Now then, some recommendations are being made that would strengthen the Mississippi River Commission, in that they would limit the tenure to 9-year terms for the civilian members. Would you care to comment on that? What is your recommendation on that, General? General DAVIS. I think that would be a very fine provision. Mr. EVERETT. Now then, some suggestions are also being made with reference to the salary provision which, I understand, has remained unchanged since 1928. What is your thinking on that? General DAVIS. I think I can break my comment down into two parts, one as applies to the civilian members of the Commission and one as to the military. Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir. General DAVIS. Insofar as the civilian Mr. JONES. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) General DAVIS. Insofar as applies to the civilian members I think that they are the type of people that we want to have as members of this Commission and they occupy a high place in the community. And I think it would be very fine if their rates of pay were raised to rese nble more closely that which similar people would be receiving on jobs whose pay scale had been analyzed more recently than their own, which I think goes back Mr. JONES. Well, there again I detect General DAVIS. I beg your pardon? Mr. JONES. I detect a little ambition on the part of the gentleman from Tennessee, who is in that area, that he may someday be a member of that Commission. [Laughter.] Mr. EVERETT. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) General DAVIS. Insofar as a military concern, Mr. Chairman, I feel honored to have been selected to be the president of the Mississippi River Commission, and I know that the other two or three members, rather, of the commission who are either in the military or with the Coast and Geodetic Survey feel that this is a job assigned to them to which they intend to apply their very best efforts. And they will take the pay as it comes down through military channels rather than having it changed or modified by separate legislation. Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, sir. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Thank you, gentlemen, all of you. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. JONES. We have present this morning our colleague from Arkansas the Honorable E. C. Gathings. Would you like to say something, Mr. Gathings? STATEMENT OF HON. E. C. GATHINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here to report, acquiesce in and concur in the statement to be made by my good friend Mr. Maurice Smith, who is president of the St. Francis Levee District in Arkansas. He will be heard later, I assume. Mr. JONES. Thank you. Mr. GATHINGS. I have a statement I would like to file for the record. Mr. JONES. Without objection the statement will be received and printed in the record at this point. Mr. GATHINGS. Thank you. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF E. C. GATHINGS The U.S. Corps of Engineers worked for many, many months in the preparation of the review report of projects in the lower Mississippi Valley area. This review report is contained in House Document 308, 88th Congress, 2d session. The various projects were painstakingly studied and carefully drafted. The report deals with the St. Francis Basin and tributaries with respect to drainage, Mississippi River levees, and wildlife resources. I commend the Corps of Engineers and its dedicated employees for an outstanding job in considering and recommending correction of many drainage and other problems, including flood control in the Mississippi Valley territory. The recommendations that they make with respect to these improvements would be most beneficial and badly needed. I trust that this committee will see fit to lend its approval to them. I am bitterly opposed, however, to the recommendation having to do with local cooperation as made by the Chief of Engineers. The report recommended that local landowners provide rights-of-way, power, bridge relocations, and utility relocations and maintenance. These requirements cannot be complied with by local interests. They contravene the expressed provisions of law for the cooperation in the St. Francis River Basin and the Yazoo River Basin as set out in Public Law 526, 79th Congress, 2d session, enacted July 24, 1946, and I quote: Page 7, paragraph Q: "Modification of the authorized project for the lower Mississippi River to provide that the local cooperation to be hereafter furnished for the works authorized in the St. Francis River Basin and the Yazoo River Basin shall consist of the requirement that responsible local interests agree to maintain levees in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the act of May 15, 1928, where maintenance is required under existing law." Subsequently, House Document 132 of the 81st Congress, 1st session, provided as follows and I quote: "Page 22 (54)-Recommendations -; and that all these improvements be subject to the cooperation required of local interests as provided in the Flood Control Act approved July 24, 1946." Also, Public Law 516 of the 81st Congress, 2d session, approved May 17, 1950, says this: "Page 11 (b)—The plan for flood protection and major drainage improvement in the St. Francis River Basin, Mo. and Ark., substantially in accordance with with the report of the Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 132, 81st Congress, 1st session, and there is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $20 million for partial accomplishment