HISTORY OF TAYLOR'S BAYOU FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT The impetus for the original study was a serious flood in Beaumont, November 4-7, 1946. The authority for and the scope of the report was set out by the Corps of Engineers in the report of the preliminary examination as follows: 1. This preliminary examination of Taylor's Bayou, Tex., for flood control, drainage, and navigation, is submitted pursuant to an item in the Flood Control Act approved July 24, 1946. 2. Scope: In compliance with the authorization, this report will consider flood control, drainage and navigation on Taylor's Bayou, including the question of providing outlets for the egress of floodwaters from Jefferson County drainage districts into existing waterways in the general vicinity of Port Arthur, Tex. At a public hearing held in Port Arthur, October 22, 1946, drainage districts 3, 4, 6, and 7 presented an extensive brief setting out the desired improvements, along with cost estimates and economic benefits. On January 20, 1947, the Corps of Engineers completed a preliminary examination report, which was submitted to the Chief of Engineers, May 1, 1947, along with a favorable recommendation. On September 30, 1950, the Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers, completed a report on the survey of Taylor's Bayou. This report was revised January 20, 1954, and submitted through channels to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. On February 26, 1954, the Board gave favorable approval to the Chief of Engineers. At this time those of us familiar with the project thought that it was ready to be submitted to Congress, where we thought that funds for engineering plans could be obtained with little or no opposition. However, as required by law the Chief of Engineers transmitted the report to the State board of water engineers for the Governor's approval, on April 6, 1954. There followed a brief exchange of letters between the State board of water engineers and the Chief of Engineers, the last one being from the Chief of Engineers to the board of water engineers dated October 28, 1954. There was a drought in Texas at this time and local interest was at a low ebb, and several changes had been made in the personnel of the State board, so the issue lay dormant until I was notified of the status of the correspondence in January of 1958. I immediately contacted the various districts and found that districts 3, 4, and 6 were definitely in favor of having the project completed. The Corps of Engineers updated their study in 1961, and the report was approved by the Texas Water Commission May 4, 1962. Following the suggestion of Congressman Brooks, the three districts (districts 4 and 7 have been combined) and the Beaumont Navigation District, have agreed to sponsor the project and at the same time, February 4, 1964, they agreed on the amount each district would contribute to the local participation. On June 1, 1965, drainage district 6 voted a $8 million bond issue for drainage with $1 million of this set aside for participation in the Taylor Bayou project. There are so many things that need to be said that it is very difficult to be brief, but briefly this is the history of the project. The most recent and the worst recorded flood on the Taylor's Bayou watershed occurred September 17 and 18, 1963, during and following Hurricane Cindy when the accumulated rainfall ranged from a minimum of about 15 inches to an excess of 20 inches. We have reproduced and bound the newspaper reports of the havoc that this storm caused. Since that time, I have made detailed studies of streamflow and high-water elevations, and it's my considered opinion that the serious damage that occurred in the lower reaches of Taylor's Bayou, and in particular at Port Acres, would not have occurred if this project had been completed. Damages from this one storm alone probably far exceeded the estimated cost of the project. This information prepared by L. V. Norris Consulting Engineers, Beaumont, Trx. AUGUST 4, 1965. To: The Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee. From: W. F. Langham. Re: Taylor's Bayou flood control project hearing, August 5, 1965. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am W. F. Langham, address Beaumont Savings Building, Beaumont, Jefferson County, Tex.; my remarks represent the studied opinions and conclusions of myself as a landowner and other landowners of Jefferson County, and as vice chairman of the Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6 Advisory Committee. For the past 40 years I have had close contact and experience with the drainage problems of Jefferson County and for the past several years I have had numerous briefings by Mr. L. V. Norris, consulting engineer, of Beaumont, Tex., of the matters covered by the Taylor's Bayou flood control project. Relying on the integrity and engineering ability of Mr. L. V. Norris and the proposals by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, plus my personal knowledge and understanding of the project, it is my opinion that the Taylor's Bayou flood control project is necessary and will solve the drainage problems of our area. Furthermore, after much discussion with many other landowners, I find that it is the consensus that the project is absolutely necessary. The people of our area who have been plagued by floods, have had their homes ruined by floodwaters and their crops destroyed, join me in urging you to take favorable action on this project. Mr. JONES. Again we thank you, Mr. Brooks. