We question the need of water for the 26 towns and they have set up an annual benefit of $175,000.

Mr. CANNON. Do those local towns propose to compensate the Government for the money spent?

Mr. MEYER. Yes, but we doubt if any of these towns will buy water from the Carlyle Lake.

Mr. CANNON. There is no assurance that they will accept water and pay for it?

Mr. MEYER. There is no assurance. We want to make a survey to see how many of these towns actually need this water.

We have over 500 reservoirs in the State of Illinois, and hundreds of farm ponds. It would seem a paradox that we spend millions of dollars in the West to irrigate land, when in Illinois we are planning on spending millions to cover up some of the best land in Illinois and take it out of production. To some of us it does not seem reasonable.

Mr. EVINS. Will the gentleman yield?

It is your position the matter should be delayed and you are opposing the project and speaking for the landowners at this time?

Mr. MEYER. Yes. For most people in general recreation seems to be the most important thing, but there are many lakes and recreational places within a few hours' drive from Carlyle. These lakes are already built. Recreation is just incidental to these projects. They must have a more important function than that. Navigation and flood control, I believe, are the primary things we base them on. These projects must have a more important function than just recre

ation.

On Crab Orchard Lake on Big Muddy I have a statement that no immediate or direct financial return should be expected from dam construction. It says serious study should be given to soil treatment and better land use.

The soil erosion program gave promise of valuable results as far as industry and water supply for focal needs. Crab Orchard, about one-fourth the size of Carlyle Lake, has already been built, and after 20 years they are only using about one-third of the potential water supply.

Some of us doubt the soundness of these programs and we doubt the necessity of them. We believe they become a liability sometimes in place of an asset.

Carlyle depends upon Shelbyville for 534 percent of its benefits. Carlyle should stand alone on its own feet. Shelbyville local interests should contribute about one-third of costs. I am not questioning anybody, but I do not think this has been guaranteed.

People in Carlyle and Shelbyville are becoming more aware of the losses which will be incurred in this whole area. We are holding meetings to see what can be done, and the farmers are getting more aware of the consequences which follow after these things are started. Today we are pointing out just a few of the things that these projects present.

What we would request you to do would be to defer this appropriation of $3.5 billion for Carlyle, which will be used mostly for the purchase of land, and the $250,000 for Shelbyville, which will be used for surveys, until further study can be made of land values and the benefit-cost ratio of this whole program.

I am sure you can give other deserving and noncontroversial pro ects for which there is an urgent need for this money. You can hel them and you can help us by shifting these funds to other projec where they will do more good.

I want to thank you for your courtesy and consideration.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you.

The papers you have submitted will be made a part of the recor at this point.

(The papers follow:)

FLOOD CONTROL KASKASKIA RIVER VALLEY

Statement of the Central Illinois Watershed Association in opposition to t proposed flood control project of the Kaskaskia River Valley

Benefits and cost benefits are figured on the following items:

The cos

1. Local flood control.-We flood more than we partially protect. of protecting land is aproximately $1,000 per acre. We do not control flood above the dam in any of the upper watersheds. The only local flood control partial protection of land below the dam. The project usually raises the wate table below dam during crop season thus hindering farmers from raising a cro in low bottom lands.

2. Flood, navigation-middle and lower Mississippi.-Annual benefits hav been estimated, but floods do not occur every year. If the lakes are built, how much will it lower the water level in middle and lower Mississippi during time of floods? By conservation measures the small watershed plan, water is kep on the land and out of the main stream-thus the threat of flood downstream i lessened.

3. Water supply. It is questionable whether or not surrounding towns wil depend upon these lakes for their water supply. Many have their own lake and reservoirs, so before we set annual benefits of $175,000 for Carlyle, perhap a survey should be made of local water needs.

We know that water is an important factor to industry, but industry usually locates where labor, capital, and local interest blend together for its develop ment. Towns with adequate water supply do not always attract industry becaus of many other factors to be considered. So having a large lake doesn't assur any given area that industrial plants will locate there.

› Pollution is always a problem in lakes or small rivers. So industrial plants usually locate on larger streams or near the seaboard.

4. Fish and wildlife benefits are closely connected with recreation.-In the final analysis, recreational values seem to be the most important in these proj ects. People living in this area are within a few hours drive of any number of lakes with a natural setting and a rugged shoreline. These lakes are not over crowded. According to our Federal laws appropriations must be only for flood control or navigation and not merely for recreational purposes. These are purely incidentals-they must have a more important function.

Many question the necessity and economic soundness of these big projects. The cost-benefits ratio of Carlyle is extremely low-the ratio being 1.1 to 1. If any of the so-called benefits are not on a sound basis and their worth has not been proven the projects become a liability to taxpayers instead of a benefit.

