otherwise feed on the adjacent farms and cause, on occasion, a problem of depradation.

Mr. EDMONDSON. So the grazing program and planting program can show a benefit to your wildlife program?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is correct, as long as it is integrated with the wildlife program.

Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Would this not be an ideal use of the land and water conservation fund?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. The Land and Water Conservation Act is restrictive in its provisions as far as use by the Department of the Interior is concerned to the purchase of inholdings in existing national parks, other national park areas and, as far as we are concerned, in the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, to the acquisition of lands needed for endangered species.

This program that we are talking about here this morning is related to the national migratory bird program as distinct from the endangered species program.

We are not authorized to request funds from the Congress through the land and water conservation fund program for the acquisition of land for migratory bird refuges.

Mr. EDMONDSON. At that point, I think there is no authority to use land and water conservation fund moneys on Army Engineer's reservoirs?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is correct.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Unless it would be in this endangered species program.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Right. That is correct.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Or unless a State which had a park on an Army Engineers reservoir wanted to use it for the enlargement of its park or improvement of its park.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. On other recreation facility, that is right.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Any further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Gottschalk.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement. May I leave it with the reporter?

Mr. EDMONDSON. We will be very pleased to have it. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN S. GOTTSCHALK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AT THE JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR PROJECT, KANSAS

The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is pleased to support the recommended acquisition of land for the establishment of a national wildlife refuge as a part of the multiple-purpose John Redmond Dam and Reservoir project. The dedication of a portion of the land and water at this project for the purse of waterfowl conservation and development would be a great step forward In our endeavors to manage the Nation's waterfowl resources for the enjoyment of our people today and for the future generations as well.

Hundreds of thousands of people in the United States including waterfowl bunters, members of national conservation organizations, and members of the general public are vitally concerned over the future of the Nation's hardpressed waterfowl population. That resource needs every bit of help it can

The proposal for establishing a national wildlife refuge on lands purchased by the Corps of Engineers does not represent a new precedent. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended in 1958, as well as language in each Public Works Appropriation Act since that date, has specified the intent of Congress to consider wildlife conservation on an equal basis with flood control and other purposes of water resource projects. In recent years, several national wildlife refuges have been established on land purchased by the Corps of Engineers, pursuant to congressional authorization, specifically for waterfowl conservation purposes.

The Choctaw refuge has been established in Alabama at the Jackson lock and dam project on lands acquired by the Corps of Engineers specifically for this purpose under authority contained in the Flood Control Act of 1960. The Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge has been established at the Walter F. George project in Georgia and Alabama on lands acquired by the corps under similar authority contained in the Flood Control Act of 1962.

The refuge, totaling 24,020 acres of land and water, would be located at the project above the town of Burlington, Kans. Negotiations are now underway to transfer management of about 20,300 acres of land already acquired at the project to the Bureau. While this area will serve as a nucleus for the refuge. 3,720 acres of land in addition to that being acquired for the primary purpose of the project are needed if the refuge is to be managed effectively. This would require the fee purchase of 3,400 acres of land presently held in flowage easements within the reservoir area and the acquisition of an additional 320 acres of land above the reservoir take line. The cost of these lands is estimated at $730,000; initial refuge development costs would be about $585,000; and annual operation and maintenance cost would be about $75,500. Our waterfowl resource is in constant danger of serious depletion. The demand for more cropland, more agricultural production, the dispersal of our human population from the cities, the industrialization of rural areas, and pollution of our rivers and streams have all taken a serious toll in the amount of available waterfowl habitat. This is serious where breeding habitat is concerned, but equally important along the migratory flight path between the production areas of the North and the wintering grounds of the South.

In applying good waterfowl management techniques, it is most desirable to have an organized system of refuges established throughout the major waterfowl migration routes to afford protection areas where the birds can rest and feed. Such a system provides benefits to both the birds and the hunters. Hunting activity often will cause the birds to move between the nesting area and the wintering area with great rapidity. This is detrimental to both the birds and the hunter. The slowing down of the migration by having sufficient resting and feeding areas can result in better and longer successful hunting, as well as better physical condition of birds reaching the wintering areas.

The John Redmond Dam and Reservoir project lies along one of the more important flight paths for both geese and ducks. Large flocks of canvasback ducks and snow and blue geese move through the Neosho River Valley in the spring and fall. Sizable numbers of mallards, greenwinged teal, scaup, ruddy ducks. and Canada geese are also found in the project area. However, the distribution pattern of existing waterfowl refuges and wildlife management areas in Kansas and adjacent States is such that a void occurs with its approximate center at the John Redmond project.

