hazards on relatively lower quality land would be less than if it were high quality land. To provide protection for land below the dam, in the instance of the Grand River Basin, higher quality land would be removed from production."

The college of agriculture concluded the maximum annual flood control benefits that could accrue to the Grand River Basin through the construction of the proposed reservoirs and channel improvements was $67,727, which compares with the present Engineers' figure of $7,500,000. Stated another way, the Corps of Engineers fixed the annual agricultural flood control benefits to the Grand River (through their proposed plan) 11,000 percent greater than the determination by the college of agriculture.

The Corps of Engineers use as the guideline for determining their flood control benefits the big flood in the Grand River Basin that occurred in the year 1947. Interestingly, they claim the total damages suffered by reason of this flood as being $22,572,000 (III-4). To arrive at this stupendous figure, the Engineers make many false assumptions. In contrast, the College of Agriculture of the University of Missouri in appendix D of the Kiehl report, supra, fixes the actual damages occasioned by the 1947 flood below the proposed six reservoirs as being only $1,622,902.07. The figure used by the college of agriculture resulted after personal contacts with all of the farmers in the area and is an actual rather than an estimated figure. The 1947 flood in the Grand River Basin was not only the largest, but the last flood in many of the reservoir areas.

This association believes that the Missouri College of Agriculture is in a better position to evaluate annual agricultural flood control benefits that would accrue through the construction of the proposed reservoirs than are the Army Engineers. Appendix A of said bulletin 564 of the college of agriculture shows that an exhaustive study was made by the college to arrive at the estimated agricultural flood control benefits from the proposed reservoir system.

Your association is convinced that the Engineers are not honest in their claim of agricultural benefits; for the present proposal would flood or remove from economic utilization 349,200 acres, 78.4 percent of which is class 1 and 2 land, to partially protect below the reservoirs 300,380 acres, 71.8 percent of which is class 3 and 4 land (the 1950 report of the Engineers was only 212,000 acres, and the 1957 report 266,000 acres).

Your association is at a loss to understand how the discrepancy exists between the 1950 report when the Engineers proposed to partially protect 212,000 acres, the 1957 report when it was 266,000 acres below the reservoirs and the current 1963 report, when they propose to partially protect 300,380 acres. The topography of the Grand River has not substantially changed between the date of the reports. Interestingly, the 308 report lists only 297,800 acres of tillable land subject to overflow and this includes land within the 349,200 acres which the corps now proposes to flood or remove from economic utilization. What are the facts?

The Corps of Engineers in the 308 report (p. 55) recognized that any reservoir plan would prove uneconomical if land must be withdrawn permanently from productive use for storage of water in order that bottom land downstream may be protected from overflow.

The plan proposed by the Corps of Engineers would remove from economic utilization 1 acre of good land in order to partially protect eighty-six one-hundredths of an acre of poor land.

The Grand River Basin is somewhat like a broken bowl, the outer edges sloping readily toward the center. The bottom, however, is almost flat. The slope in feet per mile from the mouth of the Grand River to Yellow Creek is 0.6, and through much of the rest of the lower basin 1.7. Swamping is a natural condition in the lower basin, resulting from rainfall in the area. Simply stated, land on the lower Grand is so flat that it would not drain itself even if the proposed reservoir system were constructed. Flooding would still occur. Flood control would lessen, not eliminate the problem. Land use will continue about the same, as drainage is the limiting factor.

Large dams do not prevent flooding. They confine flooding to a predetermined area. There are no large towns or industrial plants that would be protected by these dams. Only poorly drained farmland and untillable swampland lying below the water table of the river. The net result of the so-called flood control features of this project would be a net loss in agriculture production to the area. The northern counties in Missouri would lose their grain-producing land, necessary for their livestock feeding operations; and the southern counties would gain a lesser amount of grain-producing land. The Engineers report recognizes this 52-529-65-pt. 2-29

lack of flood control benefit when they assign only 59.3 percent of the annual benefits to flood control.

