Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, by way of identification, particularly to the new members, I would like to identify myself. I am R. Neil Lane, Chief of the Projects Branch of the Watershed Planning Division with the Department of Agriculture.

The Cass Draw watershed is located in southeastern New Mexico. It is a tributary to the Pecos River which flows out of New Mexico into Texas and ultimately into the Rio Grande River.

By way of orientation I might point out that the highway in the upper end of the watershed connects Carlsbad to the north with Carlsbad Caverns to the south. This may be helpful to those of you who have visited that part of New Mexico in locating the watershed. The watershed is approximately 50 square miles in size. The land use in the watershed is about 20 percent cropland, all of which is irrigated. Most of it is the yellow portions of this map. Grassland constitutes 72 percent in the upper portion of the watershed [indicating]. Other miscellaneous uses are 8 percent. About 70 percent is privately owned, and 29 percent is federally owned which is administered by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of Interior.

This watershed has about 13 inches of rainfall each year.
Mr. POAGE. How much rainfall did you say?

Mr. LANE. About 13 inches-between 12 and 13 inches of rainfall. The watershed problems are primarily flood problems which result from high intensity summer showers, striking the upper watershed here [indicating], which is sparsely vegetated, and you can imagine what happens under these rainfall conditions. Flood water flows generally in a northeastern direction here [indicating] to a canal here. And it spreads out from there over much of this irrigated land. There is a highway through the lower section of the watershed. The flood waters pond against the highway and the railroad.

The measures that are proposed to solve the problems consist of an interrelated system of land treatment measures plus two floodwater retarding structures to retard the flood runoff from the upper watershed and to lead that runoff through the irrigated area into the Pecos River.

There is a collection dike immediately below the floodwater retarding structures which will gather the uncontrolled flows as well as the controlled flows and divert them into the Cass Draw channel.

The upper end of Cass Draw channel needs to be enlarged. From the railroad on in to the Pecos River, the existing channel is adequate. The estimated cost of the project is $346,848, with Public Law 566 funds making up $273,191 and other funds of approximately $74,000. Mr. TEAGUE of California. By "other funds" you mean what?

Mr. LANE. Those are private, State, and to some extent other Federal funds; in other words, the other Federal funds may consist of cost-sharing funds available under the ASCS, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.

The proportion of Public Law 566 funds on that basis is 79 percent, and 21 percent is local. However, when you consider the value of the land treatment measures already applied to this watershed-and I might point out that a high proportion of the farmers have basic soil

conservation plans-which is about $221,000, the ratio of Federal funds to non-Federal funds is about 50-50.

The project will reduce floodwater damages to a very significant degree and will completely control floods that occur every 10 or 15 years on the average.

The estimated benefits are $14,225.

The area benefited consists of the yellow-colored portion here [indicating] and approximately an equal area outside of the watershed, lying generally to the southeast. The total area benefited is about 12,000 acres.

The direct beneficiaries include about 25 farmers plus a number of property owners in the city of Lovington here [indicating].

The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.3 to 1. And the prorated Public Law 566 cost per acre benefited is $13.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Lane. I might point out that there is a very low cost of operation on this. You get very few projects that have a cost as low as this one. This land to the west, as I understand it, receives no benefit from this project. In fact, there are no structures or anything else there.

Mr. LANE. That is correct.

Mr. POAGE. Are you applying any kind of soil conservation practice or land treatment practice on this public land?

Mr. LANE. Are we requiring any?

Mr. POAGE. Yes, are we ordinarily required to include something in these projects for soil treatment are we applying that to the Federally owned land in the upper part of the watershed?

Mr. LANE. Yes, sir. The Bureau of Land Management, which is the land administering agency in this case has agreed to continue the program of land management on the rangeland portion of the watershed.

Mr. POAGE. Does that mean that they are not going to overgraze the land?

Mr. LANE. That is correct. In other words, under this kind of rainfall condition and with the low productivity of the rangeland it is not feasible, generally, to apply expensive conservation practices to this land. And usually the most effective practice that you can apply is proper range management. And they have had this under proper range management for a number of years. It is showing improvement. And as you can well imagine improvement is a slow process.

Mr. POAGE. I have been told that this country at one time was real good range, but they claim that the sheep men came in there and destroyed the land.

