Local interests are required to comply with the normal A-B-C provisions, to prevent future encroachment on the sump areas or provide suitable substitute facilities to compensate for any encroachment, and to contribute $20,000 toward the cost of the pumping plant. Comments of State of Arkansas and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this report. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. While you are on the witness stand, Colonel Kristoferson, will you proceed with Lyon Creek, Woodbine Reservoir, Kans.? WOODBINE RESERVOIR, LYON CREEK, KANS. Location.-Lyon Creek drains an area of about 280 square miles in central Kansas. The stream is a right-bank tributary of the Smoky Hill River which joints the Republican River near Junction City to form the Kansas River. Authority. A feasibility report on Woodbine Reservoir, Lyon Creek, Kans., was authorized in section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962. Existing project.-There are 21 existing and authorized reservoirs in the Kansis River Basin. In this system, 10 are Corps of Engineers projects and 11 are Bureau of Reclamation projects. Twelve reservoirs are in operation, five are under construction, four are authorized but not started. Three of the authorized reservoirs, Clinton, Grove, and Onaga were authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1962; Woodbine was recommended for authorization with the foregoing three, but its authorization was deferred pending submission of this feasibility report. Flood problem.-Lyon Creek has been a contributor to most of the major floods along the lower Smoky Hill River and along the Kansas River. The maximum known discharge occurred during the July 1951 flood in the Kansas River Basin. Damages to crop and pasture lands constitute the bulk of flood damages in the Lyon Creek Basin. However, the most severe damages attributable to floods originating on Lyon Creek are experienced in both rural and urban areas along the Smoky Hill and Kansas Rivers, including the Kansas City's due to the contribution of Lyon Creek discharges to floods on these streams. Recommended plan of improvement.-Construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir for flood control, water quality control, and recreation. Local cooperation.-Bear first and annual costs associated with recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act in amounts currently estimated at $1 million and $20,000, respectively: hold and save the United States free from all water-rights claims resulting from construction and operation of the reservoir; prevent encroachments on the flow-carrying capacities of stream channels below the recommended reservoir operation; exercise, to the full extent of their legal capability, control against removal of streamflow made available by reservoir storage for water quality control purposes. Comments of the State and Federal agencies.— Department of the Interior: Favorable. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Favorable. Department of Commerce: Favorable. Federal Power Commission: Favorable. Public Health Service: Indicates that a future comprehensive study by PHS will include Kansas River Basin, and that such study will make possible a clearer identification of the need and value of storage for water quality control in Woodbine Reservoir. State of Kansas: Recommends that preconstruction planning not be undertaken until purposes and plans for the project have been approved by the Kansas Water Resources Board. The Chief of Engineers agrees. Comments of the Bureau of the Budget.-No objections. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this report is submitted in response to section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962. It concerns flood problems originating in the Lyon Creek watershed of the Kansas River Basin, Kans. Lyon Creek empties into the Smoky Hill River close to the point where it joins the Republican River to form the Kansas River. Lyon Creek flows in a northerly direction, draining an area of about 280 square miles. The Lyon Creek Basin should be controlled in order to provide a desirable degree of protection for, among others, the downstream urban areas of Manhattan, Topeka, Lawrence, and Kansas City. The average annual flood benefits on the Kansas River attributable to control of the Lyon Creek watershed are about $940,000. Additional benefits on the Smoky Hill River and Lyon Creek will accrue from this control. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of Woodbine Reservoir, at an estimated Federal cost of $17,600,000 for construction and $90,000 annually for operation and maintenance, as a justified and highly desirable element of the overall flood control plan for the Kansas River Basin. The average annual benefits are estimated at $1,336,000. The average annual costs are estimated at $738,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.8 to 1. Local interests are required to comply with the cost-sharing provisions of Public Law 89-72 relative to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, at an estimated cost of $1 million for construction and $20,000 annually for operation and maintenance. In addition, they are required to provide assurances to hold and save the United States free from water rights claims, prevent encroachment on the capacity of channels, and control water quality. The comments of the Governor of Kansas are favorable. However, he recommends authorization providing that preconstruction planning money not be requested or appropriated until the design and need for the reservoir are approved by the Kansas Water Resources Board. Accordingly, the Chief of Engineers agrees to submit the scope of and need for the reservoir to the Kansas Water Resources Board for review before funds for design are requested or appropriated. The comments of the Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this report. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. Colonel, on the land acquisition will we encounter the same problems as we had in the project yesterday? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. No, sir. Mr. JONES. Any questions? Mr. BALDWIN. I am puzzled by the comments of the State of Kansas. As I understand your procedure, you have submitted this to the State and they have had 90 days to review it and comment on it, have they not? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Then the proposed project has already been submitted to the State for comment. Why do they have to recommend that preconstruction planning money not be requested or appropriated until the design and need for the reservoir are approved by the Kansas Water Resources Board? