Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, president of Kansas State College and formerly coordinator of Land Use for the Development of Agriculture, under whose general guidance the 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 streams 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." The report of the Soil Conservation Service, which has not been printed, contains a complete outlife for the Neosho-Cottonwood watershed in Kansas under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. It estimates the annual average cost of $9,706,704 and its annual average benefits at $40,585,041, a ratio of 4.2 to 1, and recommends its authorization on that basis. The report adds that a high degree of cooperation by the 33,000 farmers on the watershed is necessary to protect the watershed lands and to reduce floods. The recommendations for soil conservation in brief: 49,400 miles of terraces, with proper outlets; 6,500 farm ponds to reduce sediment and provide livestock water and recreational uses; 889,500 acres of grassland established to reduce erosion and silt, and all other recognized proper farm practices. The report estimates the average annual conservation benefits: 1. Reduction in floodwater damage to farm crops, im- Increased crops, grazing and other agriculture__ Subtotal_ 2. Land: Streambank erosion, scouring, gravel de- Gully erosion, reduction in sediment deposited, Subtotal_. $587, 666 65, 394 151, 370 $804, 430 $6,181 34, 604 40, 785 $46, 076 566, 010 612, 086 755, 240 2, 212, 541 38, 272, 600 3. Reservoirs___ 4. Roads_ Subtotal__. Increased production bottomland protected from overflowing-. Total average annual flood-control benefit.. Conservation benefit Total average annual benefit_____ 40, 485, 041 The SCS plans call for 310 retardation dams to store 3 inches of run-off from one-third of the watershed. These dams would control areas of from 2 to 40 square miles each. The SCS recommends that the Federal Government pay 80 percent of the cost of these dams and local interests 20 percent, and maintain them. These dams would be located mostly in "high damage areas" above municipalities, or highly productive tributary valleys, and if all were built, would provide some degree of control of run-off from 3,870 of the 12,660 square miles in the Watershed. As I understand it, this means retardation or retention dams on small streams such as Rock Creek above Dunlap, Mud Creek above Marion, Labette above Parsons, etc., or other small streams which damage rich farming sections. These dams would have no control works but would be operated with fixed openings similar to the dams above Dayton, Ohio-simply holding the water to bank full stage in the channel immediately below the dams, so far as possible, thus discharging it without consideration of the flood conditions along the main stream below. These small dams would not help in times of drouth, since they would not impound water for subsequent use. The Soil Conservation Service, however, does not say that these 310 dams will prevent major floods on the main stem of rivers in the basin. Soil Conservation Service officials do say that it alone will not prevent large floods and cannot be expected to do so, the plans of the United States Corps of Engineers and the soil service complement each other and both are necessary for the greatest degree of flood control. The SEC cannot begin work on any of these detention dams until a soil conservation district has been organized, and 70 percent of the land above the dams applying recommended SCS practices. The general rule is that land owners pay for the improvements on their own land, but that cost of projects largely benefiting a larger area (such as the 310 dams of the SCS plan) is largely borne by the Federal Government. The SCS will furnish technical assistance. It has been found, however, that the same objection is being made as to the location of these small SCS dams as is made to the reservoir locations recommended on the major streams by the Corps of Engineers: "Why don't you locate the dam higher up, nearer the headwaters, and not on my land?" The SCS would furnish technical assistance, etc., and the farmers pay the costs of construction and maintenance on their own land. Other SCS flood control measures include: Development of 1,000 miles of tributary flowways to protect 95,000 acres, the Federal share of cost to be 68 percent, and the local interests 32 percent. Construction of 3,000 structures in subwatersheds to stabilize channels for gully control, the Federal share being 79 percent and local interests 21 percent. Seven thousand, nine hundred miles of roadside erosion control work to protect 16,800 miles of highway right-of-way with the Federal share 34 percent and the remainder to local interests. The average annual cost of the SCS plan would be $1,366,441 to the Federal Government and $8,340,263 non-Federal, a total average annual cost of $9,709,704. The average annual flood control benefit of the program is estimated by the SCS as $2,212,541 and the conservation benefit $38,272,500, a total of $40,485,041. It is recognized by the Congress and by all hydraulic engineers and others familiar with flood control efforts and soil conservation practices, that reservoirs in the major streams are necessary for the control of major floods. Retardation dams on the tributaries, farm ponds, etc., and the most complete conservation practices will not prevent or materially lessen major floods on the main streams. This fact is recognized by the Soil Conservation Service which has repeatedly stated that while water retardation by means of small lakes, ponds, terraces, and all other conservation practices will help and will prevent floods on the small tributaries, they cannot and will not prevent major floods on the main streams. This position of the SCS is well known and those presenting the SCS soil-conservation and water-retardation plan as a measure to control major floods well know that the SCS authorities all say the larger reservoirs such as recommended by the Corps of Engineers are necessary for flood control. This is definitely true in the Neosho watershed, as indicated by the survey recently completed by the SCS and now in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture. An