of that plan." In 1949 the Arkansas General Assembly passed an act authorizing the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas as the local cooperating agency in the construction by the Corps of Engineers of the St. Francis River flood control project approved in the 81st Congress, 2d session, and known as Public Law 516. The Arkansas act called for a special election of the taxpayers in the levee district, the issue being whether or not they approved of the St. Francis Levee District participating in the program as cooperating agent. These owners were advised prior to the holding of the election that the requirements for local participation were in keeping with the provisions set forth in Public Law 526 of the 79th Congress, 2d session, approved July 24, 1946. That is to say, the local cooperation in the St. Francis River Basin and Yazoo River Basin is to be consistent with the requirement that "Responsible local interests agree to maintain levees in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the act of May 15, 1928, where maintenance is required under existing law." The vote was taken by the landowners in approving the St. Francis Levee District as the cooperating participant in the furtherance of the project that that they would be obligated only for the necessary costs of maintenance. The recommendation carried in the review report for the landowners to pay these various other costs is unjust and unconscionable as well as violating the expressed provisions of a congressional act. These people relied upon the act of Congress when they cast their vote in approval of the St. Francis Levee District representing their interests in connection with the building of this project. They had no reason to assume that its Government would not keep its word. The requirements as set out in the review report for local cooperation would go even further and make landowners in the St. Francis Levee District liable for obligations outside the levee district area and include certain areas in the State of Missouri. Public Law 526, passed and approved in 1946, brought to the landowners in the St. Francis Basin the relief that was so urgent and necessary from floodwater damage. These farmowners were unable to meet the earlier requirements of making available rights-of-way and other provisos in addition to maintenance. One of the most significant planks in my platform when I made my first race for Congress in the year 1938 was to relieve the landowners of this obligation which they could not fulfill. The works of improvement were stymied for several years as a result of the local interests not being in a position to comply with the cooperation requirements as were set forth in the original act. I hope that your committee will accord these landowners the relief they seek. The work needs to be done badly, and they are willing to comply with Public Law 526 of the 79th Congress, 2d session approved July 24, 1946. They stand ready to fulfill the cooperation requirements set forth in the original St. Francis River project, House Document 132, 81st Congress, making all such improvements subject to the cooperation required "of local interests as provided in the Flood Control Act approved July 24, 1946." They cannot do more, in view of the cost-price squeeze in which they find themselves as a result of depressing farm prices and higher production costs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for your every consideration. Mr. JONES. We will now hear from Mr. C. S. Tindall of Greenville, Miss. STATEMENT OF C. S. TINDALL, GREENVILLE, MISS., ACCOM- Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. TINDALL. Mr. Chairman, my name is C. S. Tindall. I am attorney for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners headquartered in Greenville, Miss., and appear here today as the spokesman for the Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association to urge your favorable consideration of the "Review Report on Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries," as recommended in House Document 308, 88th Congress, 2d session, with some modifications to be suggested by witnesses to follow. For the information of the committee, the Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association is unique among organizations in this field in that it is composed entirely of public bodies having responsibility among other things, for providing the local cooperation required under the various Federal laws dealing with the development of the lower Mississippi River and its tributaries. Our membership is composed of State agencies, municipalities, levee boards, drainage districts and port commissions in the portions of the seven States concerned with flood control and related problems in the alluvial valley of the Mississippi River. I propose to present for your consideration certain general suggestions which have a direct bearing on the prosecution of the project but which for reasons to be developed later are not covered in the report. Various ones of our group will file statements for the record endorsing the various recommendations of the Corps of Engineers but we will limit our oral presentation to those features of the report which, in our opinion, require special consideration and perhaps some modification. Let me say at this juncture that there is no controversy as such but that our recommendations will address themselves more to the conditions of authorization recommended in the report. Maj. Gen. Ellsworth I. Davis, president of the Mississippi River Commission, has