5. That the cost of procuring right-of-way for the sites proposed by the com mittee should not exceed one-third or one-fourth of the cost of the right-of-way for the single large reservoir.

6. That the cost of construction of the smaller reservoirs should be less than the cost of the large single reservoir.

(a) The smaller reservoirs would require less expensive discharge units.

(b) The smaller reservoirs would be such units of work as to attract more competition in the bidding. Hundreds of contractors would be eligible to assume the responsibility of constructing the smaller reservoirs, whereas only a few con tractors could qualify for the construction of the single large reservoir.

7. That the resulting danger to loss of life and property is minimized in the construction of many small reservoirs rather than impounding all the flood waters behind one dam. (While danger is slight, yet sufficient dams fail to make it a possibility, and the danger is critical, should we ever engaged in another war.)

I heartily recommend that you cause proper authority to make a complete study of the committee's recommendations, as it appears to me to have many advantages over the single-reservoir plan.

I call your attention to the trend in flood control. Generation by generation engineers have been moving upstream to control floods. From the original levees and flood basins on the lower Mississippi of our grandfather's time, they are now recommending a comparative few reservoirs of the three to ten thousand surfaceacre class in the upper regions of the stream. Surely it is logical as we study the "trend curve" to assume that a future generation will find these larger reservoirs are not yet at the source of flood and will move onto the smaller reservoirs as proposed by Marion County, Kans. Ye; even beyond that to more efficient contour farming and strip planting.

Must Marion County, Kans., suffer its loss of good producing farm ground while we wait on progress, or shall we forge ahead and construct the ultimate now? Very sincerely yours,

JAMES F. MEISNER, Registered Professional Engineer.

MARION, KANS., January 12, 1949.

To the Marion County Flood Control Committee, Marion, Kans.

GENTLEMEN: In accordance with your request, I have studied further the proposed reservoir sites submitted as an alternate flood-control plan for the upper Cottonwood River in Marion and McPherson Counties, Kans.

I call your attention to the fact that to make an accurate study of such a project, it would require months of field work with a crew of designers and surveyors and estimators. Such assistance has been, of course, denied me, first because of lack of time, and secondly because such an accurate study would financially be prohibitory to a small group of private citizens. We can at most only hope to make an estimate from information at hand and consider it only as a general estimate.

In order to evaluate the information I am submitting to you, I wish to outline my procedure.

The enclosed map is a section from the Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, of this area. While our visual inspection on the ground did in the majority of cases fit the platted contours of the map, yet we must consider a survey of this kind as general and not place too much responsibility on its accuracy regarding the actual size of the proposed reservoirs.

The proposed reservoir sites were platted on this contour map, taking into account the actual location we determined at our visual inspection and adjusting it to the contours determined by the United States Geological Survey.

The surface area of the reservoirs so platted was then computed by a plani meter.

The probable depth of water was determined by visual inspection on the site. The cost of the dam was estimated by assuming 3:1 slopes on the upstream, 2:1 slopes on the downstream, and a minimum 20-foot top section. The length was scaled from the plat. Earthworks was estimated at $0.50 per cubic yard.

The cost of land was determined at a basic rate of $100 per acre on the lower reservoirs and $75 per acre in the pasture country. The proposed reservoirs would not necessitate the removal of any improvements other than fences. The rates above assumed were from three to four times the assessed valuation of that land.

The character of dam necessary was assumed to be earth. A survey might establish the fact that the character of earth at the site is not suitable for such a dam, but in my opinion this would prove to be the exception. It is assumed that these earthen dams would require riprapping on the upstream section. The cost of this riprapping is hard to estimate without even general plans but it is assumed to not exceed the cost of the earthworks. There is sufficient limestone rock in Marion County for this riprapping at a nominal length haul.

It is assumed that these dams would be constructed of such capacity that they would retain the run-off in the majority of cases, that there would be an outlet pipe in each dam to drawn down the water level between rains, and that the spillway section would be over grassed land and would not require protection with rock or concrete.

In regard to outlet works, it is assumed that in reservoirs of this size an 18-inch or 24-inch outlet with control tower and valve would be sufficient. That such outlet works should not cost on an average of over $500 each. The individual reservoirs I list as follows:

From this listing we find the approximate acre-feet in the 40 reservoirs to be 65,100 acre-feet. The approximate number of acres of land required to be 6,285 acres.