analysis of the cost and benefit date of the SCS interim survey report shows: Cost flood control, $72.387,100; conservation, $24,218,100; total installation cost of entire program, $96,605,200; total benefit, flood control, $22,125,410; conservation, $382,725,000; total, $404,850,410. Ratio of benefit to cost, 4.18. Figuring annual basis at 10 percent of total cost: Annual cost flood control measures, $7,238,710; annual benefits, flood control, $2,212,541. Ratio flood control benefit to flood control cost, 0.306. Annual cost measure for conservation, $2,421,810; annual benefits conservation, $38,272,500. Ratio conservation benefits to costs, 15.8. Average annual cost of SCS program to Federal Government, $1,366,441, and non-Federal, $8,340,263, a total average annual cost of $9,709,704. In this program the land owners in districts would have to provide 20 percent of the cost of the 310 retardation or retention dams and maintain them after they are constructed. These dams would have no conservation pools for streamflow regulation, prevention of pollution, etc. The SCS program is an excellent one for the Neosho watershed and its acceptance and fulfillment greatly desired. The people are for it. But it alone is not an answer to the flood-control problem and the flood-control program of the Corps of Engineers should be immediately authorized and money for the construction of the dams appropriated as soon as possible, the need for flood control and stream-flow regulation in this watershed is urgent. MARCH 24, 1949. Mr. JOHN REDMOND, President, Neosho-Cottonwood Valley Flood Control Association, Burlington, Kans. DEAR MR. REDMOND: I hope all of us will see a full realization of the Neosho River basin projects in conservation and flood control. We have now reached the point in resource-use and resource-waste in this country where it becomes imperative that we attack the problem on a watershed basis, utilizing every workable and economic device for control thus far developed. Neither conservation nor engineering structures in streams will by themselves yield the benefits we need. Together, these two complementary methods can benefit rural and city people alike, and the cost-benefit ratio will be more favorable, under most circumstances, than would either method by itself. We have no land to waste in the United States. Neither can we afford the tragic losses caused by project floods. It is therefore only common sense that we should make a coordinated attack on land and in streams and thus have both the richness of the land and the energy of the streams contribute to man's welfare, rather than to his injury. I was wholly familiar with the watershed phases of the Neosho River basin plan in its early stages, for at that time I was coordinator of land use for the Department of Agriculture and the surveys were developed under my general guidance. While I have not studied the details of the final report, I know that they are sound for the work has been done by experts of the United States Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with State specialists, and these men are technically able and sound in judgment. Too often it is supposed that in flood control there is some conflict between engineering methods, on the one hand, and land-use and up-stream methods, on the other. The exact opposite is true. As I said, the two support and strengthen one another. Of course the situation varies watershed by watershed, but in general the coordinated approach of the Neosho River basin type is what the people of this country must support if we are to prevent damage and obtain maximum benefits. Sincerely yours, [S] Milton S. Eisenhower, President. The letter below from Lewis J. Deyo, 424 Archer Avenue, Peoria 4, Ill., gives his personal experience on a farm near Le Roy, Kans. His experience is not unusual, and the migration from the river botton there is typical of practically every section of the rich valley. Houses have been abandoned and torn down or moved away. Here's his letter: Mr. JOHN REDMOND, Editor, Burlington Republican, Burlington, Kans. PEORIA 4, ILL. DEAR MR. REDMOND: No doubt you will recall our conversation in your office early in August when my wife and I were on our vacation trip. At that time you told me about the recent terrible floods and also of flood-control plans which, if carried out, will save the Neosho River Valley from future flood disasters. After leaving Burlington, we drove to Iola with stops at Le Roy and Neosho Falls and with a three-quarter mile side trip by me on foot to inspect the flood damage to the crop on the 160-acre farm owned by my brother and me north of Neosho Falls. Here I found the remains of the best corn crop that has been on this farm in years. It is possible that some of it may be salvaged, but after seeing evidence that the floodwater had been higher than the ears of corn, I am quite doubtful. This land came into our possession following the death of our father in 1944. He bought it off J. D. Long in 1907 and after renting it out for 2 or 3 years, we moved from Illinois in March 1910 and farmed it ourselves. For several years floods did little damage. We raised pretty fair crops and got along quite well. During those years we heard our neighbors talk about the high water of 1904 at which time the water was a few inches deep in our house. Some of the old settlers told of a flood years earlier, I believe it was 1885. These seemed to be the only bad floods within their memories. Then in 1915 we had a very rainy spring and summer. The floods came and no crops were raised. Because of the inconveniences and dangers that floods bring, we moved from the bottom farm that year to an 80-acre farm on the upland away from the flooded country. My father continued to farm the bottom land as long as he was able, in spite of frequent floods, but the house from which we have moved was never lived in again by us or anyone else. About the time of World War I, dad sold the house in the bottom to one of the neighbors who tore it down and used the lumber on his up-land farm. The barn, chicken house, etc., eventually were torn down or moved off so that for many years now this has been a farm without buildings, flooded so frequently