canes. It is conceivable that if the spillway was open at the same time that a hurricane struck the area we would have a disaster of tremendous proportions. In the hurricane of 1947, eight people lost their lives in that area. Damage was estimated at $5,000,000 to property. Most of the damage was to residential property, homes, owned by veterans who had recently built those homes. While $5,000,000 may not be a tremendous amount in terms of loss, it is a particularly large loss when it is suffered by people who own small homes and who need protection. This review report was authorized shortly after the hurricane. The district engineer, the division engineer, and the Board have all recommended it favorably. It is now in the Bureau of the Budget. It was somewhat delayed in going to the Bureau because, somehow or other, the transmission of the report to the Department of Public Works of the State of Louisiana was delayed. Otherwise, I think we would have had before the committee a favorable report from the Bureau of the Budget at this time. If there is any further information I can give the committee, I will be glad to do so. The CHAIRMAN. Where is the Mississippi River with respect to this project? Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, it is to the south, flowing in the course I am indicating. The CHAIRMAN. Then the levee system of the river does not go up to join that of the lake? Mr. BOGGS. Yes, it does. The CHAIRMAN. The chart does not indicate a connection between the two systems. General FERINGA. The levee system of the lake does not connect directly with the main levee system of the Mississippi. The CHAIRMAN. The Bonnet Carre spillway is the point where we can divert 250,000 cubic feet of water per second; is that right? General FERINGA. That is right, sir. Mr. ANGELL. Is the area you have been talking about, Mr. Boggs, within the corporate limits of New Orleans? Mr. BOGGS. No, it is not, sir. It is directly adjacent to the corporate limits of New Orleans. It would be comparable to Montgomery County as related to the District of Columbia. Mr. ANGELL. Would it be considered a part of the metropolitan area of New Orleans? Mr. BOGGS. Yes sir, definitely. It is the fastest growing residential area in the section, and is the only place New Orleans can expand at this time. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I am very well acquainted with this situation and the proposed project. I have had occasion to travel in this area many times. During the 1947 hurricane, I flew over the area and was able to observe the great damage and the confinement of water in that area. As a matter of fact, Moisant Airport was covered for 28 days with 2 feet of water, that being the largest international airport in the United States. That particular part of the city is highly developed and thickly populated, as Congressman Boggs has stated. A great number of veterans' projects have been built in this particular section, and it is the only part of the city they can expand to from the main portion of the city for development purposes, and for the building of new homes. The veterans have established a great number of developments there, and they were very badly damaged, all of their houses having to be repaired as a result of the great damage which occurred. Unless they can get some protection, those damages will recur every time we have disturbances such as these hurricanes. Mr. BOGGS. Thank you for permitting me to appear. There is only one other thing I would like to say, and that is that, when we suffered this disaster, I do not know what we would have done except for the magnificent aid and assistance we received im mediately from the United States Army engineers. In accordance with permission granted by the chairman of this committee to extend and revise remarks, I am inserting at this point in the record, a communication received by me from the police jury of the parish of St. Charles at Hahnville, La. (The material referred to is as follows:) POLICE JURY OF THE PARISH OF ST. CHARLES, Hahnville, La., May 24, 1949. Hon. HALE BOGGS, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, Washington, D. C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BOGGS: Some time ago, on my visit to Washington, you will recall that we discussed the fact that Mr. Earl Collier attended the public hearing held in Metairie sometime in October 1947, in connection with the Lake Ponchartrain project, and he stated that St. Charles Parish did not require any aid in this connection. I explained to you at that time that Mr. Collier had never been parish engineer for St. Charles Parish and, furthermore, that he was not authorized to attend or to speak for the St. Charles police jury at the hearing. I am enclosing a certified copy of a resolution adopted at our meeting held on May 10, 1949, in which I am authorized to endeavor to have the records corrected in this respect. Will you please accord us your usual cooperation in assisting us in having the United States engineers correct their records? Yours very truly, ST. CHARLES PARISH POLICE JURY, HAHNVILLE, LA. The following motion was made by Mr. Dufrene, seconded by Mr. E. J. Crochet: Whereas on March 10, 1949, this body adopted a resolution requesting a review report by the United States engineers in connection with the Lake Ponchartrain project with the request that St. Charles Parish be included in any contemplated program of protection; and Whereas Hon. Hale Boggs, Member of the House of Representatives, pointed out to us that in the original review report, which he secured in October 