Colonel GEE. It will result in no savings in the plan as such, but it will result in material savings to the people affected in the entire valley by reducing periods of flooding in that portion of the watershed which is subjected to backwater flooding, which we cannot correct, of course, by channel clearing or straightening.

Senator MCCLELLAN. The point I was trying to make, and I am not certain about this, I am only asking to get the record clear. Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, the over-all plan you estimate will cost so much.

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Now, you are going to modify that plan to some extent if this is authorized to do this improvement instead of some other as you have originally planned, or this would supplement the original plan?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Would that increase the total cost of the entire project?

I mean the low Mississippi project, or the St. Francis project, whichever one it comes in? Would that increase the cost by $4,000,000? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir; it will. The work done there will serve to increase the total cost of the project known as the lower Mississippi Valley.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is what I was trying to determine, whether it really increased it any or if this cost would be absorbed by change in plans.

Colonel GEE. It will increase it, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. To the full amount of the $4,000,000?

Colonel GEE. By the value of the work done at Federal expense. I might add at this point, however, that it should be borne in mind that the lower Mississippi Valley project to date has cost approximately half a billion dollars.

During that same period local interests have contributed almost an equal amount. And the emphasis, as I said before, has been put upon the main channel and the territory immediately adjoining the main channel of the Mississippi River in order to afford floodways capable of carrying off the floods of the major tributaries—the Ohio, upper Mississippi, and Missouri.

Senator MALONE. It may possibly be that is not the wrong way to go about it, because if all the tributaries had been improved first it would have choked the main channel and caused greater flooding.

Colonel GEE. That is correct, sir.

Senator MALONE. Now you are starting on the tributaries?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. However, I wanted to make clear that these residents of L'Anguille Valley have contributed through their State agencies to the building of State levees which, in the aggregate, total approximately $500,000,000 in the lower Mississippi Valley.

We are just now getting to the point of taking care of the tributaries. Senator MCCLELLAN. They have contributed by mortgaging, or selling bonds, and thus placing a tax on those lands in all that area. Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. And there are a lot of their bonds still outstanding in that whole area, the Mississippi Valley. That is correct, is it not?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, local interests are still paying and will continue to pay for years?

Colonel GEE. I think it is well to call the attention of the committee to this fact; that there will be more projects in the lower Mississippi Valley where flood control on the tributaries is involved, whereas in the past the emphasis has all been on the main stream.

Senator MALONE. Is not that becoming a little stronger policy of the Department now, following major improvements on the main stream to go further toward the headwaters?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir; it has been demonstrated that the main stream is carrying even record floods as was the case in 1947 without overflow into alluvial valley.

Senator MALONE. These drainage districts that empty into the main river have a headgate to prevent the backwaters running into the channel in the event the channel rises to the point where it would normally back up into the drainage channel?

Colonel GEE. I cannot answer your question, sir. I do not know. It would be my guess that they do not.

Senator MALONE. Does that complete your statement?

Colonel GEE. I wanted to say for the record at this point that we revised costs on this project, as on all others, in December 1947, and the revised figures show that the Federal cost is $5,100,000. The local contribution of $135,000 is for these rights- of-way, making a total cost of $5,235,000, with annual charges reestimated at $250,000.

Senator McClellan previously mentioned annual benefits of $600,000. Revised annual benefits are estimated at $800,000 and, when compared with the annual charges, indicate a favorable benefit-cost ratio of 3.2 to 1. In addition the consummation of the improvement also would permit development of woodlands, 160,000 acres, for agricultural use, but such benefits are not accepted as affecting the economic aspect in the near future.

Senator MALONE. That is much better than average benefit?
Colonel GEE. They are quite high; yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is some of the richest land in the valley right there, is it not?

Colonel GEE. If you could keep the water off.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I mean the land itself is very fertile and highly productive.

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MALONE. Does that complete your statement?

Colonel GEE. That is all I have unless there are further questions. Senator MALONE. Senator McClellan, do you have any further questions?

Senator MCCLELLAN. I do not believe I have any further questions except this: The economic justification of the project is thoroughly established. In other words, it has a very high ratio.

With regard to it being more or less emergency work, what do you say about that, Colonel, based upon the general situation in the lower Mississippi Valley?

Colonel GEE. In the light of statements recently made by the representatives of the Department of Agriculture, any project which comes up anywhere in the United States which serves to bring into agricultural production 160,000 additional acres of fertile land cer

tainly should be looked upon as a project of an emergency character in these times.

Senator MCCLELLAN. This whole area in there is being rapidly developed for agricultural purposes, that whole lower Mississippi Valley, and all the major tributary streams.

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I can say this as a matter of opinion to the committee: Once this project here is completely constructed, the whole valley there will just develop rapidly into productive areas.

Colonel GEE. The principal crop in the upper portion of the valley is rice, and the principal crop in the lower portion of the valley is

cotton.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is because it gets down nearer the Mississippi. That is all flat land up there that is easily irrigated. Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I believe that is all.

Senator MALONE. Any questions?

Senator CHAVEZ. No.

Senator MALONE. Senator Holland?

Senator HOLLAND. NO.

Senator MALONE. I think that is all on the L'Anguille, then. Senator MCCLELLAN. I have another matter I would like to take up, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MALONE. Different from this project?

Senator MCCLELLAN. Entirely different.

Senator MALONE. What is the additional matter you have?

Senator MCCLELLAN. An amendment to the bill as passed by the House in the first paragraph on page 10.

Senator MALONE. This is on H. R. 6419, which is the flood-control bill introduced by Mr. Dondero, chairman of the Committee on Public Works of the House.