Mr. LANE. Well, you hear the same kind of claim in other places. It could be more productive again under proper rangeland manage

ment.

Mr. POAGE. I have driven through this area and when you said that it had a rainfall of 13 inches of rain, I felt I could testify that was correct, because I was there the day it fell.

It is very flat for miles and miles with mountains to the west. It has a slight slope that leads toward the river. There is a big creek which comes down but when it rains a hard rain there is water in the creek, and when that happens, of course, the creek always floods for miles out there. But it did not do any particular harm in the area that I visited.

Everybody was glad to see it come because it was good for their land, but when it gets to the irrigated land, it is not required there nor wanted.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. What particular crops are produced in the area there?

Mr. LANE. In the irrigated area the principal crops are alfalfa, cotton, and small grain.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. And cantaloups?

Mr. LANE. Cantaloups are a little farther south. Most of the cantaloups are in Texas, I believe. Those are the cantaloups that are said to be already salted because of the salty soil in which they grow and the salty water which is applied to the land.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. You mean that this irrigation water is saline?

Mr. LANE. There is a lot of salinity in the Pecos River Basin, yes. Mr. PoAGE. Is the water that is put over the land salty?

Mr. LANE. I would not want to generalize on that. I do not believe so, Mr. Poage. I think it varies.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any further questions?

Mr. CALLAN. Is this a conservancy district or an irrigation district? Mr. POAGE. Do you know whether it is or not?

Mr. LANE. No, sir. Those are separate entities. The irrigation district is concerned primarily with the distribution of the supply and the distribution system that provides the irrigation to the irrigated land.

The soil conservation district encompasses the entire watershed and a much larger area.

Mr. CALLAN. Does the Federal Government participate in setting the valuation and help in easements costs?

Mr. LANE. No, the Federal Government does not participate except in rare instances in the cost of the easements. That is entirely a local responsibility, except in the case of recreation.

Mr. CALLAN. In the project that we had in Nebraska a conservancy district was set up to buy the easements and to maintain the watershed. Mr. LANE. That is right.

Mr. CALLAN. Do you do that out in this part of the country?

Mr. LANE. In this case the application of the land treatment measures will be through the soil and water conservation district.

Mr. CALLAN. You did not have the conservancy district?

Mr. LANE. There is not a conservancy district in this. There is a soil and water conservation district that will be primarily responsible for the installation and the maintenance of the land treatment measures. The irrigation district will be responsible for the other.

Mr. POAGE. In most of the States I think you will find that the soil and water conservation districts are the agencies that provide the local support for most of these projects. The law does not confine it to those, but they are, probably, the most prevalent.

Mr. CALLAN. In my part of the country we have about six conservancy districts. And each particular district taxes.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. You mean that they are separate entities for tax purposes?

Mr. CALLAN. Yes. The local district has the power to tax and picks up the easement costs, in addition to the other costs.

Mr. POAGE. You see, some of the States allow them to tax, and some do not. In our State the conservation district does have the power of taxation if they so vote it. They do not all have the power of taxation. Some of them do and some do not. It depends somewhat upon the local needs. They all try, of course, to get these easements given to them, to a large degree, and they have been successful, too, but these structures as they become larger, and particularly as you get into more valuable land as you have, you find it more and more difficult to get these easements without buying them, so that in some places you will find that the easements have to be purchased. In another place they are donated 100 percent. That has been one of the main things that the subcommittee has been very careful about not empowering the Federal Government to pay for these rights-of-way or easements, because we recognize that once the Federal Government pays for them, or any of them, that there will be no more donations. If I felt that the Federal Government might pay for my land I will not be likely to give it away, whereas if the rights-of-way must be secured by the local agency, they can get far more donated than the Federal Government can, and that is why we have been so reluctant to give the power of paying for the rights-of-way to the Federal Government. There is an exception. There is a provision whereby the Federal Government can pay for the necessary land for an agency to build a recreation reservoir, but you cannot have more than one such recreational structure for every 75,000 acres.

And you will find, too, that some of these localities try to unload on the agency, if they can, and we have found that we have had to be right diligent in seeing to it that it is not unloaded in the way of costs on another agency.