The reservoir will create a large body of shallow water. Under proper management, this large expanse of water and surrounding lands would have a good potential to attract large concentrations of geese and ducks, especially snow and blue geese, mallards, and diving ducks, during the fall, winter, and particularly the spring months. A national wildlife refuge in connection with the John Redmond Reservoir would provide a better distribution of the waterfowl resource in the flyway and provide increased waterfowl hunting in an area where hunting opportunities are generally limited.

In addition to the primary purpose of providing for the conservation and distribution of waterfowl population, the refuge could also be expected to provide annual benefits of 8,000 man-days of local waterfowl and upland game hunting valued at $30,000, and 50,000 visitor-days of general recreation valued at $25.000. Expenditures by these hunters and other recreationists in the project area would contribute substantially to the local economy.

Overwhelming local public support for the proposed refuge was revealed at a public hearing held jointly by the Bureau and the Corps of Engineers at Emporia,

Kans., on December 4, 1962. In addition, the Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission and the Governor of Kansas have indicated their support of the refuge proposal.

We earnestly request that you give favorable consideration to the authorization of project modification for the acquisition of additional land for a national wildlife refuge at the John Redmond Dam and Reservoir project.

Thank you, gentlemen, for this opportunity to appear before you and to present the views of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife on this important matter.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you for appearing.

WALNUT RIVER, KANS.

Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The next project appears, sir, on pages 140 to 142 of the Senate report and pertains to the Walnut River in Kansas.

The Walnut River Basin is tributary to the Arkansas River in southern Kansas. It is subject to annual flooding and last month suffered damages in excess of $5 million.

The Chief of Engineers recommends three multiple-purpose reservoirs and two local protection projects at an estimated total cost of $66,806,000. Local interests are required to repay the costs of water supply, to comply with the normal "A B C's" for local protection projects, to operate and maintain the completed local protection projects, and to share in the cost of recreation development and fish and wildlife enhancement. The first cost to local interests is currently estimated at $14,131,000 for water supply, $879,000 for recreation and fish and wildlife, and $770,000 for local protection works.

The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.2 for the reservoirs and 1.5 for the local protection works.

The Governor of Kansas recommends authorization of the proposed work but requests that preconstruction planning of the Towanda Reservoir not begin until its design and operation are approved by the Kansas Water Resources Board. The Chief of Engineers accordingly recommends that the design and operation of the Towanda Reservoir be approved before preconstruction planning is started.

The comments of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Federal Power Commission and Public Health Service are all favorable. The Department of the Interior recommends acquisition of 1,280 acres of additional land, fencing of all lands associated with wildlife purposes, and furnishing $30,000 for development of wildlife habitat.

In the absence of an economic analysis supporting the Department of the Interior recommendations, and on the basis of available inforination and reasonable values of man-day use, the mitigating measures do not appear justified and are not recommended.

The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this

report.

This concludes my statement on this project, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I understand from that, then that the Bureau of the Budget concurs in the judgment of the engineers with reference to the addition of that 1,280 acres?

Colonel KRISTOFERSON. They concur with our recommendation not. to include it, sir.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Any questions?

52-529-65-pt. 1- 9

Mr. BALDWIN. Colonel, if we simply approve this project, House Document No. 232, we are therefore concurring in the position of the Corps of Engineers and would recommend the project as recommended by the corps and not the modification of the Department of the Interior; is that correct, sir?

Colonel KRISTOFERSON. That is correct.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Further questions?

Mr. Gottschalk, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. No, I do not believe I have any further comment. (The statement of Congressman Joe Skubitz follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE SKUBITZ, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FROM THE
STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. Chairman, in behalf of the people who reside in the Walnut River Basin and myself, I want to express our sincere appreciation to those members of this committee who gave of their valuable time to investigate the damage that this area suffered as a result of the recent flood. Personally, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me time to appear before you today.

Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time that the basin has experienced flood damage, nor will it be the last unless this committee takes appropriate action. From 1921 to 1961, there were 43 floods in the Walnut Basin in the Augusta area and 19 floods in Winfield. More than 100,000 acres of urban and rural lands in the Walnut River Basin are subject to flooding, and over half of it is below the three reservoirs proposed by the Corps of Engineers. Located in the flood plains are about $70 million of urban property and $40 million of rural property.