It is estimated that these 40 reservoirs would require dams containing approximately 1,100,000 cubic yards of earth. The cost I estimate at $0.50 per cubic yard or $540,000.

To this cost would be added engineering, design, inspection, and overhead costs. This estimate is submitted not as an engineering estimate, but as a rough estimate not substantiated by even tentative plans.

Your truly,

JAMES F. MEISNER,

Registered Professional Engineer.

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF FLOOD CONTROL,

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Hillsboro, Kans., February 10, 1948.

Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE SIRS: The Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce wishes to express its disapproval and objection to the proposed construction of the dam on the Cottonwood River in Marion County, Kans., according to present plans. The purpose of this construction is for flood control and water conservation for the lower reaches of this watershed. We are advised that an alternate plan which will accomplish these purposes has been prepared and wish strongly to urge that this plan be considered and that the entire project be restudied and resurveyed to the extent of reshaping present plans to conform to this alternate plan for the final construction on the project.

These are our reasons for our objection to the present plan:

(1) The alternate plan will impound more water than the present plan. (2) Cost of the alternate plan is a half to a third as much as that of the present plan, an important item when Government economy is being called for on all sides. (3) The most productive land in Marion County and a large share of its total tillable land will be lost to production when increased food production is the goal of our Nation.

(4) The economy of Marion County will be greatly disrupted by loss of production and loss of high tax rate land from tax rolls.

(5) At least 30 long established families will be displaced by the present plan with no chance to locate elsewhere in the community.

We do not reject the need for flood control and water conservation for the lower valley, but since there is a choice of plans which are adequate for the purpose of the project we believe that the one giving the least disturbance in loss of land, homes, and production and the one which is most economical should be accepted. We believe the alternate plan meets these requirements and again ask for a restudy and resurvey of the project that this plan will be used if at all possible. Respectfully submitted.

HERBERT FRIESEN, Chairman,
Dr. J. D. RAYNESFORD, Secretary.

LEGISLATIVE COMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL,

DURHAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Durham, Kans., February 4, 1948,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: The Chamber of Commerce of Durham, Kans., requests that a resurvey be made of the flood control project as presently poposed for Marion County, Kans. It is requested that a survey be made to provide a series of smaller reservoirs at the head of waters of the Cottonwood River north and west of Durham, Kans. This would give Durham flood protection of which the presently planned reservoir does not provide whenever rainfall at the head of the Cottonwood River is greater than what the Rock Island Railroad bridge in the city of Durham will allow.

The opening under the Rock Island Railroad bridge in Durham, Kans., is 115 feet long by 17 feet high. When more water flows into the Cottonwood River than what the bridge can take care of it backs up into the business and residential district of the city.

It is our sincere belief that a series of smaller dams situated at intervals along the Cottonwood River would give greater flood protection to Durham as well as other cities and land located throughout this territory.

Other factors favoring the construction of smaller reservoirs over that of a larger reservoir as proposed by the Army engineers are: Would involve taking out of cultivation a large acreage of the most valuable and productive cultivated land of the county, whereas smaller reservoirs could be built on noncultivated and cheaper land; taxation lost to the county would be seriously impaired and bring a greater tax burden on the population of the county; displacement of farm families would not be necessary by a series of small reservoirs.

In conclusion the Durham Chamber of Commerce and the entire community urges that the flood-control project of Marion County, Kans., as surveyed by

Army engineers be withdrawn in favor of smaller reservoirs as proposed by the people it will affect.

GENTLEMEN: Whereas the Central Kansas Cooperative Creamery Association acts as a marketing organization for all dairy and poultry farmers in this area, including the farmers affected by proposed Federal flood control project in the upper Cottonwood Valley.

And whereas such proposed flood-control project would not only take out of production more than 30 highly productive dairy and poultry farms, and would greatly reduce production on many other farms in the area, but would also disrupt long established milk, cream, and egg routes, as well as other regular farm-to-market routes.

Therefore, the board of directors of the Central Kansas Cooperative Creamery Association, on behalf of its more than 2,000 member shareholders, submits the following resolution:

"We respectfully urge that the proper authorities thoroughly investigate and study proposed plan for the construction of a number of small dams and ponds, as proposed in the alternate plan submitted by the farmers living in the upper Cottonwood Valley."

Above resolution was unanimously passed by the board of directors of this organization at their regular monthly meeting held January 30, 1948, at Hillsboro, Kans.