So these people must pay all of the rights-of-way and the easements and the like, whether it is a conservancy district or an irrigation district or a soil and water conservation district, or whether it be a flood control district. It is a local agency that the State establishes.

Mr. CALLAN. The point is that it can be made by the taxing of the land.

Mr. POAGE. That can be raised by tax on the land—it may be raised by a contribution. It may be raised any way that the local people want to raise it.

Are there any other questions on this Cass Draw project?

We will insert the joint statement of Congressmen Thomas G. Morris and E. S. Johnny Walker at this point in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:).

JOINT STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS G. MORRIS AND HON. E. S. JOHNNY WALKER, REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we wish to urge the acceptance of the committee for a continuance of the Cass Draw watershed program.

This watershed covers an area of 49,221 square miles, encompassing 31,494 acres, in Eddy County, N. Mex. Approximately 72 percent of this or 22,444 acres, is rangeland; 20 percent or 6,400 acres, is irrigated cropland, and 8 percent or 2,650 acres is classified as miscellaneous.

There are 46 farms containing the 6,400 acres of irrigated cropland in the watershed. There are 25 farms which are directly damaged when floods occur. Involved in this flood area are 2,250 acres of irrigated land.

This land produces cotton, alfalfa, and feed grains. The land is highly productive with 2 bales per acre of cotton and 6 tons per acre of alfalfa, the average.

The land,

The size of the farms in this area vary from 20 acres to 280 acres. because of the irrigation projects and the overall watershed programs that have been in existence, is valued at from $600 to $800 per acre.

Recent flood damage occurred in 1941, 1952, 1953, and 1954. The flood of 1953 caused an approximate damage of $57,000. Had the project been installed before this time, this damage could have been averted.

The plans for the Cass Draw watershed call for a continuous project extending for the next 5 years. The plans call for improvement of land treatment measures needed for conservation and more efficient use of water and proper use of rangeland as well as the structural projects including retarding and outlet channeling structures.

The Cass Draw watershed includes one normally dry channel and its tributaries and is located about midway between the city of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Caverns National Park in Eddy County. The watershed is about 18 miles long and 5 miles wide at its widest point. The floodwaters flow generally eastward to the Pecos River Valley. Before pertinent flood control measures were taken, the draw continued into the Pecos River, but since the Carlsbad Irrigation District constructed facilities to avert this rapid flow, the upper segment of the draw now terminates at the Southern Canal.

The soils in the area are of a generally fine texture, and while the average rainfall in the area is only 12.78 inches, the intensity of the flooding which usually occurs from intense thunderstorms which strike the area, is severe.

When flooding occurs there is severe damage to the irrigated lands, disrupting the orderly flow of the water, washing out irrigation ditches and leaving sediment which is costly to remove as well as taking time and money to repair the damaged ditches. There is also damage in the town of Loving, N. Mex., every 10 to 15 years when the flood runoff from the watershed area overtops the canal and flows overland into the town. In addition, there is severe damage to the roads in the area, requiring costly repairs.

Flood damage is reflected in higher production costs because of the necessity of replanting as well as lowering the crop yields. Sediment, as well as the floodwaters, lowers the quality of production. Though sediment damage is somewhat lighter in this area than other watershed areas, it is still prevalent. It does clog the irrigation canals, road culverts, and some sediment is deposited on the road surfaces.

While there has not been significant erosion damage in recent years, there has been an indirect result in the delay of interrupted irrigation deliveries, interrupted use of farm labor, and delays in travel and public transportation schedules.

We feel that the acceptance of the project is mandatory if the agriculture output is to continue in the area.

We urge that, due to the other deterrent aspects that occur because of flooding in the area, the project be accepted in its entirety.

Thank you.

FARM BROOK WATERSHED, CONNECTICUT

Mr. POAGE. If there are no further questions on Cass Draw watershed, we will pass on to Farm Brook watershed in the State of Connecticut.

FARM BROOK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location: 2,930 acres in New Haven County. Tributary to: West River and Long Island Sound. Sponsors: The commissioner of agriculture and natural resources, State of Connecticut.

NOTE. Total watershed area privately owned except for approximately 100 acres of public parks.

Purposes: Watershed protection, flood prevention, and recreation. Principal measures: Structural measures consisting of one floodwater-retarding structure, one multiple-purpose flood prevention-recreation structure with