given you a vivid description of the history of the project and the devastation wrought by the great flood of 1927 which led directly to the original project authorization in 1928. This, as you know, is the grandfather of all such projects in that it marked the entrance of the Federal Government into the field of flood control. For some 10 years prior to the 1927 flood there had been a matching program under which the Federal Government contributed two-thirds of the construction costs of levees and the local interests furnished rights-of-way, the required maintenance and contributed the other one-third of the construction costs. The 1927 flood graphically demonstrated the inadequacy of such a program when some areas were flooded by crevasses in the inadequate levees of their neighbors whose meager financial resources had not permitted them to fully participate in the program. Your hearing record will show that General Davis estimates that prior to the 1928 act the local levee boards had spent nearly $1 billion, based on present values, to protect themselves from the floodwaters of a river system draining more than 40 percent of the area of the Nation's mainland plus portions of two Canadian provinces. Some of our levee boards are still paying on bonded indebtedness incurred in this effort. The 1928 act required that we buy the rightsof-way for the levee system and maintain the levees after their completion. This, coupled with the old indebtedness, has continued to be a heavy financial burden on local interests but a requirement which we have cheerfully accepted and complied with. The voluminous report which you are now considering represents the first overall look at the project since its original authorization in 1928. Previous reports have dealt with it only on a fragmentary basis. The local interests believe that the recommendations contained therein assure our economic stability and growth for a number of years in the future because our economy and our very lives are inextricably bound to the vagaries of the Mississippi River. The recommended strengthening of our mainline levee system, the extension and continuation of the revetment program, and the tributary improvements all are vitally necessary to the prosperity of the nearly 30,000 square miles in the valley and, hence, to the prosperity of the Nation itself. The project's benefit-to-cost ratio of nearly 7 to 1 is dramatic proof of how well you and your predecessors in Congress have wrought in this particular field of endeavor. You are aware that the Bureau of the Budget, in transmitting the report to Congress, directed that the monetary figures be revised to reflect 1965 prices and conditions since those in the report were based on 1956 conditions and 1959 prices. General Davis presented these revised figures to you and we will not repeat them. It is our formal request that you authorize the additional plan of improvement recommended with the modifications to be suggested. Let me turn now to specific suggestions for your consideration in this legislation. Prosecution of the flood control project on the lower Mississippi River is under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi River Commission, established by Congress in 1879 primarily in the interest of navigation on the Mississippi River. For many years its headquarters were in St. Louis but they were moved to Vicksburg, Miss., when the Flood Control Act of 1928 was adopted. The Commission is composed of three officers of the Corps of Engineers, one of whom serves as its President and administrative head; a representative of the Coast and Geodetic Survey; and three civilians, two of whom must be civil engineers. The Commission is a reporting and policymaking board with great responsibility. For instance, the basic report you are now considering is that of the Mississippi River Commission rather than the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors as is the general procedure. The Commission reports directly to the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. We in the lower Mississippi Valley believe very strongly in the Commission because it serves as a close bond between the Federal Government and the local interests. We believe, however, that certain steps should be taken to strengthen it at the present time. The 1928 act established the salary of the President of the Commission at $10,000 and that of individual members at $7,500. Actually, for many years only the civilian members have drawn any salary at all as the other members' military salary exceeded that prescribed. The 1928 act establishing the present salaries requires that the official salary of any officer of the Army or any other branch of the Government shall be deducted from the amount of salary established for the President and members of the Mississippi River Commission. The membership of the Commission has, through the years, been of the highest order but, particularly with reference to the civilian members, only because they have been public-spirited citizens willing to give of their time and talents as a civic responsibility. We believe that it would be desirable and in the best interest of both the Federal Government and the local interests to set the salary of the President of the Commission at not less than $22,500 per year and the salaries of the members at $15,000. Under present law a member of the Commission serves at the pleasure of the President. We believe it would be desirable to establish a fixed term for the civilian members. We would suggest that a term |