OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS AND FLOOD CONTROL BILLS-1965 TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMITMTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL, OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert E. Jones (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. LEE CREEK, Ark. Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will come to order. The first item for consideration this morning is Lee Creek, Ark. Colonel Kristoferson. You may proceed, Colonel. STATEMENT OF LT. COL. R. S. KRISTOFERSON, CORPS OF Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this report is submitted in response to a resolution of the Committee on Flood Control the House adopted May 2, 1946, and a resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the House adopted July 31, 1957. It concerns flood control and water conservation on Lee Creek in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The Lee Creek watershed lies north of the Arkansas River and just north of the cities of Fort Smith and Van Buren, Ark. Lee Creek is about 60 miles long and flows generally in a southerly direction, crossing the Arkansas-Oklahoma State line several times. The watershed is very steep in the upper reaches and steep in the remainder of the drainage area. It is alternatively subject to drought and to flash rises and major floods. There are no existing flood control improvements in the area under consideration. Local interests want solution of their flood problems and storage of water for municipal and industrial purposes and recreation. The cities of Fort Smith and Van Buren need a supply of 30 million gallons per day for municipal and industrial purposes by 1970 and at least an additional 30 million gallons per day for future needs. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of Pine Mountain Dam and Reservoir for purposes of flood control, water supply, and recreation and fish and wildlife at an estimated first cost of $10 million for construction and $61,000 annually for operation and maintenance. Annual charges are estimated at $406,000 and annual benefits are estimated at $563,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.4 to 1. Local interests are required to bear first and annual costs allocated to water supply, currently estimated at $5,940,000 and $22,000, respectively; comply with the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act with respect to cost sharing associated with recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement; hold and save the United States free from water rights claims; and annually inform interests that the project will not provide complete flood protection. The comments of the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma are favorable, as are the comments of the Federal agencies. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this report. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. Any questions, Mr. Baldwin? Mr. BALDWIN. No questions. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. We are pleased to have this morning in support of this project our wonderful and delightful friend, Judge Trimble. I might say that Judge Trimble was a longtime member of this committee before he switched over to the Committee on Roads. We are glad to see you, notwithstanding. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. TRIMBLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Mr. TRIMBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the coumittee. Yes, and I have to hurry over there. There is a little minor item, our education bill, coming up today. But I do want to concur-and I am grateful to you for allowing me to come this morning; I want to concur in everything that Colonel Kristoferson has said. This project, while it is small, is very vital to a rapidly growing area down there, and I know of no serious opposition. I think I have had one letter opposed to it. I wish all of our projects were as noncontroversial as this. I am leaving this in your hands, knowing that you will do what you think is best. Thank you very much. May I leave this in lieu of my remarks? Mr. JONES. Without objection, it will be received and printed in the record at this point. (Statement follows:) STATEMENT OF JIM TRIMBLE, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, OF ARKANSAS Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to support the construction of the Pine Mountain Dam on the Lee Creek near Van Buren, Ark. It is a very important project with reference to municipal and industrial water supply for the cities of Van Buren and Fort Smith, in addition to the flood control feature. If it is necessary, many people from the area will gladly come to testify in favor of the dam. So far as I know, there is no serious objection to it. I hope you can include the Pine Mountain Dam in the omnibus r.vers and harbors and flood control bill this time. Mr. TRIMBI E. Thank you. M. JONES. Thank you. nel Kristoferson. BIG SIOUX RIVER, IOWA AND S. DAK. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this report is submitted in response to a resolution adopted July 29, 1955, by the Public Works Committee of this House. It concerns the lower Big Sioux River in Iowa and South Dakota. The Big Sioux River rises in northeastern South Dakota, flows in a southerly direction to the vicinity of Sioux Falls, where it becomes the boundary between South Dakota and Iowa, and empties into the Missouri River near Sioux City. In the lower 80-mile reach of the basin the river is tortuous and the channel capacity is small, resulting in frequent flooding of improvements and land bordering the river, especially from snowmelts in spring and heavy rains in summer. The corps has a local flood protection project at Sioux Falls, S. Dak., and a bank protection project close to the mouth of the river. These projects will not appreciably reduce floods in the lower basin. Local interests desire flood protection by reservoirs, channel improvements, levees, or a combination thereof. The Chief of Engineers recommends channel improvements in the lower Big Sioux River from 2 miles north of Akron, Iowa, to the mouth by enlargement, cleanout and cutoffs, including minor changes to one highway bridge and two sections of gravel road. The first cost of the proposed work is $6,400,000 Federal and $384,000 non-Federal. The annual benefits are estimated at $324,600 for flood damages prevented, and the total annual charges at $285,500, including an annual maintenance and operation cost of $20,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.1 to 1. Local interests are required to provide the usual assurances in connection with the channel work; also to provide lands for fish and wildlife mitigation measures; and to develop, manage, and maintain fish and wildlife facilities and habitat areas. Local interests have indicated willingness to comply. The comments of the State of South Dakota and the Federal agencies are favorable. The State of Iowa does not concur in the fish and wildlife mitigation plan, and desires to wait for completion of the study of the upper Big Sioux River Basin before taking a further position on the subject. It is the view of the Chief of Engineers that the proposed project. will be compatible with, and enhanced by, any future flood control plan that might be developed for the upper basin, and will not become redundant as a result of any upstream reservoirs that may later be authorized and built. It is his further view that this proposed project will not bar consideration of other projects which may be developed in the basin in the future. He therefore recommends authorization of the project without further study. If the project is authorized, the corps will continue coordination with concerned interests during advanced planning with a view to developing a mutually agreeable fish and wildlife mitigation plan. The Bureau of the Budget had no objection to the submission of this report. Gentlemen, that concludes my statement. GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland, Chairman JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois W. J. BRYAN DORN, South Carolina J. RUSSELL TUTEN, Georgia ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee JOHN R. SCHMIDHAUSER, Iowa WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida Testimony of CONTENTS Andrews, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Page 1004 Bandstra, Hon. Bert, a Representative in Congress from the State of 1104 Bennett, Hon. Charles E., a Representative in Congress from the 960 Betts, Hon. Jackson E., a Representative in Congress from the State 1101 Burke, Edmund, planning staff assistant, Corps of Engineers. Campbell, V. P., manager, Pend Oreille County Public Utility District 1, Washington State.. 1211 1188 Carter, Hon. Tim Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 1154 Celler, Hon. Emanuel, a Representative in Congress from the State 1107 Cooper, Hon. John Sherman, a Senator from the State of Kentucky. 985, 1145 955 Clausen, Hon. Don H., a Representative in Congress from the State 930 Curran, Michael, chairman, Big Sioux Water Conservancy Group, 894 Duncan, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State 1156 Edelman, Lester, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Corps of 1137 Evans, Hon. Frank E., a Representative in Congress from the State 1048 Evins, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 1191 Farnsley, Hon. Charles P., a Representative in Congress from the 1162 Foley, Hon. Thomas S., a Representative in Congress from the State 1185 Fulton, Hon. Richard, a Representative in Congress from the State 1125 Gathings, Hon. E. C., a Representative in Congress from the State of 1123 Glasgow, Wayne, immediate past president, Tennessee Crippled 1127 Gregory, Jim, chairman, Crutcho Creek Flood Control Association, 1017 Grimes, Joseph W., South Dakota water resources engineer, Pierre, 890 Hagan, Hon. G. Elliott, a Representative in Congress from the State 977 927 Hall, Hon. Durward G., a Representative in Congress from the State Hart, Loney W., Chief, Real Estate Legislative Services Office, Chief 1071 1024 1098, 1131, 1201 Howard, Hon. James J., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey.. |