It was out of commission 42 days in the 12 months from the latter part of July '44, to the first part of July 1945. It is out of commission somewhere along the line practically every few months, and we have had disastrous floods in our valley every month in the year except January and February. We came awful near having them in the month this year. If it hadn't been for the sudden freezing, when things commenced to thaw and the valley was flooded, we would have had it again.

I want to submit just one more thing on the small dam proposition and that is a map of the small dam plan submitted by Mr. Meisner, a registered professional engineer, who is the county engineer for Marion County. He presented this map at the hearing in Topeka before the Governor's committee. I didn't have a copy, and I wrote him. He says in his letter:

Enclosed are the two maps requested.

Understand-we only investigated this area in one day. Spotted likely looking sites on a road map. Came in to the office and transferred them to the United States 65 sheets and found they fit exceedingly well. In a few cases, the contour sheet does not fit existing conditions. In general, it is correct and no doubt exists in our minds that we missed just as many other good locations.

We believe that if we treated all other streams as we have this stream, we would accomplish the same and as the larger dams accomplish and afford additional flood protection without loss of good bottom farm land and subsequent uprooting of families. Our plan does not uproot one family.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your purpose in presenting that now? I am not clear.

Mr. REDMOND. Well, that is one of the alternative small dam plans, small pond plans.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you here as an advocate on this plan or not? Mr. REDMOND. No. It was advocated in the hearing before the Kansas advisory committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, so far as that is concerned, this project was referred to the State of Kansas and the Governor. Now the junior secretary approved it; isn't that correct?

Mr. REDMOND. Yes, sir. I would like to make the Governor's letter

a part

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). It is already a part of the record. It is a part of the report.

Mr. REDMOND. I want to go a little further and say that not only the opponents, but the proponents very strongly favor the Governor's recommendation that private individuals, farmers, and private business be given the same treatment in reference to recompense as the railroads and the utilities.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, they will be given that, whether the Governor advises that or not, because you have got to treat them all alike under the Constitution.

Mr. REDMOND. Well, they figure they haven't been getting it.
The CHAIRMAN. How is that?

Mr. REDMOND. I say, in our State, the complaint is made that they have to go to court pretty generally to get that, and when they do go to court. they get a raise in the evaluation of their properties.

The CHAIRMAN. Even so, what I am saying is that the courts are open to individuals just as they are to the corporations.

Mr. REDMOND. Yes; only they move the corporations and help them. The CHAIRMAN. They what?

Mr. REDMOND. They help the railroad. For instance, they relocate the K. T. Railroad in Coffer County, Strawn Dam in Lyon County, and Morris County at the Council Grove Dam. They relocate it and it comes out in lots better shape than it is.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that they do that everywhere a railroad interferes. They do the same thing about the highway. Mr. REDMOND. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. REDMOND. I want to call attention to the map and the dams close to the headwaters. I think that map shows one of the dams at least goes within 31⁄2 miles of the watershed line.

The CHAIRMAN. The colonel pointed it out in his statement. That is about the first thing he stated to us.

Mr. REDMOND. Yes.

I have a lot of figures and I am submitting them, if I may, with my written statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a written statement there?

Mr. REDMOND. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. REDMOND. I will say that each of the proponents who are on my list at least have a written statement covering the general thing, but they want to mention some one particular item.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. REDMOND. If I might say it, Mr. Carpenter, former Congressman, is from Marion and the headwaters of the Cottonwood. Mr. Young and a couple of others are from Council Grove. Mr. Barker and Mr. Chappelle are from Canute, down in the middle part, and Mr. Fox speaks for the lower part of the valley, and in order to conserve time, I will submit the rest of mine in writing, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Redmond, you have presented a very helpful statement to us and we are glad to have had you appear, and you have a statement in writing prepared, have you?

Mr. REDMOND. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And you will now pass that to the reporter, or do you want to look it over and then submit it later?