The proposed amendment by Senator McClellan is shown on line 8 of page 10 of that bill.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is right.

This has to do with a condition that is brought about by development and improvements in the Arkansas River in the vicinity of Fort Smith, Ark., and also lower down the river at Morrilton, which necessitates the raising of two bridges.

The one bridge, I know, is on a Federal highway. That is the one between Van Buren and Fort Smith.

This bridge, a very large bridge, was originally constructed by local interests without any Federal contribution to it whatsoever.

In 1943, we had a major flood. I do not believe it washed away any part of the bridge but it washed away all of the approaches to the bridge. That was one of the largest floods, as I recall, in the history of the Arkansas River Basin.

It was necessary to expend between $400,000 and $500,000 on the approaches then to this Van Buren and Fort Smith Bridge. In other words, they built an escape area there. Instead of having a dump, which had all washed away, they had to build a concrete structure there to let the passage of the water through.

That was before some other flood-control levee developments were authorized and constructed.

Since then, certain improvements have been made, flood-control improvements, levees, sea walls, and some of them are under construction now.

It became necessary to raise the approaches to these bridges. The Federal Government, I believe, is actually raising the bridge. Is that correct, Colonel?

Colonel GEE. That is correct.

Senator MCCLELLAN. How much is it? Three feet?

Colonel GEE. Three and a fraction feet at Fort Smith-Van Buren Bridge.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is the one I am speaking about now.

The Federal Government is going to raise the bridge proper, but these approaches have to be raised, and I believe the estimated cost of raising the approaches is about $350,000 or $360,000.

Colonel GEE. $391,000 is the estimate of the State highway commission for the raising of the approaches.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Approximately $400,000.

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. There are some railroad bridges there that had to be raised, too.

Now, subsequent to this authorization and possibly the appropriation is made for the job, the Congress amended the law, I believe in 1946 act, to authorize the Federal Government to pay for the raising of the railroad bridges and the approaches thereto. Is that correct?. Colonel GEE. Section 3 of the 1946 act.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Section 3 of the 1946 act authorized that. Now, then, the highway department feels, and the local interests there feel that if the Federal Government is paying for the raising of the approaches to the railroad bridges, that, under the circumstances, the Federal Government should pay for the raising of the approaches to the highway bridges, bearing in mind that this bridge carries a water line that serves the city of Fort Smith and also Camp Chaffee. Camp Chaffee is being made a permanent camp. It is on the list of permanent camps. Is that correct, Colonel Gee?

Colonel GEE. That I could not say.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I am sure of that. It is in a standby position, and they have never declared it surplus, and it is one of the camps to be permanent.

Of course, if we pass this draft legislation and start this training program, it is anticipated this camp will be used.

In 1943, when this flood came, that camp and also the city of Fort Smith suffered tremendously there on account of the loss of their water supply.

An amendment was sponsored to this bill by Congressman Trimble over in the House. And after hearings, the subcommittee-I do not recall who the members were-did not recommend that anything be contributed to it from the Federal Government, But the full committee did authorize and place in the bill this amount of $200,000. That is for both bridges.

The estimated cost of raising the approaches on the one lower down the river is $180,000, I believe, according to my figures. What are they according to yours, Colonel?

Colonel GEE. $180,000, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. So it runs approximately $600,000, does it not, for the two jobs?

Colonel GEE. $571,000.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I have a notation here of $580,000-$571,000 or near $600,000.

Local interests, and when I speak of local interests I mean the cities of Van Buren and Fort Smith, of course cannot furnish that money. There is no way to provide the money to raise the highway.

So, they, of course, called on the highway department to do it. As some of you will recall, Arkansas, many years ago, bonded itself, and I am not defending it. It made some mistakes in the highway program and got into a situation for several years where it was unable to match Federal aid. We did not get our share of Federal aid because we could not match it.

All our revenues were obligated to the retirement of these bonds. We are getting back now to where we can match Federal aid, but I am doubtful if we are able to match all of it yet. We match all we can, of course.

If this additional burden is placed on the State highway department, if it has to take that money, it just simply will have to take money that is badly needed for other purposes to carry even a very modest road-construction program wholly inadequate.

Our whole program is far inadequate, and this will cripple it that much further.

When they came along and amended the law to authorize the Federal Government to pay for the railroad approaches, in view of our situation, which it may be said is our fault, and yet it was just a mistake of judgment back in those days when we undertook an early roadconstruction program-what will result is this: If the State highway department is compelled to do it, it is simply going to be an inadequate job. They are going to have to modify the plans and build it just so it will barely accommodate the traffic, and if you do have another major flood, they cannot pay all that cost, and if you do have another major flood, it is not going to be built adequately to be self-protecting against such floods.

Then we will have the same job to do over.

If we can get it-and I am not going to ask for the full amount. I am going to try to be fair in this thing. But I do believe that ought to be raised to $300,000 at least, and let the Federal Government bear half of it on the basis you would of matching funds.

I certainly honestly believe I am not asking too much when I ask that.

So, I would suggest that you raise the $200,000 to $300,000. That is not going to satisfy my people. I know they will feel like they should have the full amount. But I want to be fair to my Government and to this committee and to the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, with that statement, I would like to insert in the record, and I shall not take time to read it, a letter from Mr. J. C. Baker, director of highways for Arkansas, addressed to me on April 28, 1948, which covers in substance what I said and rather high-lights the points I have made, and I would like to incorporate this letter at this point in my testimony and have it printed in the record.

Senator MALONE. It will be accepted and printed in the record at this point.