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to note, as the committee well knows, how very extremely diligent Congressman Brooks has been. I am sure there is not a member of this committee that he has not talked with personally about this project. I am delighted it is finally being brought before the committee with the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers and Secretary of the Army, and I want to congratulate the gentlemen who appeared here for their diligence in solving as much of this problem locally as they possibly have been able to do. Rather than acting as a detriment or deduction from the economics of the project, I should just like to say I think they deserve to be congratulated for it. I know they have assumed a great responsibility locally and I think it is time for us to acknowledge it. Mr. NORWOOD. Thank you. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, may I submit for the files a rather detailed summary. I do not request that it be put in the actual record and printed, which would cost money. May I submit that for your committee files? Mr. JONES. It will be included as reference material. (The document referred to will be found in the files of the committee.) Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to join my colleagues in recognizing you, Mr. Brooks, and simply make the observation in reviewing the bill that has just come over from the Senate, it appears that the Senate is in concurrence with the gentleman from Texas, and his constituents here. So I certainly want to compliment him, not only on his efforts, but for a very fine statement, and for this fine delegation, the representatives from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. We are grateful to you as ever. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, before my distinguished colleague leaves, that I would like to congratulate the people of the Beaumont area for sharing with the Congress and the whole Nation the benefit of your untiring efforts and your comprehensive studies in connection with this problem. I hope you will continue in your fine efforts. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, would you yield him a little more time? [Laughter.] Mr. JONES. The Chariton and Little Chariton Reservoir, Iowa and Missouri. Colonel Kristoferson. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns the Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers and tributaries in southern Iowa and north-central Missouri. CHARITON AND LITTLE CHARITON RESERVOIR, IOWA AND MISSOURI It can be found on pages 147 through 149 of the Senate report. It is prepared in response to a resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, adopted July 29, 1955. The Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers are left-bank tributaries of the Missouri River. Agricultural levees and tie back levees at the mouths of the Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers are authorized and are now in advanced planning. Rathbun Reservoir in southern Iowa is authorized and is now under construction. Streams in the Chariton and Little Chariton River Basin are subject to both flood and drought. Local interests desire reservoirs for flood control and water supply, channel straightening and clearing, levees and bank stabilization, and reduction of pollution in streams due mainly to leaching of acids from old strip mines. The Chief of Engineers recommends channel improvements on the Mussel Fork and Shoal Creek tributaries of the Chariton River, near the mouth of the Little Chariton River and on its Middle and East Forks. He further recommends construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir at the Long Branch site. The recommended work has an estimated Federal first cost of $9,167,000, of which $530,000 would be repaid by local interests under provisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, and an estimated non-Federal first cost of $822,000 in connection with the channel improvements. The benefit-to-cost ratio of the reservoir is 1.2, and of the channel improvements 1.5. Local interests are required to comply with the usual "A, B, C" requirements for the channel work and also to prevent encroachments upon the improved channels. This report, at one stage, included a recommendation for construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir at the Thomas Hill site. However, concurrent with the processing of the report, local interests began construction of a reservoir at the Thomas Hill site to provide cooling water for a thermal electric powerplant. The local interests expressed the desire and intent to build the reservoir so that it would provide the same features and benefits as the corps reservoir, in the hope that it could later turn the reservoir over to the Federal Government and be reimbursed for all expenses in excess of the fair cost of storing cooling water. In a number of respects, the reservoir, as it is now being built, does not conform to the plan recommended by the corps. If it were now authorized, it would pose serious problems with respect to reimbursement, cooperation, administration, and technical arrangements. Therefore, the Chief of Engineers does not recommend authorization of the Thomas Hill Reservoir. The comments of the States and agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it concurs in the action to delete the Thomas Hill Reservoir from the recommended plan and that it expects a reanalysis of the water quality benefits and the economic justification of the Long Branch Reservoir prior to initiation of construction. Subject to these comments, the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this report. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. The Senate bill remedies the comments of the Bureau of the Budget in deleting Thomas Hill? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The Senate concurs with the Chief of Engineers' recommendation and the Bureau of the Budget's position. Mr. JONES. Are there any questions? Mr. BLATNIK. No questions. Mr. JONES. Now our colleague, who has sat here the entire morning, and I am quite sure he felt at home because he has served on this committee for a number of years, and during his tenure on the committee, I know of no member who was more dedicated or more helpful in the deliberations of the committee than the Honorable William Hull from Missouri. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM R. HULL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, may I join the Chair and all members in welcoming our dear friend and colleague, a very able member of this committee for many years. I recall the valuable assistance, keen interest, and strong support our friend has given on many, many resource use water projects. water use projects, throughout the country. We welcome you, Congressman. Mr. HULL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. HULL. I appreciate the opportunity of being here this morning to urge the committee to approve the survey of the Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers. Congressman Hungate, who represents the same area that our distinguished chairman, Mr. Cannon, represented for so many years, is in complete accord with this and a strong supporter of it. I will not take any of your time, due to the lateness of the hour, but I would like to submit my statement for the record. Mr. JONES. Without objection, the statement is received. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. W. R. HULL, JR., MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM Missormi Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I deeply appreciate this opportunity to appear before you. As a former member of the Public Works Committee and of this subcommittee, I am well aware of the importance of your work and the complexity of your task in the consideration of the 1965 public works authorization bill. I appear before you this morning to respectfully urge your approval of the survey report on the Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers, Mo. and Iowa. This report has been approved by the States of Missouri and Iowa; the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Health, Education, and Welfare; the Public Health Service; and the Federal Power Commission. It is supported by the residents of the Chariton River Basin and I know of no opposition whatever to this program. Mr. Chairman, the Chariton and Little Chariton River Basins, comprising an area of more than 3,000 square miles, are among the most fertile and potentially productive areas in the country. But this region, a major part of which is in my congressional district, has been reduced to a virtual economic wasteland by floods. The tragic economic impact of floods in the lower Chariton Basin is seen in the fact that in 1957, a 50-percent crop loss was experienced in this section. The following year flood torrents caused a 100-percent crop loss with $6 million in damages. The next year there was a 60-percent crop loss; in 1961, more than 95 percent of the crops were destroyed. Since 1932, floods in these basins caused damage well in excess of $20 million and the average annual flood damage along Mussel Fork and lower Shoal Creek in the Chariton River Basin and along the Little Chariton River and its tributaries is estimated by the Corps of Engineers at $370,000. One of my counties, Chariton County, serves as a example of the terrible effects of this uncontrolled flooding. This county is bordered on the south by the Missouri River, on the west by the destructive North Grand River and it is gutted by the Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers, and their tributaries. More than one-third of the wonderful farmland in this county is subject to overflow and during these recurring periods of high water, county roads frequently are blocked at more than 20 locations. What this havoc means to Chariton County is clearly seen by its population figures. In 1900, the county had about 26,000 inhabitants; today it has less than 12,000. Out of every nine youngsters born in this area, only one returns home after completing his education. There is no way to adequately measure these losses in human and economic resources. They are beyond measure. In the Chariton and Little Chariton River Basins, as they exist today, few people can look forward to a future on the land. Most of our young people simply pick up and move away and try to find employment in the big cities, and our rural counties lose their future leaders. Today I believe I speak for every man, woman, and child in this potentially great region when I ask for your support of the survey report developed by the Corps of Engineers. This plan recommends the construction of a reservoir, known as the Long Branch Reservoir, about 3 miles northwest of Macon, Mo. Flood control benefits would extend through 47 miles of downstream flood plain in the Little Chariton River Basin. A total of about 80 miles of channel improvements, principally in the lower reaches of the basins, are included in the program and would end the disastrous floods which plague our citizens. The total Federal construction cost is estimated at $9,167,000 with nonFederal costs estimated at $822,000. It is my opinion, and the opinion of the people I represent, that this plan will eliminate serious floods, reduce stream pollution, ease the impact of drought conditions, provide recreational benefits and contribute to the economic growth and social well-being of southern Iowa and central and north-central Missouri. I urge the favorable consideration by the committee of the report on the Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers, Mo. and Iowa. Thank you very much for your kindness in permitting me to appear this morning. Mr. HULL. Thank you very much. Mr. McCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Hull. Mr. JONES. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, August 6, 1965.) (The following was furnished for insertion:) |