1947, shortly after the first hurricane, this report included the whole area of St. Charles Parish; and Whereas in December of this same year a public hearing was held in the American Legion Home in Metairie, at which time E. M. Collier, of Paradis, La., who presented himself as the parish engineer, attended the meeting and made the statement that St. Charles Parish was not interested in the project; and Whereas Mr. Collier was never employed by this body as parish engineer nor was he authorized to represent the police jury at said meeting: Therefore, be it Resolved, That the president of this body take the necessary steps to have the records corrected and send a certified copy of this resolution to any person or pensons in order to effect this end. The vote result was as follows: Yeas, Ritney Babin, E. J. Crochet, J. R. Dufrene, Dr. P. E. Landeche, V. G. Relimpio; nays, none. I hereby certify that the above is a true and exact copy of a resolution passed and adopted at a meeting of the St. Charles Parish police jury held at Hahnville, La., on Tuesday, May 10, 1949. [SEAL] WILLIAMINE C. TREGRE, L'ANGUILLE RIVER, ARK. Mr. DAVIS. General Feringa, are there any other projects you wish to comment on? General FERINGA. The only other one, sir, is the L'Anguille River, which was approved by the last river and harbor bill for a limited authorization. It is our recommendation that that project be given full authorization. The CHAIRMAN. We approved that project last year at an estimated cost of $6,000,000 or $7,000,000, and we authorized about $3,000,000 for the partial accomplishment of it. General FERINGA. The full estimated cost of the project is $5,100,000. The CHAIRMAN. Is that all in Arkansas? General FERINGA. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I understand the projects in north Louisiana and southwest Arkansas are entirely separate from those in the Mississippi Basin. I will later ask you to furnish your recommended modification, and you can then enlarge upon the descriptions of the projects, to include the document in which they were recommended and adopted. General FERINGA. Yes, sir. Mr. DAVIS. General Feringa, we want to thank you for the very exhaustive way you have carried on your portion of the discussion. General FERINGA. I would like to have the opportunity of stating in the record what an honor and privilege it was to appear befor this distinguished committee, sir. Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, General. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Hill, we will be glad to hear your statement. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. HILL. Yes, I do. I would like to speak for just a moment and then I would like to file my prepared statement for the record. I would like to furnish the committee the statement made by our own Clifford H. Stone, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. I also wish to file for the record a letter from the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Denver, and also a letter from the Denver Chamber of Commerce, all on the South Platte project. Mr. DAVIS. The documents you have referred to will be filed for the record. (The documents referred to are as follows:) STATEMENT BY CLIFFORD H. STONE, DIRECTOR, COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD My name is Clifford H. Stone. I am director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. This board is charged with the program of water development and utilization in the State and, under designation by the Governor, is charged with submitting the official comments of the State on proposed project development in accordance with section I of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 534). This statement is submitted in support of authorization of the South Platte River Flood Control project described in House Document No. 669, Eightieth Congress, second session. A detailed description of this project and its features has been presented to the committee by the Army engineers, and Congressman Hill will explain the benefits of and need for the project. On June 19, 1946, the Colorado Water Conservation Board advised the office of the Chief of Engineers that Colorado concurs in the findings of a report on the proposed plan of improvement on the South Platte River and its tributaries, and recommended authorization by the Congress of such works for flood control, substantially in accordance with the plans outlined in the report. In June 1945 a proposed report of the district engineer was reviewed and discussed by the board and referred to its engineering staff. The board made certain recommendations for revision of the plan of development to the district engineer, who incorporated in his final report substantially all of such recommendations. These recommendations were made by the board, after consultation with local interests, for the purpose of fully protecting present uses of water for irrigation, and water rights in connection therewith, along the South Platte in Colorado: and these recommendations were also made in view of preserving the obligations of Colorado under the existing compact on the South Platte River between Nebraska and Colorado. BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS, Mr. CLIFFORD H. STONE, Director, Colorado Water Conservation Board, DEAR SIR: It has been called to our attention that you are handling certain matters regarding flood control, while in Washington, as well as other matters relating to water resources of Colorado. We wish to reiterate the position heretofore taken by the Board of Water Commissioners that