The amount of now claimed annual benefits from flood control results in $30 per acre per year. This, of course, is absurd. The topography of the Grand River has changed little. Substantially the same number of acres exist in the Grand River Basin as at the time of settlement by the white man. In order for the Corps of Engineers to show a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio, they are com pelled to increase flood control and other claimed benefits. This results from the inflationary trend which this Nation has experienced, resulting in an increased cost for reservoir construction. The increased cost of reservoir construction is clearly shown when one compares the estimated 1932 cost of the Chillicothe Reservoir of $26,755,000; the 1945 cost of the Hickory and Pattonsburg Reservoirs of $32,829,420; the 1957 cost of the six reservoir plan of $153146,000; and the 1965 cost of the current seven reservoir plan of the stupendous figure of $278,617,000. If the Engineers first cost of $12,240,000 for the St. Catherine Reservoir were omitted (which the Chief of Engineers has stated as not being feasible), the 1965 cost of the old six reservoir plan would be $206,377.000, an increase over the 1957 estimated cost of the six reservoir plan of $113,231,000 or 73.8 percent.

Increased reservoir costs do not escape the Engineers. They realize that they must come up with more benefits in order to justify their greater cost. This they have modestly accomplished by increasing the flood control benefits of over 600 percent since their 1945 report. For example, in 1945, the total food control benefits claimed by the Engineers was only $1,107,850; in 1957, they jumped this claimed flood control benefit to $4,135,650. When construction costs continued to rise, the 1965 flood control benefit was increased to $6,815,000. The obvious answer to the Engineers increase in claimed benefits results from their first determining the construction costs and then assigning enough benefits to the project to show a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. This is clearly indicated with the Engineers increase of over 600 percent in the claimed flood control benefits through reservoir construction on the Grand River. This is necessitated because of increased construction costs of the proposed reservoirs, not because of increased benefits or protection. The Congress should cast its piercing eye on these claimed benefits.

Another fallacy of the Engineers report is the complete lacking of the economic study of flood control benefits. As an example, they take full credit for annual flood control losses entirely out of proportion to existing losses on lowquality land, and yet do not take into account the loss of approximately $12 million of annual production on the 349,200 acres of high quality land, which would be removed from economic utilization.

If an unbiased, independent economist would take a look at the economie impact of the proposed plan, he would determine that instead of an annual benefit from flood control, there would exist a loss through the construction of the proposed reservoirs.

Only horsesense is required to determine that the removal from economie utilization of 349,200 acres, 78.4 percent of which is class 1 and 2 land to partially protect 300,380 acres (and we use the latest Engineers figures most favorably to them) below the reservoir, 71.8 percent of which is class 3 and 4 land; cannot be economically feasible, and will result in an economic loss to the Nation. (b) Water quality improvement benefits

The Corps of Engineers in their report claims a total annual benefit throngh water quality improvement of $137,000 per year or $13.700.000 over the 100-year expected life of their plan. The annual water quality benefits by reservoirs are $14,000 for Pattonsburg, $63.000 for Trenton, $10,000 for Mercer, $28,000 for Brookfield, and $22,000 for Braymer.

The report (p. 18) would indicate that the Corps of Engineers expects a water shortage in the cities of Brookfield and Trenton. At the time of the preparation of their report, the Corps of Engineers knew that Brookfield had completed a new waterplant, and that Trenton had authorized the construction of a new plant. now near completion.

The new Trenton waterplant was designed by Burns & McDonnell, nationally known consulting engineers, with a daily capacity of 6 million gallons, which is three times the size of its present waterplant and the design is such that it will produce this capacity under the most severe drought conditions. Under such circumstances, it would appear that the claimed annual water quality improvement of $63,000 in the Trenton Reservoir should be deleted from any benefit claimed by the Corps of Engineers.

The Corps of Engineers received from the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare a report on the study of potential needs and value of water storage for municipalities, industrial and quality control purposes. Contained in appendix VII of the report of the Engineers is a report supplied by the Department of Health. The survey shows clearly that need does not exist for the water supply for which the Corps of Engineers claims an annual benefit of $137,000 per year.

