Looking to the years ahead the leaders of Tulsa have come to realize that in the Southwest, water, at least during drought, is a limited commodity. To assure the future water supply the city has applied for 100,000,000 gallons daily from Keystone Reservoir and this, though the city has and is now investing more than $40,000,000 to assure 60,000,000 gallons daily from the Ozark Mountains. To provide for the 20,000 acre-feet of storage that will be necessary to obtain the additional water supply from Keystone the city will have to pay either in cash or on a rental basis. While this payment is not a major return of the Federal investment, yet, together with its added value to national defense and future development, it is appreciable though not subject to calculation. Present sources of water in the aren could not supply the demand for either water or for power in case of war. The Federal Government has located in Tulsa one of its great stand-by airplane plants. It is a mile long, 380 feet wide, and five stories high. It has no windows, is entirely air conditioned and when operating demands a large supply of power and water. Industries are on a peacetime basis, yet last summer Tulsa rationed water for sprinkling purposes. Cleveland, Okla., located on the Arkansas arm of the Keystone Reservoir has also anticipated its future needs and has applied for substantial water rights. OIL Another reason for the State's preference of Keystone is because Mannford Reservoir extends into the Cushing oil fields. Within the area of Mannford Reservoir there are 270 producing oil wells with an estimated daily production of approximately 2,000 barrels. Our estimated severance cost to acquire oil wells or platform them and relocate pipe lines in Mannford is approximately $10,000,000. This is a very high cost in view of benefits, because of limited flood control and the absence of power in Mannford. In contrast, we estimate such costs at below $4,000,000 for Keystone. Keystone is not located in a major oil field. There are 43 small producers within the permanent pool of Keystone. These are old wells and altogether produce an average of 250 barrels per day, whereas the wells located in the permanent pool of Mannford produce 1,061 barrels per day. These 43 small wells in the permanent pool of Keystone will probably have to be acquired, but our estimate of their market value is considerably under a million dollars and is included in our overall estimate of $4,000,000. Approximately four times that figure would be required for those located in the permanent Mannford pool. To illustrate the difference in production in the two areas, the 140 permanent pool wells in the Mannford are within 15,820 acres while the 43 producers in the permanent pool of Keystone are scattered over 22,200 acres. So far as the flood-control space above permanent pool is concerned, the only cost is in readjustment of wells and pipe lines. No oil will be lost in this area. In many cases no provision is made to guard against floods so far as oil wells are concerned. Floods may from time to time hold up production in low areas, but floods do not hurt the wells. In other cases pumps are put on platforms and production proceeds. There are 130 wells in the flood plain of Mannford Reservoir and 135 such wells in the flood plain of Keystone. Thus the problem of severance, so far as oil property in the flood plain is concerned, is no greater in Keystone than it is in Mannford, while the severance cost of such property in the permanent pool of Mannford is four times as large as in Keystone. No estimate of cost is included for unproven oil production in either reservoir because it has been found in the Texoma Reservoir and in other water areas that drilling may proceed under water at no greater cost than on land. At Texoma a number of good producers have been brought in since that reservoir was filled. Our inquiry of the operators reveals no objections to such operations. This is important not only in the matter of Federal costs but also in the matter of the national economy, for none of us want to retard or deny development or any possible production of oil. As a matter of fact, there is but small likelihood that any major operations of this kind will occur, for in Keystone most, if not all, of the area has not only been seismographed but has actually been drilled. Production in the area is old and many wells that once produced oil have been depleted and abandoned. It is important, however, to know that the Government does not plan to seal the area off from exploration. No other single project in the Arkansas Basin has such a large ratio of public benefits in comparison to costs as does the Keystone. We know that its substitution for the three reservoirs will give far greater economic feasibility to the whole comprehensive plan for the Arkansas and better justify support of the Congress. May we thank the committee for your kind attention to our plea. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. T. Elmer Harbour. CLARENCE BURCH, Chairman. STATEMENT OF T. ELMER HARBOUR The CHAIRMAN. Do you favor this project? (Statement submitted by Mr. Harbour follows:) TAFT DAM ON THE ARKANSAS RIVER My name is T. Elmer Harbour. I live in Muskogee, Okla. I am a member of the waterways committee of the chamber of commerce of Muskogee and a member of the three-man interstate committee appointed by Gov. Roy J. Turner, of Oklahoma, to act with a similar committee appointed by Gov. Sid McMath, of Arkansas, to present evidence for the development of the Arkansas Basin. We are interested in the substitution of Keystone Dam for Mannford, Blackburn, and Taft Dams for the reason that it will cost in the neighborhood of $25,000,000 less and affords the same protection from floods, etc., as the three dams, and in addition will cover up less valuable land. The Taft Dam would inundate a great many acres of the most fertile land in Oklahoma that is now being cultivated for vegetable and