acquainted with Colonel Gee since he has been transferred to our district office, and I don't think he is as familiar with it as he might be. He mentioned the flood of record in 1948. That was a flood of record. It was 26 inches higher where I live than it has ever been before, but it came from the south fork of the Cottonwood.

Now the statement has been made in our little town, it has been made here, that they have thoroughly investigated everything, I live there, and I think there are places for dams on the South Fork of the Cottonwood just as well as there are on Cedar Creek. We have never had a flood in my lifetime from Cedar Creek. We have never had a flood from this portion of the upper Cottonwood River above Marion. We have had floods before from this old South Fork. That is the thing we are scared to death of. We have had floods from Lyon Creek up there. We have had floods from Rock Creek, which is on the upper Neosho but below Council Grove, and Mr. Funk just ahead of me mentioned these other creeks.

So we think that this entire matter of water conservation is pretty important, that it is going through a state of flux in the United States, if my reading is any indication. When I was a child and went with my father to these flood meetings, the Army engineers were talking about dikes. Now they have come to large dams, and I hope I live long enough to see that we will come to a series of flood-control projects by smaller dams.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Army tells us that they are limited as to the place where they can make studies. You see, I am not an engineer, I am not an attorney. I am just a farm homemaker and my husband is out home planting beans while I am back here in Washington. Now you folks, I believe, as a committee of Congress, can look at this overall subject. The Army engineers do what you direct them to do. You direct them to make this study. They spend a great deal of time and they have now brought it back to you. We think that we have found some very justifiable criticisms in this study and I know that you will consider this very carefully, what our needs are and the very best remedy, but please, gentlemen-Mr. McGregor, I think, is not here now. He happened to make some comments while the proponents were speaking this morning. This is a matter where there are differences of opinion. There are differences of opinion among engineers, and I think that we will be very happy if you will weigh all of these.

Now my last point is this: I think it is morally wrong to displace people if an alternate plan can be worked out, although that alternate plan may be a little bit more expensive. I have been very happy to come from Kansas to hear you folks talk about being so economical, because sometimes we get the idea that this Government is pretty free with appropriations. I think that it may cost a little bit more to build smaller dams; you may inundate a little bit more land, but if it is pasture land back in the hills, we much prefer that to our rich, fertile land in the valleys. I believe that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement.

Mrs. MCKINNEY. Thank you very much. I live at Hartford, where you have gotten all these letters, and I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that those letters have been voluntary. My telephone began ringing, "Do you care if I write to somebody in Washington? Who shall I write to?" I gave them your name and address [laughter].

The CHAIRMAN. I will tell you we were glad to hear from them, and I think you have heard my statement previously to the committee this morning that we have brought these letters to their attention. I have them in the file here. They were written, many of them, by ladies, and we are glad to have your view. Now this place is Hartford. What is the name of the dam site?

Mrs. MCKINNEY. Strawn.

Let me say further, you see, that is because Colonel Gee doesn't know, the little village of Strawn is right below this reservoir site. Colonel, when you come up to see us, you come out to the farm and have some good steak and I will just tell you a lot about that water [laughter].

Now this is the little village of Strawn, which was named for one of the pioneers, and that is just below the dam site.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is Hartford?

Mrs. MCKINNEY. Hartford-and say, I want to ask-I would like to have you ask the colonel a question about this.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Just a minute now. I am trying to get you first now [laughter]. Now how far is Hartford from the dam site?

Mrs. MCKINNEY. Well, I think it is-you know, I don't know whether you measure distance by the way the crow flies or not. The CHAIRMAN. We measure it both ways. Mrs. MCKINNEY. I think about 2 or 3 miles. The CHAIRMAN. Above the dam site?

Mrs. MCKINNEY. Above the dam site.

The CHAIRMAN. I heard some mention of an island. What do you mean by island?

Mrs. MCKINNEY. That is getting to our question, you see.
The CHAIRMAN. If you will just tell me now.

Mrs. MCKINNEY. He told us the first time that we had a meeting in Hartford, when we first even knew about this-you know, the engineers have been going up and down the river all my life making studies.

The CHAIRMAN. And they will be there when you and I are gone. Mrs. MCKINNEY. That is right [laughter], and Colonel Wilson told us that the highest point in Hartford, which is a little point in our city park, would be 7 feet out at full reservoir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the population of Hartford?