"It was determined that the present municipal and industrial requirements in the Grand River Basin could be furnished by the streams of the basin without additional storage in the proposed Federal impoundments. It was also determined, in discussions with the construction agency (Army Engineers) that the 'reasonable assurances' required to provide storage for municipalities and industrial water in Federal impoundments are not forthcoming for the projected needs 50 and 100 years in the future, so benefits from this storage were not evaluated" (app. VII. p. A-18).

Obviously, the Corps of Engineers did not like the report and asked for a further study. A later report, forthcoming in November 1963, interestingly projected an increase in population of the Grand River Basin for the next 45 years ending in the year 2010 of only 6,677, but projected an enormous increase between 2010 to 2060 of 100,000. Such report does not indicate that water quality control is needed for the year 2060, which is 95 years distant. Another observation is that the population projection of 6,677 in the year 2010 will require an additional 9 million gallons of water per day, whereas the additional 100,000 in 2060 will require only 14 million gallons per day to satisfy their needs. Followed to its logical conclusion, the citizens of this area 95 years from now will require little water as compared with what will be required 45 years hence. Projected to its ultimate conclusion, if the population increased sufficiently, no water at all would be required.

Even with the supplemental report, there is no definite statement upon which the Engineers can claim an annual benefit for water supply. In passing, the claimed annual benefit starts with the first year of the completion of the project, but no benefits would accrue even under the fantastic projections for at least 45 years. Clearly, the claimed benefits for water quality improvement of $137,000 per year should be completely eliminated from consideration.

(c) Recreation, fish, and wildlife benefits

The Corps of Engineers claim annual benefits of $3,600,000 to the proposed seven reservoir projects from recreation, fish, and wildlife. This benefit is claimed even though it is dependent on local participation totaling $19,860,000. There is no assurance that the local participation will be supplied. In fact, the Governor of Missouri in his comments to the Chief of Engineers expressed doubt as to how $19,860,000 would be supplied. The Corps of Engineers have not included recreation benefits in any of their previous plans. Of the overall claimed annual benefits, 31.3 percent is allocated to recreation. This claimed recreation benefit is nonexistent. It is included in the plan of the Engineers in order to support a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio; otherwise, the entire plan would fail.

Excluding the claimed recreation benefits and including the 600 percent escalated benefit to flood control, the nonexistent water quality benefit and the fabricated power generation benefit (based on the old interest rate of 2% percent, rather than the new interest rate of 3% percent), for every dollar of annual cost, only 98 cents would be returned. Eliminating the power generation at the Pattonsburg Reservoir, which will result in a known loss and using the same remaining fantastic annual benefits claimed by the Engineers for every dollar of annual costs, only 84 cents of claimed benefits will result.

The recommendation of the Missouri Water Resources Board to the Governor of Missouri, dated May 10, 1965, supplies ample evidence that the recreation benefits claimed by the Corps of Engineers through the construction of the proposed reservoirs is nonexistent for it is emphasized that due to the impossibility of obtaining the assurance of local participation that would be required after January 1, 1966, a hasty approval of the plan was required. It also stated that the local participation could be repaid through the assessment of user fees for camping, picknicking, swimming, and boating, and that in the event the State does not participate through the required $19,860,000 that "only existing access roads and minimum sanitation facilities would be provided at Federal expense."

The State is faced with the second horn of their dilemma on the annual maintenance costs estimated by the Engineers to be $101,000 per annum. This

does not include amortization over the required 50-year period which would increase the annual maintenance and operational costs from $101,000 to $842.000. We do not think that this area will support picknicking, boating, swimming, and camping to the tune of $842,000 per year. Clearly, recreation is included in this fantastic plan simply to bolster the benefit to cost ratio necessary for the authorization by the Congress, and not because it is expected to become a reality.