other high-priced products that are supporting dehydrating and canning plants in this vicinity. This dam would also interfere with the drainage project that is being installed for draining and irrigating this land. We hope that your committee will recommend the building of the Keystone Dam in the place of Mannford, Blackburn, and Taft Dams. TAFT DAM DATA 1. The flood pool of the Taft Dam-elevation 563.8 feet-would embrace approximately 31,000 acres (virtually all) of the productive acreage in the Choska bottoms of Wagoner and Muskogee Counties, and that not actually covered by water in the reservoir would be left so wet that it could not be worked. In other words, at the flood-pool stage the Choska bottoms would virtually be out of the picture for any production at all. 2. The conservation pool, at an elevation of 545 feet, would cover approximately 14,000 acres of productive farm land in Wagoner and Muskogee Counties. 3. The total area of agricultural land in the flood pool as it would affect Muskogee and Wagoner Counties with the approximately 4,000 acres deducted for that covered by the river channel proper is 26,800. 4. There are approximately 40,000 acres of agricultural land in the Arkansas bottom, including the Choska bottoms above the Verdigris River in Muskogee and Wagoner Counties. Approximately 30 percent of this 40,000 acres is subject to periodical flooding and it is reasonable to assume that this 30 percent would be protected if the Keystone Dam is constructed. About the only thing in favor of the Taft Dam is that it might protect about 9,000 acres of land in the Arkansas bottoms between the Taft Dam and the Verdigris River in Muskogee and Wagoner Counties. As for the productive farm land in Muskogee and Wagoner Counties, this 9,000 acres can be contrasted with the 26,800 mentioned above as being left to cultivation if the Taft Dam is not built. 5. For purposes of computing the value of the land affected in the Arkansas and Choska bottoms a fairly accurate estimate is $175 per acre on current valuations. Mr. GRAHAM. I also have a statement here, if you will allow me to file it, from Ira J. Hollar, who is the county agent in Muskogee County, Okla. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have you file it. (Statement submitted by Mr. Graham follows:) TAFT DAM ON THE ARKANSAS RIVER My name is Ira J. Hollar, and I am county agent in Muskogee County, Okla. It has been called to my attention that the Taft Dam will be under consideration by your committee. The construction of this particular dam would meet with protests from farmers in that area. In all probability, the most fertile land in Oklahoma, namely, the Choske bottom located east of Haskell, Okla., and in Wagoner County. This body of land, without question, is the most productive in Oklahoma. This statement is substantiated by the construction and operation of an alfalfa dehydrating plant in the Choska bottom. In addition, there have been two canning plants for perishable vegetables built at Haskell, Okla. These plants depend largely on spinach, beans, mustard greens, etc., which are grown on the land which would be covered by water if the Taft Dam were constructed. This soil is loam, sandy texture which is extremely deep soil, which lends itself to the growing of crops such as alfalfa, corn, spinach, beans, mustard greens, etc. Recently there has been a drainage project which has been under construction for farmers in the Choske bottom, with the Soil Conservation Service doing the engineering work to help in more adequately draining this area. Drainage work and the available water supply which can be used for irrigation will greatly increase the production in this area. This land is operated by a very efficient group of farmers who know of its potential production. The highest corn yield of any farm in Oklahoma was produced in the Choske bottom in 1948. STATEMENT OF GLENN COOK The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a statement, Mr. Cook? Mr. Cook. I am Glenn Cook, of Cleveland, Mr. Chairman. I am not an official representative of the chamber of commerce but I am sent here by a group of Cleveland businessmen and citizens. We have contacted the citizens of Cleveland and talked with a great many of them in the beginning, at the time the dam was originally proposed. There was naturally opposition to it at first, but we feel now after contacting these people and talking with them that a large majority of the citizens of Cleveland now favor the dam. The CHAIRMAN. You may file a statement, if you so desire. The CHAIRMAN. If you desire to forward one to the clerk, you may do so. Mr. Cook. I can file one later. I would like to make one remark about the Johnson Refinery Co. I was employed by them for 20 years and am intimately acquainted with the management and the stockholders and the general operations. My employment there ceased at the time I entered service. I am sure they have no intention whatsoever of discontinuing their operation in Cleveland due to the dam. There will be a few alterations necessary about their plant, but they have a good, modern plant there handling 6,000 barrels of crude a day, and I am sure they will continue the plant. (The prepared statement of Glenn M. Cook follows:) Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Glenn M. Cook of Cleveland, Okla., representing a group of Cleveland businessmen and citizens. I am a businessman, vice president of the chamber of commerce, a member of the Pawnee County Soil Conservation Board, and own farm land near Cleveland. We have made a careful study of the Keystone Reservoir, and recommend it to this committee for authorization. We have contacted and talked with a great many Cleveland citizens and by this means have determined that a large majority of the Cleveland people favor early construction of the Keystone Dam. When the dam was first proposed there was a natural, strong opposition to it. As factual information began to reach our citizens