Mrs. MCKINNEY. I think it is 419 people.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, just a minute. I am asking for the record, will Hartford be overflowed by the dam, destroyed or what?

Mrs. MCKINNEY. That is the thing we don't know. You see, they first told us that the highest point would be 7 feet out at full reservoir. The CHAIRMAN. What is your understanding?

Mrs. MCKINNEY. But when Colonel Carpenter came, he told us the highest point in Hartford would only be 2 feet out of water at full reservoir, so consequently, everybody will leave Hartford, I can tell you that, because they don't know whether they are going to be 7 feet

out of water or 2 feet out of water.

The CHAIRMAN. And one would be just as bad as the other when it comes to feet.

Mrs. MCKINNEY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mrs. MCKINNEY. Thank you, gentlemen. I think you have been very patient and I am happy to be here.

STATEMENT OF W. E. STANLEY

Mr. STANLEY. I want to say a few words that have not been mentioned to this committee and which I think are of extreme importance. The CHAIRMAN. You live where?

Mr. STANLEY. I live at Wichita.

The CHAIRMAN. How far is that from these dams?
Mr. STANLEY. Probably 75 to 80 or 90 miles.

I represent the Marion and the Cedar Point people.

The CHAIRMAN. And your interest; you are a landowner there? Mr. STANLEY. I am interested because I represent all of those landowners and the people in the county.

The CHAIRMAN. I can understand that you have a perfect right. Are you an engineer?

Mr. STANLEY. I am an attorney.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, and you represent the people that are up above the dam site?

Mr. STANLEY. And under the dam that will be submerged in those counties.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed.

Mr. STANLEY. If the committee please, the Army engineers have asked you to spend $36,000,000 of the taxpayers' money upon a report that has been changed and upon which the figures submitted to you in this particular document are absolutely not accurate on the basis of what has happened. Why, they have withdrawn the Waco project. That represents 37 percent of the flood control submitted in this House document. If the Chairman please, 37 percent of the total flood control submitted in this document has been withdrawn when Waco was taken out of there.

Now the Army engineers, when they came before you this morning, said that the average annual benefits would amount to $2,189,000. That figure was obtained by merely doubling on the same proportion that they did cost the figures of the average annual benefits shown in this particular table here of the average annual benefits of table 28, even though table 28 represents the benefits from the entire five-dam project. They have taken the average annual benefits represented by a five-dam project here, multiplied it by 2, in substance the same ratio as cost, even though the floods remain the same, and present that to you without another analysis of these benefits.

Now there is only one other point. The Army engineers have omitted from this report anything respecting the life of these dams, although we all know that they will silt up. They also omitted to offset against the benefits the detriment which exists from the destruction of the earning power, the capital resources of the particular counties that are involved here. The computation, as you will see from the documents which have been submitted here, has been done in the Marion Dam alone, which only represents about 14 percent of the flood control. Breaking that down, it reduces the average annual benefits properly apportioned to that dam, and yet the average annual production destroyed amounts to over $200,000 annually. You gentlemen can

figure what the effect of that is in the community as you spread that to these communities, villages, and so forth, where that $200,000 goes around to pay bills, to buy goods, etc. You are taking that forever out of those communities.

Now and I am not going to argue it-you will find that the cost ratio on the engineers' figures produced this morning, if you will simply multiply by two, that the average annual costs amount to over $200,000. Not putting in any of these community losses from loss of wealth, but on the engineers' figures this morning, if they take a true benefit figure, eliminate the Waco project, you will find that their costs of $1,890,000 annually exceeds the possible benefits by approximately $200,000 annually.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. You say that that exceeds that by $200,000 annually for the entire area from the lowest reservoir down to the whole 180-mile area?

Mr. STANLEY. I do.

Let me give you this point, because it is so important. The figure given this morning was that the average annual cost was $1,890,000. That was what the colonel gave you as the average annual cost. Now he gave you, and this is the point, bear it in mind, as a figure of average annual benefits, the figure of $2,139,000, which would mean that the benefits would exceed the cost by $248,000. But the figure he took was to take the benefits from the five-reservoir project, amounting to $1,099,000, and increase it by the same proportion that he had the cost of the reservoir. Now if you take out the Waco, if you take out the flood-control loss of those benefits-in other words, let me give you an illustration.