The association recognizes that recreation benefits would accrue through one, properly constructed, operated and maintained reservoir in north Missouri. One with a stable water level and shoreline; one that would permit the construction of privately owned homes and vacation cottages along the shoreline. The present plan of the Corps of Engineers does not result in one reservoir but seven reservoirs, and will be operated with an unstable and unsightly shoreline. The type of terrain where the reservoirs are to be located will produce mosquito-infested mud flats. The plan of the Corps of Engineers dees not permit the construction of any privately owned homes or vacation cottages within the near proximity of the reservoirs.

The Kansas City district engineer, in a public statement, on May 15, 193, stated that the reservoirs had a potential of "8 to 10 million visitor-days annually" which would "yield benefits of $4 million or more annually"; and he further stated "such benefits would make the reservoirs justified from the standpoint of recreation alone." (The interest charges on the estimated quarter of a billion dollar expenditure for this flood control project would amount to $8 million.)

The district engineer envisioned the annual visitor-days as approaching the total visitor-days of all of Missouri's 34 State parks with their superb facilities and varied appeals. In 1964, the total visitor-days at all of the State parks in the State of Missouri was 9,492,448.

The population base used by the Corps of Engineers for calculating recreational benefits assumes 2 million persons living within a 100-mile radius of the reser voirs. This would mean that every man, woman, and child must average 4 to 5 days each year in fishing, swimming, or boating on the reservoirs in the Grand River Basin. One month later (June 1963), the Engineers jumped the recre ational benefits from the previous estimate of $4 million to $5.874.000. The Corps of Engineers in their supplemental report of September 1964 lowered the claimed annual benefits for recreation, fish, and wildlife to $3,600,000, of which $1,098,000 was allocated as annual benefits to Pattonsburg, $969,000 to Trenton. $385,000 to Mercer, $478,000 to Linneus, $156,000 to Brookfield, $146,000 t St. Catherine, and $368,000 to the Braymer Reservoirs. The Chief of Engineers in his transmittal to the Secretary of the Army, accepts the last claimed benefit estimae for recreation, fish, and wildlife of $3,600,000. These figures are based on a service area population of 2 million, which the corps expects to increase in the next hundred years to 2,700,000. The population in Missouri north of the Missouri River barely exceeds 750,000. With the projected dams in Missouri at Smithville, Excelsior Springs, the Johanna Dam, Thomas Hill Dam, and Ing Branch Dam; and the Rathbun and Red Rock Dams in Iowa, even a 500.000 service population figure is exaggerated. Recreational usage is based upon population density, convenient access, and the quality of the facilities. Except for the Pattonsburg and Braymer Dams, these reservoirs would be somewhat isolated and over 100 miles from the metropolitan area of Kansas City.

We in north Missouri enjoy good recreation facilities, boating, swimming, and fishing; and the prospect of having excellent facilities in our backyard is most appealing. However, we do not believe the plan of the Corps of Engineers is the way to obtain these services for north Missouri. The State of Missouri has developed the Thousand Hills Lake near Kirksville and the people of Putnam County are developing a fine recreational facility near Unionville. Neither of these will cost the Federal Government a quarter of a billion dollars or 349,200 acres of proven high-quality agricultural land.

Comparison has been made with the recreational facilities in central and southern Missouri. However, the rolling, green plains of north central Missouri where the reservoirs are proposed are not adaptable to large lake development. The banks of the lake shores in north Missouri would be gradually slopes, ty loam as contrasted to the steep and rocky glens of the southern Missouri lakes When the waters of the reservoirs are at low elevation in the southern Missouri lakes, the shoreline is clean gravel, sand, or rock. The proposed reservoirs in north Missouri would result in soggy mud flats, hardly conducive to recreation. Also, the development of recreational facilities on these proposed reservoirs

would not include the building of lakeside cabins, or private development of any kind on the lakeshore. This would seriously limit the economic advantage. The waters of north Missouri are muddy, and in times of high water, silt laden, a most undesirable condition for recreation.