adequate flood control for the South Platte Valley, both above and below Denver, is absolutely essential for the proper protection of lives and property. Some of the flood-control works proposed by the United States Army engineers must be worked out in harmony with the operation of water projects both those of the city and county of Denver and of other operators. We have been very favorably impressed with the willingness and ability of the Army engineers to prepare plans for flood control which are not only consistent with proper flood control but also recognize the needs of water appropriators. We hope you will use your best efforts to promote the development of Platte River flood control while you are in Washington. We send you additional copies of this letter to use according to your best judgment. Very truly yours, Hon. H. CLIFFORD STONE, GEO. F. HUGHES, DENVER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Director, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Hay-Adams House, Washington, D. C. DEAR JUDGE STONE: On behalf of the Denver Chamber of Commerce, I respectfully call your attention to the importance of including the South Platte floodcontrol project in the omnibus flood-control bill which, I understand, is now up for consideration before the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives, You may remember that in 1948 the Denver Chamber of Commerce, by resolution of its board of directors, strongly supported the inclusion of this project in the omnibus bill which was then before Congress. The Senate, in acting upon that bill, included the South Platte project, but it was later eliminated. It has been understood assurances were then given that the matter would receive further consideration at the time of the presentation of the 1949 bill. Action of the board of directors in 1948 was taken after a full presentation of the matter by Col. Craig Smyser of the United States Corps of Engineers. It is the view of the Denver Chamber of Commerce that the project is needed and deserves support by the Congress. It is therefore suggested that this matter be given your careful consideration. Respectfully yours, DENVER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, By B. C. ESSIG, President. Mr. HILL. The South Platte River flows through the main business section of the city of Denver, the First District, and then comes down into my district below the city of Denver. This project was approved or authorized by, I believe, Senate Report 699, last year, and we hope you may be able to take favorable action on it at this session. Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Your statement will be inserted in the South Platte hearings held last week. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT BY WILLIAM S. HILL, CONGRESSMAN FROM COLORADO I appear before this committee in support of the authorization of the South Platte River flood-control project described in the House Document 669, Eightieth Congress, second session. This proposed development is in my district. A description of this project and its features has been presented to the committee by the Army engineers, and I shall not take your time to discuss engineering and operational details of the project. I submit for the record a statement of Clifford H. Stone, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which shows that Colorado concurs in the findings of the report on the proposed plan of improvement on the South Platte River and its tributaries and recommends authorization by the Congress of the proposed works in accordance with the plans outlined in the report. May I also state that the Denver Water Board, which handles water-improvement plans which affect the capital city of Denver, approves the plans for this flood-control project and urges its authorization; and that the Denver Chamber of Commerce has adopted a resolution to like effect. It will be recalled that the Public Works Committee of the Senate approved the authorization of this project during the second session of the Eightieth Congress, after hearing the Army engineers and representatives of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and of the city and county of Denver. However, inclusion of this project in the omnibus flood-control authorization bill of 1948 was not approved by the conference committee. Under these circumstances we feel that the sponsors of the project should receive favorable consideration for inclusion of the project in the bill now before your committee. The project affords flood protection to the city of Denver and for over 10,000 acres of agricultural lands downstream. It also includes flood protection to the city of Boulder, the site of the State university, and to Erie, Colo. With the completion of the Cherry Creek Dam and Reservoir project, now under construction, the city of Denver will only be half protected against major floodproducing storms. The population of Denver has already passed that estimated in the project document for the year 1970, and it is now apparent that the population trend follows a much steeper curve than that used in computing benefits during the assumed 50-year life of the recommended improvements. The same is apparently true of the trend in industrial development. Thus, it appears now that the benefits-costs ratio of 1.10 to 1 originally computed for the Chatfield Dam and Reservoir is much too low. Further, although the benefits for the improvement were computed from the damages that would result from one occurrence of the project design flood, it must be remembered that additional benefits will accrue |