and they learned and discussed the benefits to be accrued from such a project, there has been a strong swing to the pro side of the issue. As stated above and at this writing, a strong majority favor the proposed Keystone Dam site. Cleveland, a town of approximately 3,000 people, is the only town located directly on the banks of the proposed Keystone Reservoir. Briefly and specifically, our recommendations are based on the following: It will provide: (1) flood control, (2) hydroelectric power, (3) recreational facilities, and (4) irrigation. The Keystone Dam as compared to the Mannford, Blackburn, and Taft Dams, will inundate less acreage, cover fewer oil wells, and is in all particulars a more satisfactory solution to the problem of controlling the Arkansas River. It is especially important that an approximate saving of $25,000,000 can be attained by building the Keystone Reservoir instead of the Mannford, Blackburn, and Taft Dams. Mr. Jo O. Ferguson, the one-man opposition from Pawnee, Okla., which is located 22 miles west of Cleveland on route U. S. No. 64-and the nearest point from Pawnee to the proposed Keystone Reservoir, will be 22 miles stated to the committee this afternoon that construction of the Keystone Reservoir would close Johnson Oil Refining Co.'s 6,000-barrel refinery located at Cleveland. He further stated that enough oil wells would be inundated or discontinued, so that it would be impossible for them to operate due to a crude-oil shortage. They have gathering lines in this area, and take most of the production of the area to their Cleveland refinery. However, all other information placed before this committee indicates a loss in production of only 250 to 400 barrels daily, or roughly 5 percent of their refining capacity. It is quite obvious that a 5-percent crude cut would not close the plant. We urge and recommend to this committee the authorization of this multiplepurpose project as recommended by the Corps of Engineers. Thank you. GLENN M. COOK. Mr. GRAHAM. Next is Mr. Cal Newport, of Hominy, representing the chamber of commerce. He is also above the dam. STATEMENT OF CAL NEWPORT Mr. NEWPORT. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a prepared statement. I will be through in 1 minute. I represent the chamber of commerce and the American Legion, of Hominy, Okla. We are in favor of this dam. We have a number of big farmers and ranchers near our town on the other side of the river that are for this dam. They were against it in the beginning, but they are now for it, because their land will be inundated in this program. Mr. GRAHAM. Next is H. C. Jones, of Sand Springs. STATEMENT OF H. C. JONES Mr. JONES. My name is H. C. Jones, representing Sand Springs, Okla., which is the town immediately adjoining Tulsa at McLean and the Keystone Dam. The CHAIRMAN. Are you for it or against it? Mr. JONES. I am very much for it. The CHAIRMAN. For which, now? Mr. JONES. I am for the Keystone Dam. The CHAIRMAN. And you may insert your statement at this point in the record, if you would like. Mr. JONES. May I make a 1-minute statement? Mr. JONES. This town of Sand Springs is an industrial city. There are 192 industries between Tulsa and the Keystone Dam, some of them are very large, the largest textile mill west of the Mississippi River, the largest tank company in the world. We need this dam at Keystone. The people at Sand Springs are for it. The laborers are for it. The businessmen are for it. I know of no one in Sand Springs that is against the Keystone Dam, and I would like to go on record that I believe it is unanimous that the town of Sand Springs, with 12,000 people, is for the dam. Mr. GRAHAM. Next is Mr. Russell Rhodes, representing the chamber of commerce of Tulsa. STATEMENT OF RUSSELL RHODES Mr. RHODES. My name is Russell Rhodes. I am the general manager of the Tulsa, Okla., Chamber of Commerce. I represent also the city of Tulsa, a city of 200,000 population. Insofar as I have been able to ascertain, there is no opposition in Tulsa to the substitution of the Keystone Dam and Reservoir for the Mannford, the Taft, and the Blackburn Reservoirs. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. McBride is here representing Senator Kerr. He wants to file a statement he made in the Rivers and Harbors Act so that it will be in this portion of it. (The following letter was subsequently submitted by Congressman Steed :) CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WILL M. WHITTINGTON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., May 31, 1949. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR COLLEAGUE: As a member of the Committee on Public Works you have before you certain proposed legislation dealing, among other things, with the Arkansas River watershed. Part of this program involves my congressional district. This letter is written to call your particular attention to the Keystone Reservoir proposal since it is the one in which my people have a direct interest. Representatives of my constituents have previously discussed their problem with you and have left with you certain statements and documents relating to this project. I shall appreciate your consideration of these statements. It is of vital importance to an area of Oklahoma citizens who have given a great amount of time and effort to preparing this data. It is my very strong personal conviction that the Keystone Reservoir project ought not to be authorized at this time. Sincerely yours, TOM STEED, M. C. Mr. GRAHAM. And Congressman Stigler-he was here for a whilehas requested that he be allowed to file a statement. The CHAIRMAN. He will be permitted to file any statement here about this or any other matter that he desires. Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, gentlemen. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM G. STIGLER, CONGRESSMAN, SECOND DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is William G. Stigler. I represent Oklahoma's Second Congressional District. |