In support of their contention, the Engineers include, in their supplement of September 1964, plate 1, "Area of Influence for Recreation," an indiscriminate area within a 100-mile radius from the proposed reservoirs. The Engineers recreation draw to the proposed reservoirs as illustrated by their plate 1, supra, includes the entire Lake of the Ozarks, with the exception of the southernmost part of the Niangua Arm; the Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir; the Johanna Reservoir; the proposed Long Branch Reservoir; the Thomas Hill Reservoir; two proposed reservoirs on the Fishing River near Excelsior Springs; and numerous proposed reservoirs on the western side of Missouri north of Kansas City, all in the State of Missouri. In addition, the Hillsdale, Pamona, Clinton, and Perry Reservoirs located in the State of Kanssa; and the Saylorville, Red Rock, and Rothman Reservoirs located in the State of Iowa are included.

Recreation use in the seven Grand River reservoirs is limited by the many reservoirs now in existence, authorized, or proposed in the State of Missouri and in the neighboring States of Kansas and Iowa. Most of these other reservoirs are closer to metropolitan centers and will be completed long before the Grand River Basin reservoirs. The population of the area would support but one reservoir for recreational purposes. The close proximity of the seven reservoirs also lessens their recreational appeal. The fisherman, the boater, and the swimmer can enjoy only one reservoir at a time. By analogy, these may be likened to a steak-hungry man who would be willing to pay an enormous price for one large steak, but would be unable to devour seven steaks even if the last six were free.

The Corps of Engineers proposes to operate each of the reservoirs with a fluctuating water level of from 20 to 25 feet. With the predominantly gradual slopes of elevation around the shoreline of each of the reservoirs, there are many instances where the shoreline at full pool would differ from 1 to 5 miles from the shoreline at low pool. This is not conducive to recreation.

Illustrative of the desperate attempt by the Corps of Engineers to pump claimed recreational benefits into their plan is their change of position between the June 1963 report and the September 1964 supplement. In the (June 1963) report (p. 43), they assign annual claimed recreation benefits from the seven reservoirs as $5,670,000 with an additional $204,000 annual benefits to fish and wildlife for a total benefit of $5,874,000. The backup data of the Engineers for this claimed benefit is indeed sketchy and leaves much to be desired (III-36 and 38). For example, they compare the States of Texas and Oklahoma with north Missouri. They have the annual visitor-days on the Pattonsburg Reservoir alone of 3,400,000. They place a value of 30 cents per day for each visitor that drives past the reservoir and 65 cents on any visitor stopping at the reservoir to engage in any recreational activity. On a reservoir basis, the total of the seven reservoirs includes 13.080,000 annual visitor-days and on a system basis 8,710.000 visitor-days (III-38). The report fails to show how many are looking and how many are recreating. A problem exists to figure just how the Engineers arrive at their wild guess.

In the June 1953 report, the separate item of fish and wildlife benefits are of equal fascination. The annual claimed benefits which total $204,000 (p. 43) do not correspond with the back up data of the engineers contained in their table III-20, page III-42. Without reviewing the entire table, it is fascinating how the engineers can assign an annual benefit on the Pattonsburg Reservoir for public fishing from the riprap face of the dam of $16,000; an annual benefit of $20,000 to the 500-acre diked marshes; $47,000 annual benefit to the 1-to-5-acre impoundments: $39,000 annual benefit for commercial fishing; and an annual benefit of $44,900 for reservoir lands under fish and wildlife management. Glaring errors appear, of course, in the remaining six reservoirs. As an example, the annual benefits assigned to the Trenton Reservoir are $10,000 from fishing on the riprap face of the dam; $48.000 for minimum releases; $20,000 for the 500-acre diked marsh areas; $38.000 for the 1-to-5-acre subimpoundments; $32,000 for commercial fishing; and $35.800 for reservoir lands under fish and wildlife management. No correlation exists between the June 1963 claimed fish and wildlife benefits and their claimed annual benefits from the seven reservoirs of $204.000 except maintenance of minimum releases. The Corps of Engineers realized that their claimed recreational benefits and the claimed fish and wildlife benefits contained in the June 1963 report were lacking in credence. As the