H. R. Nickel, President; Harrison Unruh, Vice President; Val. T.
Harms, Director; Irvin Kreutziger, Director; D. P. Kasper,
Secretary; O. E. Harrison, Treasurer; Jacob H. Wiebe, Director;
Floyd R. Palmer, Director.

The undersigned hereby certifies that above resolution was unanimously passed as stated above.

Respectfully,

STATE OF KANSAS,

Marion County, ss:

HAROLD HANSEN, Executive Secretary.

Be it remembered, That on this 16th day of February, A. D. 1948, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the county and State aforesaid, came Harold Hansen who is personally known to me to be the same person who executed the within insetrument of writing, and such person duly acknowledged the execution of the same.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal, the day and year last above written.

[SEAL]

P. F. ROESEN, Notary Public.

My term expires April 24, 1951. (Eight petitions containing numerous signatures and objecting to the proposed Federal flood control reservoir project northwest of Marion, Kans., were submitted and are on file at the committee.)

PROTEST IN THE MATTER OF FLOOD CONTROL FOR GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, OKLAHOMA, KANSAS, MISSOURI, AND ARKANSAS

This is a protest against the flood-control plan of the United States Army engineers as set forth in House Document No. 442 insofar as it relates to construction of the Cedar Point Dam. This protest is made by property owners directly affected by the construction of said dam.

An analysis of the plan and estimates of the Army engineers for construction of the Cedar Point Dam, with an indicated cost of $2,843,830 made on the basis of 1944 cost, will result in a minimum loss to the community of over $250,000 annually over and above any possible estimated benefits which can be allocated to the Cedar Point Reservoir as its proper pro rata proportion of the benefits estimated for the entire project.

Since an analysis of the four-dam project taken as a whole is before the committee, we desire to present a brief break-down of the estimates insofar as they relate to the Cedar Point Dam, in order that the committee be advised of the annual cost benefit relationship from this specific project:

In making a comparison of benefits, if we take the true benefit figure for the 4 Kansas dams of 604,000 acre-feet, then the percentage of total benefits properly to be allocated to the Cedar Point Dam on the basis of its total storage amounts to $63,042.42; while on the basis of its total flood-control capacity the proper proportion of benefits is $51,957.95.

Again, if we use the Army engineers' estimates of the total benefits related to the 4 Kansas dams, namely, $846,700 we find that the pro rata proportion of benefits properly to be allocated to the Cedar Point Dam on the basis of total storage amounts to $77,049.70, and on the basis of total flood control amounts to $63,502. In making comparisons of the relationship of benefits to the annual cost charge, we will for the sake of illustration use the largest available amount as representing benefits obtained from the foregoing analysis, namely, $77,049.70:

Net annual charges (table 27, p. 58)
Cedar Point proportion of benefits.

Excess of annual charge over benefits---

$126, 420.00 77, 049. 70

49, 370.30

The foregoing illustration clearly shows that the Cedar Point Dam is not economically sound, and that the expenditure of $2,843,830 will according to the Army engineers' own estimates result in an excess of annual charges over annual benefits in the amount of approximately $50,000. The committee must bear in mind that this cost benefit ratio is based upon estimates of construction costs in 1944, and that the relationship would be still more unfavorable were present construction costs applied in order to obtain the annual charges.

It is felt, however, that the omission of the annual losses to the community from the loss in production resulting from flooding of the lands should be called to the attention of the committee. In 1946 the gross income from this area amounted to $166,977, and in 1947 it amounted to $243,670.99, or an average for the 2 years of $205,323. This annual loss of new wealth produced in the community is an item to be considered to the same extent as benefits. The one offsets the other. If this is done, and this average annual figure is added to the excess of annual charges over benefits we have the following:

Excess of annual charges over benefits..
Average annual production loss.

$49, 370, 30

205, 323,00

254, 693. 30

This analysis shows conclusively the waste of public funds that would result from the expenditure of an amount in all probability at least 25 percent in excess of the $2,843,000 shown in table 27 at page 58, and that this would produce annual charges and a detriment to the community in excess of a quarter of a million dollars above any benefits that could possibly be obtained from construction of the dam.

We respectfully submit that the construction of the Cedar Point Dam should not be approved.

Respectfully submitted.

Mrs. Cora Griffith, Mrs. Nellie Clothier, John Griffith, W. R. Sayre, Mrs. Frances Sauble, Mrs. Ora Scherer, Donald Dwelle. Anna and Nellie Ryan, J. C. Sauble, P. H. Sauble, Rebecca J. Sauble.