Mr. REDMOND. I would rather check it over. I think it is ready. The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may then hand it to the clerk and the clerk will submit it as a part of your statement.

Mr. REDMOND. Yes, sir.

(Statement submitted by Mr. Redmond follows:)

My name is John Redmond. I am editor of the Burlington (Kans.) Daily Republican, one of the class of very small dailies known in Kansas as a "dinky daily." but which modestly claims the largest circulation of any daily in the world in proportion to the population of its city.

First. I want to express our appreciation to the committee for giving us this opportunity to be heard.

Our delegation is representing the Neosho-Cottonwood Valley Flood Control Association which has a large membership throughout the valley in Kansas. We also represent the governing bodies of most of the incorporated cities and towns on the river, as well as boards of county commissioners of six counties and many other taxing units, farm groups, chambers of commerce, civic clubs, etc. We endorse the flood-control plan for the Grand-Neosho River in Kansas as recommended by the Corps of Engineers and as outlined in House Document No. 442, Eightieth Congress, second session.

We endorse the plans for conservation recommended for this watershed by the Soil Conservation Service, now in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture.

Dr. Milton E. Eisonhower, president of Kansas State College and formerly Coordinator of Land Use for the Department of Agriculture, under whose general guidance the Soil Conservation Service surveys were developed, says: "It is imperative that we tackle the problem on a watershed basis. It is only common sense that we should make a coordinated attack on land and in stream and thus have both the richness of the land and the energy of the streams to contribute to man's welfare, rather than to his injury." And adds, "I hope you have good luck. It is high time we began tackling the flood-control problem on a total basis." We favor the authorization of both of these projects, which recognize the relationship between watershed, waterways, and floods, and the interdependent relation between conditions of watersheds and rate of run-off and volume of soil lost.

We not only favor the authorization of both of these projects, but we respectfully suggest that appropriations for their construction be made at this session and the Neosho watershed be used as a test. We urgently request prompt authorization of the flood-control project as the health of residents of the valley is threatened, and the floods are coming higher and higher as well as much oftener.

This is the first watershed in the Midwest on which the United States engineers' plans for flood control and Soil Conservation Service plans for land use and upstream methods have been completed and coordinated. This is an opportunity to use one complete watershed as a sample, by authorizing and constructing both plans as soon as possible. It would demonstrate the effectiveness of such planning and be a guide to future efforts to preserve the soil and turn the forces of water to the aid of man rather than to his injury. But we don't want flood-control plans to wait for the Soil Conservation Service project.

My first interest in floods on the Neosho began in 1885 when I was about 12 years old, when, along with several others a little older, I got a kick out of riding on logs floating down the flooding Neosho, getting on the logs just above town and swimming to shore just below, then hurrying up the river for another trip. It was great fun until my mother heard of it and appeared on the scene with a pair of pants to hide my nakedness and her favorite willow switch to hurry me home.

My interest in low flow and the pollution of the Neosho came in 1922 when Burlington's city water tested 2,100 parts of salt to the million when 250 is the limit for domestic use. At that time the salt water was killing the fish and making livestock sick. Waste oil covered the water to a depth of 5 or 6 inches for many years above the old dam at Burlington and many other places where tree branches brushed the water. Thousands of edible fish were killed.

At that time the big fight to get flood control was to convince the hard-boiled Army engineers that a project was economically justifiable. If you succeeded in that, it usually ended the fight.

The Neosho River project is the result of a big meeting held at Chanute, November 1, 1937, which was attended by representative farmers and townspeople from the entire length of the river in Kansas. It was attended by Clyde M. Reed, former governor, now senior Senator from Kansas; Congressman Ed H. Rees, of the Fourth District, the late Congressman Patterson of the Third District which is now represented by Mr. Meyer.

Flood control on the Neosho River in Kansas is more than a local problem, and is now accepted as a Federal responsibility. The cities whose water supplies may be ruined by a flood like that of July 1948, which shut down the municipal water and light plants at Iola and lacked only an inch or so of going over the sand bags placed around the plants at Burlington, Chanute, Oswego, Parsons, Chetopa, and threatened others.