The 1944 flood was the highest in the area in more than 40 years. The flood that occurred in June of this year, however, about equaled the 1944 flood, and resulted in damages of approximately $4 million. So that you may have some idea of the recent disaster, I should like to present to you a number of pictures which were taken during the flood period.

The Corps of Engineers advises me that the most effective use of the water and land resources of the basin require the construction of the El Dorado, Douglas, and Towanda Reservoirs operating as a system, and the construction of the El Dorado and Winfield local production projects. The corps estimates that the proposed projects will have flood control benefits of $1 million annually. However, of equal importance, Mr. Chairman, is our need for a sufficient supply of good water for municipal and industrial purposes.

At the present time, El Dorado and Augusta depend on surface water for municipal and industrial use. Both of these communities are ripe for industrial development-if an adequate water supply were provided. Arkansas City, Winfield, and Udall are forced to augment their water supply with ground water from outside the Walnut River Basin.

Mr. Chairman, the people of the Walnut River Basin are among the finest in the land. They do not seek a Federal handout. They only seek assistance so that they may provide for themselves. They seek protection against disastrous floods. They seek water so that they may develop and expand their industries and provide jobs for their youth.

The people of the basin have provided schools-second to none in this country. But the youth of the area are forced to go elsewhere to gain a livelihood. Give them water and protection against floods, and real prosperity will come to the basin. You can help them achieve their goal by authorizing these projects.

Mr. Chairman, so far as I have been able to determine, there is little or no opposition to the El Dorado or Douglas projects. There was some controversy with regards to the Towanda project. However, it now appears that a satisfactory understanding has been reached between the proponents and the opponents to the project.

On July 22, I received the following wire from Mr. Richard Chase, president, Whitewater River Watershed Joint District No. 22, which reads as follows:

"Board of directors of the Whitewater River Watershed Joint District No. 22 of Butler, Harvey, Marion, and Sedgwisk Counties, Kans., voted at its July 19,

1965, meeting not to oppose the recommendation of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce in its report on the Walnut Basin as contained in pages 12 and 13 of the public works bill, provided the language of the report expressing legislative intent with respect to the Towanda Reservoir and the Whitewater River watershed is not changed or modified. The directors urge your support of the appropriation bill in the form recommended by the Senate committee."

I have been in conference with the Corps of Engineers and have been advised that the corps does not object to the recommendation made by the Public Works Committee of the Senate. I, therefore, urge this committee to approve the Senate proposals. I urge you to authorize the construction of the Walnut River Basin project.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Next project.

BIG CREEK, HAYS, KANS.

Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Sir, the next report is found on page 144 of the Senate report, and pertains to Big Creek at Hays, Kans.

Big Creek is a tributary of the Smoky Hill River in western Kansas. The city of Hays is subject to infrequent but severe floods from Big Creek and two minor tributaries, Lincoln Draw and Chetolah Creek. The Chief of Engineers recommends channel improvement and levees on Big Creek, a diversion channel and levee on Lincoln Draw, and a detention structure, channel improvements, and levees on Chetolah Creek, all at a total estimated first cost of $3,711,000. Local interests are required to comply with the normal A, B, C requirements at an estimated first cost of $1,009,000, and have assured compliance. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.9 to 1.

Comments of the State of Kansas and the Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this report.

This concludes my statement, sir.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Any questions?
Mr. BALDWIN. No questions.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Next project.

SHIDLER RESERVOIR ON SALT CREEK, OKLA.

Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The next report, sir, pertains to Shidler Reservoir on Salt Creek in Oklahoma. It is found on pages 142 and 143 of the Senate report.

Salt Creek is a tributary of the Arkansas River in northern Oklahoma. It floods on the average of twice a year, causing damage to crops and oil fields.

The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a multiplepurpose reservoir near Shidler at an estimated Federal first cost of $6,150,000. Non-Federal first costs are estimated at $967,000 for water supply and $119,000 for recreation and fish and wildlife purposes. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.2-to-1.

Comments of the State of Oklahoma and the Federal agencies are favorable.

The Bureau of the Budget expects the conservation and flood control benefits would be critically reviewed before construction is begun because many of the benefits attributed to the project will not develop for many years and justification of the project is based to a considerable extent on expected developments.