How about the cost now and at the time the contracts are made? In the past 2 years the cost of Carlyle projects have gone up $81⁄2 million. Benefits do not necessarily go up with costs. In the past, money for such projects have been borrowed and thus it becomes deficit spending.

How about the losses incurred when levees, roads, cemeteries, pipelines, and even perhaps towns must be moved?

How about the estimated cost for relocation of railroads and cost of making the annual $500,000 of oil from Boulder field accessible?

What about the farmlands that are destroyed and flooded by the lakes and the loss of agricultural and mineral wealth to the community? Geologists say potential oil resources have not been scratched in this area.

The estimated cost of this project is over $70 million on the basis of 1958 costs. There is a possibility that before contracts are let these costs might be increased greatly. Perhaps a small amount of this money could be spent more wisely on the small watershed plan. This plan raises the water table during times of scarcity and conserves water during times of abundance or floods. It saves millions in damages and actually creates new wealth. It does not flood more land than it protects. It does not remove large segments of our economy from free enterprise and place them in the hands of Federal Government. It creates no large permanent tax burden and it belongs to the people.

There are hundreds of examples of the small watershed in the United States. Their worth has been proven. There are three authorized and one approved in the Kaskaskia Valley. Unless the upper streams of the river valley are protected dams and levees downstream will be only of a temporary nature and a waste of

taxpayers' money.

The Carlyle and Shelbyville projects are closely tied together. Part of Carlyle benefits, 54 percent, depends upon Shelbyville Lake. Local interest or State taxpayers are required to contribute approximately one-third, or $9 million, for the Shelbyville project. This has not been guaranteed. The Carlyle benefits alone do not seem sufficient to justify its construction.

Land and relocations have increased $5 million in the past 2 years. Many of the landowners believe present offers are far below actual values, but if these offers were increased on the remaining 50,000 acres to be acquired, this increase would obviously be reflected in the increased cost of the project. Why should landowners be forced to incure these losses on a project of such controversial Talue? Who will reimburse these landowners when their property is taken at an unfair price? At the present time a group of landowners are asking for an investigation of land values.

The proponents of this program say that in these big projects water can be more cheaply impounded per unit acres in large lakes rather than in small ponds er reservoirs. This is true, but is there a need to build the biggest manmade lake in Illinois and impound huge quantities of water? Our problem is to conserve our soil and water resources in the entire valley. This we believe can be done more economically and with greater benefit by soil and water conservation programs.

A request is being made for a $3 million appropriation this year. We, the opposition, ask that the committee review and reconsider all factors discussed In this report, especially the cost-bentfit ratio, before allowing this appropriation to be made.

CENTRAL ILLINOIS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1960.

SALAMONIE, MISSISSINEWA, AND HUNTINGTON FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, AND SO FORTH

WITNESSES

HON. VANCE HARTKE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA HON. J. EDWARD ROUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

HON. RAY J. MADDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

HON. JOSEPH W. BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

HON. RANDALL S. HARMON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

HON. A. ROSS ADAIR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

HON. JOHN BRADEMAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF INDIANA

J. ROY DEE, PRESIDENT, WABASH VALLEY ASSOCIATION
GEORGE GETTINGER, SECRETARY, WABASH VALLEY ASSOCIATION
C. E. LLOYD-JONES, LOGANSPORT, IND.

HON. ROBERT MITTEN, MAYOR, WABASH, IND.

RALPH SHERPING, WABASH, IND.

HENRY WALTER, WABASH, IND.

HON. ROBERT AMBLER, MAYOR, HUNTINGTON, IND.
DEAN HALL, PERU, IND.

JOSEPH BECKER, PERU, IND.

RICHARD WAITE, PERU, IND.

JOSEPH H. PAYNE, PERU, IND.

RICHARD GRADY, PERU, IND.

HON. S. G. COX, MAYOR, PERU, IND.

CARLOS LIFE, PERU, IND.

ROBERT KELLUM, SECRETARY, INDIANA FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Roush, we are very glad to have you with us. Will you take charge of this hearing and introduce those with you. Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce the junior Senator from Indiana, Senator HARTKE.

Mr. CANNON. Senator Hartke, we will be glad to hear from you. Senator HARTKE. I am very delighted to be here. I have a statement which I would prefer to file for the record.

Mr. CANNON. It will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR VANCE HARTKE

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, guests, and fellow witnesses, I am Vance Hartke. I am from Evansville, Ind., a river city, and I think you probably know that I am very interested in seeing that Indiana and its citizens receive the proper protection from the annual ravages of floodwaters. Twice before I have come before you on this same problem-once as mayor of Evansville, when my remarks were aimed toward resumption of construction on the Evansville floodwall-and last year, when I appeared, it was as a U.S. Senator on behalf of the whole State of Indiana.