The

Counties which have lost bridges and suffered severe damage to highways, likewise are helpless to prevent floods which come from counties upstream. railroads, communication lines, pipe lines, and highways all are affected, yet by themselves, cannot solve the problem of flood control. The cties below Burlington which can get their water supply from the Neosho River have no other source of supply, except at almost prohibitive cost. Just last week the Katy was blocked above Council Grove and the main transcontinental highway at Florence was covered.

Floods, although rare at first, have been a problem in this valley since the first settlements, with disastrous floods at frequent intervals throughout the years. More than half of the big floods have occurred during the planting or growing season, although there have been floods in every month of the year with the exception of January and February.

The rainfall in the valley varies greatly from month to month and from year to year. The average annual rainfall for the valley is 36.32 inches. The annual rainfall has varied from 15.98 inches at Neosho Rapids in 1936 to 65.31 inches at Burlington in 1941. The run-off varies from zero to 80 percent, depending on conditions at the time.

Flood control, like highways, is a continuing project. Like highways, it has to be done part at a time, and also, like highways, the complete project should be planned and then built according to plans. The proposed reservoirs on the Neosho are a big step in the right direction, but more complete flood control will require additional smaller reservoirs considered by the engineers, in addition to the adoption of modern farm practices for the retardation of water, prevention of soil erosion, and other modern practices as recommended by the Soil Conservation Service in survey of the watershed.

The engineers' plans for this watershed call for three reservoirs as far upstream as practical. One is at Council Grove on the upper Neosho, one at Marion on the upper Cottonwood, one at Cedar Point on Cedar Creek, a tributary to the Cottonwood, all near headwaters, with the principal reservoir at Strawn, just below the junction of the Cottonwood and the Neosho.

As this was conceived primarily as a flood control project, the engineers naturally gave that feature primary consideration and found it economically justifiable with comparatively little credit for stream-flow regulations, prevention of pollution, and so forth. We contend that the provision for stream-flow regulation with its accompanying benefits will equal or exceed the benefits from controlling or preventing or lowering the crest of floods, great as that benefit is. Approximately half of the Neosho watershed is above the proposed Strawn Dam. Some 266,500 acres in this valley are subject to overflow, a larger portion of it below the Strawn Dam. Much of this acreage would be fully protected by the dams recommended, and practically all of the Cottonwood and Neosho Valleys would receive some benefit, in addition to the benefits on the Grand and the main stream of the Arkansas River, and to a definite, but lesser degree, the Mississippi, in reduction of flood crests, and in maintaining the stream flow for power and navigation. Engineers say that the Neosho furnishes one-fourth of the floodwaters of the Arkansas below Muskogee, Okla., although comprising only onethirteenth of the watershed.

The four reservoirs in Kansas recommended by the United States engineers will not prevent all floods, but will prevent most of them and greatly reduce the height of the others. If and when the supplemental dams on the tributaries studied by the Kansas water resources engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, and by the United States engineers are constructed, the protection will be greatly increased, especially on the Cottonwood and upper Neosho. Some of these projects lacked very little of being economically justified in the prelimi nary survey, so that it is very possible that the construction of several of them even now may be justified under existing prices and conditions coupled with increasing flood damage.

This project is rather unique, in that it was urgently requested by the people throughout the length of the valley in Kansas, and that there was absolutely no opposition until the exact location of the dams was announced.

It is unique in that the engineers recommended everything the people asked for and nothing more. It is unique in that it has no provision for storage for power, navigation, or irrigation, although the construction of the four dams recommended would have a noticeable effect on the Arkansas River and even on the Mississippi, and add a little water to dams downstream in dry seasons for power and navigation. Streamside irrigation would be an incidental but worth-while benefit in dry years.

