers of our citizens; due to the interruption of railroad service due to crippling embargoes; the complete stoppage of production by many vital industries; the necessity for curtailment of future expenditures for improvement purposes, due to the monetary loss from flood damage and the far-reaching and mushrooming effect of loss sustained by allied business interests, would be indeed a major catastrophe for Metropolitan St. Louis that would have a disastrous effect upon the economy of the entire community and the welfare of our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, a major flood at St. Louis is long overdue. Th Mississippi is above flood stage at St. Louis at this very hour. La cated at the confluence of the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers w are particularly vulnerable and utterly defenseless. We must keep construction moving forward at top speed in order to complete withi the earliest possible time the levees and floodwalls that will provide the city of St. Louis, its citizens, and its industries and railroads with adequate protection from the ever-recurring floods that have ravaged our riverfront area with devastating effect for more than a hundred years.

We extend to you and your distinguished colleagues our sincere appreciation for the sympathetic support of your subcommittee year after year and to the Congress for its generous appropriations that has made flood protection for St. Louis

a reality instead of a dream. The railroad in St. Louis urgently solicit your support and approval of the full amount of $6,250,000 now included in the budget for the fiscal year 1961, which we are assured by the Corps of Engineers is required to maintain maximum construction progress on the Reach 3 project at St. Louis during that period.

Thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF MR. R. C. MARQUART

Mr. KARSTEN. I would like now to call Mr. Marquart, industrial representative of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis.

Mr. MARQUART. As industrial representative of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, it has been my pleasure

since 1948, to supply staff services for our affiliate, the St. Louis Flood Control Association.

The need for and the economic justification of the St. Louis flood control project has been documented at previous hearings which lead to congressional approval, and in 1959 the actual start of construction,

Appended to this statement is a series of quotations from testimony given by Aloys P. Kaufmann, president, Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, before the Public Works and Appropriation Committees in prior years and a brief chronology of the St. Louis flood control project.

The fiscal 1961 budget recommends an appropriation of $6,250,000 for the St. Louis flood control project and it is our belief that at least this amount will be necessary to carry on construction in an economical manner to achieve a reasonable completion date at a minimal total cost.

APPENDIX I

QUOTATIONS FROM TESTIMONY BY ALOYS P. KAUFMANN IN PRIOR YEARS BEFORE

PUBLIC WORKS AND APPROPRIATION COMMITTEES

YEAR 1956

The Kansas City flood of 1951 caused physical and economic damage estimated at upwards of $1 billion. It is reasonable to assume, because of the greater size and population of our city, that a flood of the same proportions in St. Louis would cause at least as much damage and possibly more.

Another point to be noted is that St. Louis, although the largest city in the Mississippi Valley, is the only major city on the Mississippi lacking flood protection. Certainly this is a situation begging for correction.

« PreviousContinue »