The Hoosier delegation in Congress has united in the past and will, I feel, unite this time on the need for the continuation of the planned program of flood protection in Indiana. During the last Congress, the 85th Congress, a serious delay was occasioned in our flood control program by the President's veto of H.R. 12080, an authorization bill which included the three reservoirs on the upper Wabash River and the one in southern Indiana known as the Monroe Reservoir. An orderly schedule, prepared several years ago by the Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission, called for the start of construction on two new reservoir projects immediately on completion of the Mansfield Reservoir. This reservoir, which is scheduled for completion previous to June 30, 1960, will leave no other major reservoir project under construction in Indiana. The two reservoirs originally on the schedule are the Salamonie, as the first of the three reservoir systems on the upper Wabash, and the Monroe, mentioned above.

The State commission's proposals for start of construction on Salamonie and Monroe were based on well-defined policies aimed at a steady advancement

of basinwide projects to reduce heavy flood losses and create sources of further water supplies to maximum degree as a benefit to Indiana and the entire Ohio River Valley. We therefore consider it imperative that the proper funds be made available in fiscal 1961 for the continuation of this program and a return to the original schedule.

Specifically, I would like to strongly urge this committee to insert into the budget of the sum of $495,000 to initiate construction on the Salamonie Reservoir. Unfortunately, there is presently only the very small sum of $56,000 for the continuation of advance engineering and design. I cannot state too strongly the Becessity for these funds if our State's program is to proceed with the speed made necessary by the damage suffered by our people from flooding. Local interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Peru, Ind., and the Congressman from the area, my good friend, J. Edward Roush, have endorsed this project with their unqualified support.

I would further like to point out that there are various other projects which are extremely important to the control of floodwaters in our State which have either been left out of the President's recommendations entirely or have been cut so badly that their usefulness during the coming fiscal year is seriously impaired. The first of these is the Monroe Reservoir. I would like to quote, if I may, from the joint letter that Senator Homer E. Capehart and I sent to Maurice Stans, Director, of the Bureau of the Budget, on February 17 of this year:

"It is also urgent that funds be appropriated to complete advance engineering and design and to initiate construction on the Monroe Reservoir * We have been advised by the Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission that the initial contract for the outlet works on the Monroe Reservoir will The approximately $1.2 million, and that according to Indiana law, in order to let such a contract, the money would have to be appropriated. In determining the tapability for fiscal 1961, perhaps the Corps of Engineers did not take this into consideration. Therefore, we are requesting the utilization of the balance of State funds already appropriated, aggregating approximately $900,000 be matched by the utilization of a like amount of Federal funds. The Indiana Flood Control and Water Resources Commission is also of the opinion that the full amount of the contract which would be let for the outlet works would not be spent in fiscal 1961, and that there would be a carry-forward to fiscal 1962, but that it would be necessary for the entire appropriation to be made in fiscal 1961 in order to comply with Indiana law.

"If sufficient funds are placed in the Federal budget for fiscal 1961, together with the available State funds to cover the above items mentioned on the Monroe, additional State funds can then be sought in the next Indiana General Assembly which will hold its 61-day session, starting in the first week of January 1961."

The fact that local interests are required to pay 54 percent of the total cost of this project should not be lost sight of in determining the rate of progress of Monroe. If the presently available State funds are not obligated by the time the general assembly meets they will not be inclined to appropriate further funds for fiscal years 1962 and 1963. Since this is the case (the legislature meeting biennially) a serious delay may be encountered. In any case, I hope the two Appropriations Committees will authorize and direct the Corps of Engineers to use State funds to the limit of its capacity during fiscal 1961. The Mason J. Niblack Levee has not been authorized any funds whatsoever in the President's recommendations. The Corps of Engineers has a capability in fiscal 1961 on this project of $300,000. I am in complete accord with this and strongly recommend that these funds be put into the budget so that construction can be initiated on this important levee. Without any funds it is my opinion that the planning funds provided for the current fiscal year will have been wasted.

The Sugar Creek Levee will be substantial bulwark against a repetition of the Estrous floods of last year. The capability of the corps on this project is $100,000 and I request that this amount be made available to them instead of the $15.000 presently in the budget.

Until yesterday there was some doubt about the continuation of the work on the Evansville floodwall. I am very happy to append to this statement a telegram that I have received from Mayor Frank F. McDonald informing me that the local problem has been solved and that the right-of-way is being secured. In view of this happy event, I urgently request that the full amount recommended by the President, $450,000, be appropriated for this important floodwall.