It must be remembered also that while construction costs are high they are going down now and may be noticeably lower by the time contracts for these projects are let, especially if there is a recession or depression. The use of late types of power machinery also cut construction costs from what they were when the engineers made their estimate.

That the people of the valley are soil conservation minded is indicated by the fact that every county directly affected by the floods on the Neosho has a soilconservation organization. Coffey County was the first county in Kansas to have 1,000 farms under Soil Conservation Service practices.

In 1941 the rainfall at Burlington totaled 65.31 inches. This included one rain of 12.59 inches which fell in 14 hours. This is the greatest rainfall of record in Kansas in any 24-hour period, and it fell in 14 hours. At the same time rains of

from 10 to 12 inches fell in the headwaters of the Neosho and Cottonwood. Of course, we had a flood.

We contend that in their efforts to be fair to the Government, the engineers have underestimated the benefits that will accrue to the farms and the protection the project will afford farm crops, livestock, buildings, and so forth, and that the value placed on saving the rich bottom soil is much too low.

We contend that the engineers have counted only a small part of the intangible benefits that will accrue to the towns and cities in the protection of health by removal of hazards of pollution; protection of municipal and private utilities from floods and by making it possible for the cities to be assured of an adequate supply of water for public and domestic consumption.

The benefit to health in having an assured water supply is figured much too low. The value of protection from danger of disease and epidemics, etc., from polluted water in the many swimming holes along the course of the river is greatly underestimated. The value of protection of municipal water supplies for the inhabitants of the cities and towns which rely on the river for municipal water can hardly be estimated in dollars and cents.

In period of recurring droughts in the past, the same water has been used by one town after another after being treated. The thought of this is repugnant to any thinking person.

It has been said by envious residents of other States that residents of "dry" Kansas would drink anything, but I declare that no Kansan wants to drink worked-over sewage.

To use a baseball phrase, "It only takes one to hit it," and it only takes one slip by the man in charge of dosing the city water supply, to permit a million typhoid or other germs to enter the distributing system of any water plant which gets its water from the polluted stream.

The Kansas State Board of Health reported that in the drought of 1936 the water from the Neosho was used over and over by one city after another, as it dribbled its way down stream from the reservoir above the little power dam at Burlington.

We regret that we have overlooked checking this feature with our public health authorities until too late to secure official figures, but judging from reports on other contaminated streams and water supplies the benefits of such protection are really substantial, and must be considered much higher in figuring cost and benefit than they have been.

Probably the best and most authoritative witness in support of the projects recommended by the Corps of Engineers would be George S. Knapp, chief engineer of the water resources division of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, which, under Kansas laws, has charge of all matters affecting water usages in the State. But as the State wisely keeps out of arguments between groups differing on projects at such hearing as this, Mr. Knapp is not here.

Mr. Knapp and his capable associates were directed by the Kansas State Legislature of 1917 to "work out a systematic general plan for the complete development of such watershed in the State in order to secure the most advantageous adjustment of interests involved in matters of floods, flood-control prevention, drainage, irrigation, water power, and navigation."

They have done a lot of work planning in the Neosho watershed as shown in their progress reports dated 1942 and 1944 and their report on the Neosho dated August 1947.

Mr. Knapp, as your committee doubtless knows, is an outstanding authority on such affairs, and in the preparation of these reports he had the cooperation of the Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, Geological Survey, Weather Bureau, United States Public Health Service, State board of health, and other State and Federal services, etc. His report strongly supports the plans of the engineers.

These reports which endorse the plans of the engineers are, of course, too long to be incorporated in the proceedings, but I am leaving a copy of each if the committee cares to examine them.

The investigation by the Kansas State Board of Health as well as by the Geological Survey show steadily declining ground-water levels in that region. A study of records of some old wells indicates an average decline of approximately one-half foot each year from 1907 until now. This rate of decline has not been universal, but fluctuated with the recharge and withdrawal. The inspection of water systems of Cherokee, Columbus, Baxter Springs, and Galena in Jan