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The water resources board is the Governor's agency for review of the corps projects as well as all other water resource projects. The board questioned the need, size, and scope of development in the Woodbine Reservoir when compared with other projects such as soil conservation watershed programs. They have a reasonable doubt in their mind as to the formulation of this project. The Governor feels this is a worthwhile addition to the State plan and that these differences can be worked out before construction money or planning money is requested. He feels this project should be authorized at this time so that the State may have an orderly plan for development, but that it still needs review by the water resources board. Mr. BALDWIN. If we approve this project as recommended by the Corps of Engineers, will that include this procedure you have outlined? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. I do not recall a single project that has this provision. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, there is an additional one, the Walnut River Basin project. Mr. JONES. Congressman Shriver. STATEMENT OF HON. GARNER E. SHRIVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS-Resumed Mr. SHRIVER. I want to make a very brief statement. Mr. Chairman, it was approximately 40 hours ago that I was informed that the authorization of the Woodbine Reservoir, Lyon Creek, Kans., was to be considered by your subcommittee. In the 87th Congress a deferral of authorization of this project until the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service could submit a feasibility study to the Congress was requested and was approved. On September 18, 1964, the Department of the Army forwarded to me the proposed report of the Chief of Engineers. The reporting officers found that construction of Woodbine Dam and Reservoir is feasible. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors concurred, in general, in the findings of the reporting officers and recommended the improvement subject to local cooperation. The proposed Woodbine Reservoir is located within Dickinson County which I currently represent in the House of Representatives. In representing the best interests of my constituents in the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas who are affected by this proposed project, I believe it is incumbent upon me to place before your subcommittee for careful consideration several important examples of State opposition which may have a bearing on the "local cooperation" deemed essential by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. The Kansas Water Resources Board has twice recommended against the authorization of the Woodbine Reservoir. Its latest report submitted to the Governor was in December 1964. The Kansas State Legislature, after considerable debate in its committees and on the floor of both the house of representatives and senate, omitted the Woodbine Reservoir from the State water plan which was approved on April 27, 1965. One of the prime reasons for seeking a delay in congressional action on this project has been the desire of local citizens who have formed the Lyons Creek Watershed Association. They have been working to develop their watershed district covering 186,000 acres in four counties. These are factors which certainly should be weighed in considering authorization of this project at this time. I should further add that I have received no requests from the Governor of Kansas or the Kansas Water Resources Board to seek inclusion of the Woodbine Reservoir in this year's authorization. Thank you. Mr. BALDWIN. You mention that this project was not included in the State water plan, and you mention you have received no request from the State of Kansas to have it authorized. Is it your recommendation that we not authorize this project at this time? Mr. SHRIVER. I have no recommendation particularly except that the procedure that normally is followed in our State-and I presume in many States-is for a project to be cleared at the local and State level to get that local cooperation I was discussing a moment ago. As I said a moment ago, I heard this was coming up just about 40 hours ago and I do not know what the viewpoint of the Governor may be. Mr. BALDWIN. Let me ask you a further question. As you heard the testimony of the Corps of Engineers, the State came in with a comment stating that they recommend that preconstruction planning not be undertaken until the specifications and plans for the project have been approved by the Kansas Water Resources Board. So if we approve this project in the form recommended by the Corps of Engineers, this would have to be submitted to the Kansas Water Resources Board for their approval and if they did not approve it, it would not go forward. If they approved the actual designs and plans submitted to them by the Corps of Engineers, then the corps would proceed to request funds and, if those funds were approved by Congress, construction would be carried out. So in effect the corps recommendation is that we do go through this further step giving the Kansas Water Resources Board the right to approve the project and they have 90 days to approve or submit comment on it. The only thing I am driving at is that there is a further protection. If we approve it in the form recommended by the corps there is a further procedure available to the State of Kansas. Would you object to following that procedure? Mr. SHRIVER. Apparently this statement was given just a few moments ago, that this was the recommendation of the Governor and I presume others in authority in Kansas. I just have not heard about this before. I have known about this project and there has been con siderable controversy and that has occurred before the water resources board and the State legislature, where it should be cleared. As I said, I personally have received no request. Mr. BALDWIN. I understand the problem the gentleman from Kansas has in the absence of communications from the State. If I might state what I assume the situation is, it is that you would feel very doubtful for us to approve the Corps of Engineers going in and building the project without giving the State an opportunity to do anything about it. You apparently would be opposed to that without a communication from the State. But as I understand your position, you want to be sure the State of Kansas is fully consulted and gives full .concurrence or not concurrence before construction is started? Mr. SHRIVER. Exactly. You have clarified my position. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you. Mr. JONES. Is Congressman Mize here? (No response.) Mr. JONES. That concludes the schedule of hearings this morning and concludes the hearings of the subcommittee on this bill. We will mark up the bill Monday. The subcommittee will stand adjourned. (Thereupon, at 10:30 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned.) |