Mr. McDONOUGH. What is the Waco? I haven't heard anything about the Waco.

Mr. STANLEY. Well, all of this project originally was a five-dam project. The Governor of Missouri, for the very reason that he didn't want the land destroyed, refused to approve the Waco project, so it was simply withdrawn, even though these average annual benefits were based on the five-dam project, and, as I say, when they take the Waco Dam out, you take out 37 percent of your flood control.

The CHAIRMAN. You have set that forth in your statement here, have you?

Mr. STANLEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, pardon me, I don't want to interrupt you, but you said you would finish in about 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. STANLEY. I want you to clearly grasp it, because the gentleman asked for this computation.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. STANLEY. Now if you take the figure of the Comptroller, the $843,000, which was given as the benefits after the reduction on Waco, which was submitted and was discussed this morning, multiply that by 2, then you have an average annual loss, without referring to the crop losses, of over $200,000 more in average annual cost than you do in average annual benefits obtained by this project.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman who presented this case in the beginning stated that the benefits would be less than the cost. Mr. STANLEY. The benefits are much less than the cost. The CHAIRMAN. I say, you concur with that statement.

Mr. STANLEY. That is right, and I am trying to call attention to what they have done here by attempting to use figures on a five-dam project to influence this committee, when the true figures related to the four-dam project would show that it was uneconomical.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand your position. Do you desire to file this statement or not?

Mr. STANLEY. What is that?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to file either one?

Mr. STANLEY. One is for Cedar Creek; the other is for Marion. The CHAIRMAN. You want to file both of these statements, copies of which you passed out?

Mr. STANLEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. One of them is rather extended.

Mr. STANLEY. One is on the part of the citizens of Marion with relation to that dam and the other is on the creek.

The CHAIRMAN. Pass them to the reporter.
(Statements submitted by Mr. Stanley follow :)

PROTEST AGAINST FLOOD CONTROL PLAN OF UNITED STATES ARMY ENGINEERS CON-
TAINED IN HOUSE DOCUMENT No. 442 PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE
MARION DAM TOGETHER WITH A REQUEST FOR STUDY OF A SMALL RESERVOIR
PLAN IN THE UPPER COTTONWOOD VALLEY IN MCPHERSON AND MARION COUNTIES,
KANS., IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF FLOOD CONTROL.

The citizens of Marion County, Kans., including the Board of County Commissioners and the chambers of commerce of communities located in said county respectfully request the Subcommittee on Flood Control and the Committee on Public Works to disapprove the recommendation of Army engineers contained in House Document 442, particularly as to the establishment of the Marion Dam, and respectfully request that the alternative plan of substitution of small reservoirs for said Marion Dam be given consideration, a plan by which flood control can be accomplished at much less cost and with little serious economic loss to the community by reason of the permanent destruction of income-producing land.

This protest is based upon the fact that an analysis of the plan of the Army engineers for construction of the Marion Dam costing $3,318,660 on a basis of 1944 cost, will definitely result in a minimum economic loss to the community of $200,000 annually over and above any possible estimated benefits which can be allocated to the Marion Reservoir as to its proper proportion of benefits estimated for the entire project.

At the outset, the committee should be advised of four serious defects in the report of the Army engineers:

1. The cost figures are all based upon the cost scale of 1944 or earlier. These are obviously far less than costs under present conditions.

2. The present proposal is based upon construction of four dams out of the five originally proposed by the report. Since the dam eliminated, Waco, represented 40 percent of the entire project in terms of acreage, and 37 percent on the basis of flood control, it is impossible to make an intelligent appraisal of the benefits or flood-control results flowing from construction of the remaining four dams.

3. There is no showing whatever of the life of the dams proposed to be constructed, although the siltation of the reservoir area will come into operation immediately upon construction and will end the usefulness of the dam after a life of an indefinite number of years.

4. The most important omission, which apparently has been intentional, is the economic loss to the communities of the annual production of new wealth, forever destroyed by flooding of the lands under the reservoir.

THE FOUR KANSAS DAMS

The matter before this committee is the consideration of the feasibility of constructing four of the five dams included in the original report of the Army engineers. The Waco Dam, included in the original report, has been eliminated.

92329-49-30