that it and thousands of other acres of rich bottom land has gradually become pretty well hidden in a jungle of slough grass, weeds, brush, and trees. No doubt our experience is typical of hundreds of others who have lived or owned land in the Neosho River Valley. Since 1918, I have lived away from southeastern Kansas, but in my more or less frequent visits to the old home territory I have seen many of the farm homes of my old friends and neighbors deserted and finally disappear because of continual flood devastation. In our small farm community not more than a mile wide and extending 3% to 4 miles north of Neosho Falls I can recall 15 farm homes that have vanished. During the days when I knew them they were occupied by the following families: Bloom, Chas. Saferite, Haddon, Krueger, Brady, Brenner, Stovall, Pyke, Booth, Haines, Ralph McDaniel, Wilson, Deyo, Strawder, Wendt. Probably there are some that I have missed. I cited these instances as illustrations of the tragic loss and desolation which Neosho River floods have brought. No doubt others of the remaining homes in the river bottom will be deserted as a result of this most recent flood. After leaving Iola, we continued on through Fort Scott, Pittsburg, Miami, Okla., to Pensacola Dam. At the dam we were told that after news of the Kansas flood was received, the flood gates were opened and the level of the lake lowered sufficiently so that when the flood waters arrived they were easily contained without any semblance of flood either there or below the dam. This is surely a good illustration of what the proposed system of flood-control reservoirs could accomplish in Kansas. We sincerely hope that this project will soon be "given the green light" so that the terrible waste of crops, animals, and human life can be stopped. Then the fertile Neosho Valley can become the prosperous country that it is capable of being. We shall appreciate it very much if you will advise us, from time to time of any developments which may occur. Very truly yours, IRRIGATION LEWIS J. DEYO. We do not ask for any additional storage to provide for irrigation, are strongly opposed to decreasing the storage for flood control to provide water for irrigation. Irrigation does not seem necessary on this stream where the average annual rainfall ranges up to 45 inches. The projects as planned by the Corps of Engineers will provide water for stream-bank irrigation in the few years irrigation would be most desirable. The storage for stream flow regulation would meet that demand in years of drouth, such as 1936. The rich bottom land lying next to the river is suitable for irrigation and when there is insufficient rainfall to "make" a crop, stream-bank irrigation would be decidedly helpful. Stream-bank irrigation can be done at very little cost and temporary or portable equipment necessary can be installed in a short time. It would not be damaged by high water. There is no demand for irrigation that requires organization of a district and the construction of a costly system of irrigation ditches, etc., to irrigate the land farther back from the stream. Such a system would be idle in normal seasons, and damaged severely in time of high water. Farmers in this section almost without exception say they do not want to exchange riding machinery for the rubber boots and spade that go with irrigation. If and when the full flood control and water and soil conservation plan of the SCS for this watershed is carried to completion, and the 310 smaller reservoirs constructed, together with other measures for water retardation, it should be possible to provide additional water storage earmarked "irrigation." But it should not be done now; at this time the people are interested in flood control and stream flow regulation and not in irrigation. (At this point, a short recess was taken.) The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. At this time, before Mr. Redmond resumes with his introductions, I am going to take the liberty, in accordance with the custom of the committee, of asking Mr. Randolph Carpenter, a former Member of Congress from Kansas, who many of us recall is one of the ablest members who ever served from that or any other State, and we are not confused when we speak of the Honorable Randolph Carpenter with Mr. Carpenter of another State who also served in Congress about the same time. Now we will be glad to have you, Mr. Carpenter, present any statement that you desire to submit with respect to the matter under consideration, and you may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. RANDOLPH CARPENTER, A FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have had some experience in representing my constituents here involving dams and various other projects of that kind, and I certainly appreciate the kind consideration that this committee, and especially the chairman, has given me and the others, regardless of how they feel about the matter at this time. Coming from the district that was a part of Mr. Rees' district, I am somewhat in the position that Mr. Rees was in regard to the matter. However, I want to say that no one has to be sold upon flood control. We all agree that we are for that. Now, being personal for a minute, I might say that my home is located in Marion, in the city of Marion. The CHAIRMAN. Where is it with respect to those dams? It will help us a lot if you would indicate with the pointer there for the benefit of the committee. Mr. CARPENTER. It will probably be about 3 or 4 miles where the Marion County Dam is. The CHAIRMAN. Are you above or below the dam? Mr. CARPENTER. You see, Marion would be below it. The CHAIRMAN. Below the dam? Mr. CARPENTER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And that is where you live? Mr. CARPENTER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. CARPENTER. My home is right on one of the streams that floods, and I have about 500 acres of land that are on the Cottonwood, below the dam, right below Marion. The CHAIRMAN. How much have you got above the dam? Mr. CARPENTER. I have none. The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed. Mr. CARPENTER. I might say that I believe that I would be benefitted to some extent by whatever flood-control project should be put |